DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that claims 16 and 27 recite methods comprising active steps. While applicant did potentially broaden the scopes of the methods by deleting the purpose from the preamble, the methods are still nevertheless defined by its active steps which are receiving by the UE/serving cell, transmitting by the UE/serving cell, and performing by the UE/serving cell. Wherein clauses that state the purpose, intent, use, etc. of related information does not patentably limit the scope of the claimed method.
Claim 24 is an apparatus (UE) patentably defined by its structure (memory/processor causing UE to perform steps of receiving, transmitting, receiving, and performing corresponding with claim 16). Any limitation that is not structural is not given patentable weight.
For example, how or where propagation information “is obtained” is not within the scope of the claims because “obtaining” is not a step of the method. Further, how or where triggering information “is received” is not within the scope of the claim because “receiving” is not a step of the claim. Further, how or where propagation delay information “is used” is not within the scope of the claim because “using” is not a step of the claim.
Further, the claim includes conditions for the “is obtained”, “is received”, and “is used” however there are no steps recited to perform such determinations or basis to cause them to be given weight.
Applicant argues:
The features of claims 16, 24 and 27 provide advantages over the conventional art. For example, according to the present claims, when it is determined based on delay that the UE is at the boundary between the serving cell and the neighboring cell, the measurement on the neighboring cell is triggered based on the measurement configuration of the serving cell. Accordingly, the boundary determination is not limited to mere geographic location, but is instead flexibly determined by considering delay conditions that reflect the wireless communication characteristics of the UE, the serving cell, and/or the neighboring cell, as well as environmental influences. This provides the advantage of enabling more efficient NTN communication.
First, in no way whatsoever has applicant invented the idea, concept, or implementation of when it is determined [[based on delay]] that the UE is at the boundary between the serving cell and the neighboring cell, the measurement on the neighboring cell is triggered based on the measurement configuration of the serving cell. As this is how handoff has always worked. The “based on delay” is so broad that it reads on something historically related to positioning measurements (e.g. tdoa). Further Oppo explicitly defines this problem and proposes a solution which includes the UE to report additional information (proposal 3) and also provides for the UE to additionally report propagation delay information (proposal 9).
Making a determination that the UE is at the boundary between the serving NTN cell and the neighboring NTN cell by considering delay conditions that reflect the wireless communication characteristics of the UE, the serving cell, and/or the neighboring cell, as well as environmental influences is not claimed.
Finally, the BRI of the independent claims do not require transmission of propagation delay information as this is written in the alternative. No active step of the methods require “propagation delay information”. Therefore the BRI of the claims does not include “propagation delay information” or reference to such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-27 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 16, 24, and 27 recite, “wherein the propagation delay information is obtained based on…” which references the transmitting step by the UE to the NTN serving cell. There is no antecedent basis for “is obtained” as it is not clear as to whether this is referring to the UE or the serving cell.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 16-17, 19, 22, 24-25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wigard et al. (US 2023/0396328) hereinafter “Wigard” and Oppo (“Discussion on mobility management for connected mode UE in NTN” from IDS).
As to claim 16, Wigard discloses A method (see Fig.4) for performing communication related to a non-terrestrial network (NTN), the method performed by a user equipment (UE) and comprising:
Receiving by a UE a measurement (SMTC) configuration for an NTN cell including a measurement configuration for the NTN serving cell, from an NTN serving cell, (S410);
performing measurement for the NTN neighbor cell, based on measurement configuration for the NTN serving cell (S415),
Wigard fails to explicitly recite however In an analogous art, Oppo discloses:
transmitting by the UE at least one of location information of the UE or propagation delay information, to the NTN serving cell, (see section 2.2 - proposal 2 / section 2.4 - proposal 6/9); and
receiving by the UE triggering information (HO command) from the NTN serving cell that triggers a measurement for the NTN serving cell or an NTN neighbor cell based on the measurement configuration for the NTN cell, (see section 2.3 – proposal 3). ). Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the steps of transmitting and receiving as taught by Oppo for the purpose of avoiding ping-pong handover.
wherein the propagation delay information is obtained based on location information of the UE and location of one or more NTN cells including the NTN serving cell (since this is all handoff related, the measurement information is obtained by the serving cell from the UE based on relative locations. This is reinforced by section 2.2 of Oppo);
wherein the triggering information is received from the NTN serving cell, based on that the UE is located in a boundary area of a service area of the NTN serving cell and a service area of the NTN neighbor cell (This is reinforced by section 2.2 of Oppo), and wherein the propagation delay information is used by the NTN serving cell to determine whether the UE is located in the boundary area (one can not read Oppo and think otherwise as a purpose of Oppo is to overcome the NTN issue at determining such). Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the steps of transmitting and receiving as taught by Oppo for the purpose of avoiding ping-pong handover.
As to claim 17, the combination of Wigard and Oppo provides for the method of claim 16, Oppo further discloses wherein the location information of the UE is used by the NTN serving cell to determine whether the UE is located in the boundary area (see section 2.2). Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain, receive, and use as taught by Oppo for the purpose of avoiding ping-pong handover.
As to claim 19, the combination of Wigard and Oppo disclsoses the method of claim 1, Wigard further discloses wherein the measurement configuration for the NTN cell includes Synchronization Signal (SS)/ Physical Broadcast Channel (PBCH) Block (SSB) Measurement Time Configuration (SMTC) information for performing a measurement based on a SSB of the NTN serving cell. See [0009]-[0011].
As to claim 22, the combination of Wigard and Oppo disclsoses The method claim 1, Wigard further discloses wherein the triggering information
includes information about neighboring cells that can be measured by the UE. See [0009]-[0010].
As to claims 24-25, Wigard discloses A User Equipment (UE) performing communication related to a Non-Terrestrial Network (NTN), the UE (UE 150 – 5G NR device, inherently [0051]-[0052]) comprising: at least one transceiver; at least one processor; and at least one memory that stores instructions and is operably electrically connectable with the at least one processor, wherein operations performed based on the instructions being executed by the at least one processor include the process of Wigard and Oppo as applied above to claims 16-17.
As to claim 27 Wigard discloses A method (see Fig.4) for performing performs communications related to a non- terrestrial network (NTN), the method performed by a NTN serving cell, the method comprising:
transmitting (S410) a measurement configuration for an NTN cell including a measurement configuration for the NTN serving cell, to a User Equipment (UE);
Wigard fails to explicitly recite however In an analogous art, Oppo discloses everything as applied above to claim 16. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the steps of receiving, determining, and transmitting as taught by Oppo for the purpose of avoiding ping-pong handover in NTN.
Claim(s) 18, 26, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wigard and Oppo as applied to claims 16/24/27 above, and further in view of Deenoo et al. (WO 2020/092561) hereinafter “Deenoo”.
As to claim 18, the combination of Wigard and Oppo disclsoses The method of claim 16, fail to explicitly recite however in an analogous art Deenoo discloses wherein the boundary area is an area in which both a
measurement for the NTN serving cell and measurement for the NTN neighbors are possible, based on the measurement configuration for the NTN serving cell. See [00109]. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set the boundary area as an area in which both measurement for the NTN serving cell and measurement for the NTN neighbors are possible, as taught by Deenoo for the purpose of saving energy of the UE.
As to claim 26, The combination of Wigard and Oppo discloses the UE of claim 24, fail to explicitly recited however in an analogous art Deenoo
discloses [0021] wherein the UE is an autonomous driving device (vehicle, drone, robot) that communicates with at least one of a mobile terminal (102), a network (112), and an autonomous vehicle other than the UE. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to embody the UE is an autonomous driving device that communicates with at least one of a mobile terminal, a network, and an autonomous vehicle, as taught by Deenoo for the purpose of taking full advantage of 5G NR specs.
As to claim 29 the combination of Wigard and Oppo discloses The method of claim 27, fail to explicitly recite however in an analogous art Deenoo discloses wherein the boundary area is an area in which both measurement for the NTN serving cell and measurement for the NTN neighbors are possible, based on the measurement configuration for the NTN serving cell. See [00109]. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set the boundary area as an area in which both measurement for the NTN serving cell and measurement for the NTN neighbors are possible, as taught by Deenoo for the purpose of saving energy of the UE.
Claim(s) 20-21 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wigard and Oppo as applied to claim 16/27, and further in view of Callender et al. (US 2020/0288337) hereinafter “Callender”.
As to claim 20, the combination of Wigard and Oppo discloses The method claim 16 fail to explicitly recite however in an analogous art Callender discloses: based on the UE is not located in the boundary area, the triggering information (21) further includes updated measurement configuration (23), wherein the updated measurement configuration includes: i) updated SMTC information including an increased SMTC window to perform measurement based on the SSB of the NTN neighboring cell, or ii) information related to a plurality of SMTC or a plurality of measurement gap to measure both the NTN neighboring cell and the NTN serving cell. See Fig. 2. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to update the measurement configurations as taught by Callender for the purpose of enabling dynamic gap assistance.
As to claim 21, the combination of Wigard, Oppo,and Callender discloses the method of claim 20, Callender further discloses the based on that the triggering information further includes the updated measurement
configuration, wherein the measurement for the NTN neighbor cell is performed based on the updated (24) measurement configuration. See Fig.2.
As to claim 30 the combination of Wigard and Oppo discloses The method claim 27, fail to explicitly recite however in an analogous art Callender discloses: based on the UE is not located in the boundary area, updating the triggering information (21), wherein the triggering information further includes updated measurement configuration (23), wherein the updated measurement configuration includes: i) updated SMTC information including an increased SMTC window to perform measurement based on the SSB of the NTN neighboring cell, or ii) information related to a plurality of SMTC or a plurality of measurement gap to measure both the NTN neighboring cell and the NTN serving cell. See Fig. 2. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to update the measurement configurations as taught by Callender for the purpose of enabling dynamic gap assistance.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wigard and Oppo as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Cheng et al. (US 2022/0046498) hereinafter “Cheng”.
The combination of Wigard and Oppo disclsoses The method of claim 16, (and although it is implied) fails to explicitly recite however in an analogous art Cheng discloses further comprising: reporting (MearurementReport) information about the performed measurement to the NTN serving cell. See Fig.2, [0063], etc. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include reporting (MearurementReport) information about the performed measurement to the NTN serving cell as taught by Cheng for the purpose of enabling handover.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESTER KINCAID whose telephone number is (571)272-7922. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LESTER G. KINCAID
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2649
/LESTER G KINCAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649