DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1 June 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
3. Claims 1, 3-11, 13-19, 21-25, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation “generating an MDT log based on measurements collected at the UE, the MDT log including non-terrestrial network (NTN) cell information comprising at least two of: NTN cell center mean elevation angle, NTN number of average beams, NTN cell mobility history, NTN cell timing advance (TA) average, or NTN cell round trip delay;” of claim 1, and the corresponding limitation of each of independent claims 9, 17, and 25, are not supported by the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
7. Claims 1, 3-4, 9-11, 17-19, 25, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0406760 (hereinafter Ramachandra), in view of Fu, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0007523 (hereinafter Fu).
Regarding claim 1, Ramachandra discloses a method of wireless communication by a user equipment (UE) (disclosed is a communication method performed by a wireless communication device, according to [0006]), comprising:
receiving a logging measurement message comprising a logged measurement configuration from a network device (the UE receives, in an RRC message from a network, MDT configurations that enable MDT measurement logging by said UE, according to [0072]-[0073]);
initiating a minimization of drive test (MDT) session in response to receiving the logging measurement message (after receiving the MDT configurations, the UE performs MDT logging, according to [0072], [0074]);
generating an MDT log based on measurements collected at the UE, the MDT log including non-terrestrial network (NTN) cell information (the UE generates an MDT log based on UE measurements that were performed when the UE was being served by a cell of an NTN, according to Abstract, [0005]-[0006], [0046]-[0047], [0076]-[0077]); and
transmitting, to the network device, the MDT log after completing the MDT session (the UE transmits an MDT measurement report, comprising the logged MDT measurements, to the network, according to Abstract, [0006], [0017], [0045], Fig. 1).
Ramachandra does not expressly disclose that the NTN cell information comprises at least two of: NTN cell center mean elevation angle, NTN number of average beams, NTN cell mobility history, NTN cell timing advance (TA) average, or NTN cell round trip delay.
Fu discloses that the NTN cell information comprises at least two of: NTN cell center mean elevation angle, NTN number of average beams, NTN cell mobility history, NTN cell timing advance (TA) average, or NTN cell round trip delay (a terminal device measures the TA between itself and an NTN, according to [0185]-[0186], whereby the terminal device also measures the RTT (round-trip time) between itself and said NTN, according to [0205]-[0206]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramachandra with Fu such that the NTN cell information comprises at least two of: NTN cell center mean elevation angle, NTN number of average beams, NTN cell mobility history, NTN cell timing advance (TA) average, or NTN cell round trip delay.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate service mobility via cell reselection (Fu: [0024]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 9, Ramachandra discloses a method of wireless communication by a network device (disclosed is a communication method performed by a network node in a wireless communication network, according to [0018]), comprising:
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), a logging measurement message comprising a logged measurement configuration that requests non-terrestrial network (NTN) cell information (a UE receives, in an RRC message from the network, MDT configurations that enable MDT measurement logging by said UE, whereby said MDT configurations solicit MDT logging and reporting from the UE for an NTN cell, according to [0072]-[0073]); and
receiving a minimization of drive test (MDT) log based on measurements collected at the UE and the logged measurement configuration, the MDT log including the non-terrestrial network (NTN) cell information (the UE generates, and transmits, an MDT log based on UE measurements that were performed when the UE was being served by a cell of an NTN, according to Abstract, [0005]-[0006], [0045]-[0047], [0076]-[0077], Fig. 1).
Ramachandra does not expressly disclose that the NTN cell information comprises at least two of: NTN cell center mean elevation angle, NTN number of average beams, NTN cell mobility history, NTN cell timing advance (TA) average, or NTN cell round trip delay.
Fu discloses that the NTN cell information comprises at least two of: NTN cell center mean elevation angle, NTN number of average beams, NTN cell mobility history, NTN cell timing advance (TA) average, or NTN cell round trip delay (a terminal device measures the TA between itself and an NTN, according to [0185]-[0186], whereby the terminal device also measures the RTT (round-trip time) between itself and said NTN, according to [0205]-[0206]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramachandra with Fu such that the NTN cell information comprises at least two of: NTN cell center mean elevation angle, NTN number of average beams, NTN cell mobility history, NTN cell timing advance (TA) average, or NTN cell round trip delay.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate service mobility via cell reselection (Fu: [0024]-[0032]).
Claim 17 recites the apparatus, comprising a memory and at least one processor coupled to said memory (disclosed is a UE that comprises a memory and a processor coupled to said memory, according to [0149], Fig. 6 [elements 600, 610, and 630]), that performs the method recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 25 recites the apparatus, comprising a memory and at least one processor coupled to said memory (disclosed is a network node that comprises a memory and a processor coupled to said memory, according to [0150], Fig. 7 [elements 700, 710, and 730]), that performs the method recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ramachandra and Fu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Ramachandra discloses that the NTN cell information comprises at least one of: terrestrial network cell visibility, NTN cell visibility, NTN cell mean access time, NTN cell coverage gap time, NTN usable bandwidth, or mean non-access stratum (NAS) round trip signaling delay (the UE logs channel bandwidth information, including the lower edge and upper edge in frequency, for an NTN cell [“NTN usable bandwidth”], according to [0100]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ramachandra and Fu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Ramachandra discloses that the logged measurement configuration requests the NTN cell information (the MDT configurations solicit MDT logging and reporting from the UE for an NTN cell, according to [0072]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ramachandra and Fu discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Additionally, Ramachandra discloses that the NTN cell information comprises at least one of: NTN cell type, NTN cell mobility type, or NTN beam information (the UE logs measurement information for various specific NTN network types [“NTN cell type”], according to [0085]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Ramachandra and Fu discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Additionally, Ramachandra discloses that the NTN cell information comprises at least one of: terrestrial network cell visibility, NTN cell visibility, NTN cell mean access time, NTN cell coverage gap time, NTN usable bandwidth, or mean non-access stratum (NAS) round trip signaling delay (the UE logs channel bandwidth information, including the lower edge and upper edge in frequency, for an NTN cell [“NTN usable bandwidth”], according to [0100]).
Claim 18 does not differ substantively from claim 10, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.
Claim 19 does not differ substantively from claim 11, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 11.
Claim 27 does not differ substantively from claim 3, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 28 does not differ substantively from claim 4, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
8. Claims 5, 13, 21, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra in view of Fu as applied to claims 1, 9, 17, and 25 above, further in view of Sharma et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0268990 (hereinafter Sharma).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ramachandra and Fu discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Ramachandra nor Fu expressly discloses receiving a UE information request for an NTN cell handoff report.
Sharma discloses receiving a UE information request for an NTN cell handoff report (an NTN capable UE receives, from a gNB, a configuration to report nearby NTN cells, according to [0130], whereby the report of nearby NTN cells comprises handover related measurements, according to [0139]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramachandra as modified by Fu with Sharma by receiving a UE information request for an NTN cell handoff report.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a high quality, low latency communication link to users (Sharma: [0101]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Ramachandra and Fu discloses all the limitations of claim 9.
Neither Ramachandra nor Fu expressly discloses transmitting a UE information request for an NTN cell handoff report; and receiving the NTN cell handoff report.
Sharma discloses transmitting a UE information request for an NTN cell handoff report (an NTN capable UE receives, from a gNB, a configuration to report nearby NTN cells, according to [0130], whereby the report of nearby NTN cells comprises handover related measurements, according to [0139]); and
receiving the NTN cell handoff report (the UE sends the NTN cell report to the network, according to [0139]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramachandra as modified by Fu with Sharma by transmitting a UE information request for an NTN cell handoff report; and receiving the NTN cell handoff report.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a high quality, low latency communication link to users (Sharma: [0101]).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Ramachandra and Fu discloses all the limitations of claim 17.
Neither Ramachandra nor Fu expressly discloses that the at least one processor is further configured to receive a UE information request for an NTN cell handoff report.
Sharma discloses that the at least one processor is further configured to receive a UE information request for an NTN cell handoff report (an NTN capable UE receives, from a gNB, a configuration to report nearby NTN cells, according to [0130], whereby the report of nearby NTN cells comprises handover related measurements, according to [0139]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramachandra as modified by Fu with Sharma such that the at least one processor is further configured to receive a UE information request for an NTN cell handoff report.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a high quality, low latency communication link to users (Sharma: [0101]).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Ramachandra and Fu discloses all the limitations of claim 25.
Neither Ramachandra nor Fu expressly discloses that the at least one processor is further configured: to transmit a UE information request for an NTN cell handoff report; and to receive the NTN cell handoff report.
Sharma discloses that the at least one processor is further configured:
to transmit a UE information request for an NTN cell handoff report (an NTN capable UE receives, from a gNB, a configuration to report nearby NTN cells, according to [0130], whereby the report of nearby NTN cells comprises handover related measurements, according to [0139]); and
to receive the NTN cell handoff report (the UE sends the NTN cell report to the network, according to [0139]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramachandra as modified by Fu with Sharma such that the at least one processor is further configured: to transmit a UE information request for an NTN cell handoff report; and to receive the NTN cell handoff report.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a high quality, low latency communication link to users (Sharma: [0101]).
9. Claims 6, 14, 22, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra in view of Fu in view of Sharma as applied to claims 5, 13, 21 and 29 above, further in view of Bellamkonda et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0261197 (hereinafter Bellamkonda).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ramachandra, Fu, and Sharma discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Neither Ramachandra, Fu, nor Sharma expressly discloses that the NTN cell handoff report indicates a quantity of interruptions that have occurred for each handover and a duration associated with the interruptions.
Bellamkonda discloses that the NTN cell handoff report indicates a quantity of interruptions that have occurred for each handover and a duration associated with the interruptions (the number of unsuccessful handover attempts (which may occur in a satellite communication system, according to [0050]) within a particular time period are counted, according to [0112]-[0113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramachandra as modified by Fu as modified by Sharma with Bellamkonda such that the NTN cell handoff report indicates a quantity of interruptions that have occurred for each handover and a duration associated with the interruptions.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to remove neighbors, from a neighbor list, that are associated with a high number of unsuccessful handover attempts (Bellamkonda: [0112]-[0113]).
Claims 14, 22, and 30 do not differ substantively from claim 6, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
10. Claims 7, 15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra in view of Fu as applied to claims 1, 9, and 17 above, further in view of Dash et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0259897 (hereinafter Dash).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ramachandra and Fu discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Ramachandra nor Fu expressly discloses receiving a UE information request for an NTN cell reselection history report.
Dash discloses receiving a UE information request for an NTN cell reselection history report (UE history information in relation to NTN handovers is requested, according to [0088]-[0089], [0113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramachandra as modified by Fu with Dash by receiving a UE information request for an NTN cell reselection history report.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate intelligent traffic steering (Dash: [0010]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Ramachandra and Fu discloses all the limitations of claim 9.
Neither Ramachandra nor Fu expressly disclose transmitting a UE information request for an NTN cell reselection history report; and receiving the NTN cell reselection history report.
Dash discloses transmitting a UE information request for an NTN cell reselection history report; and receiving the NTN cell reselection history report (UE history information in relation to NTN handovers is requested, according to [0088]-[0089], [0113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramachandra as modified by Fu with Dash by transmitting a UE information request for an NTN cell reselection history report; and receiving the NTN cell reselection history report.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate intelligent traffic steering (Dash: [0010]).
Claim 23 does not differ substantively from claim 7, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
11. Claim 8, 16, and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra in view of Fu in view of Dash as applied to claims 7, 15, and 23 above, further in view of Bellamkonda.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ramachandra, Fu, and Dash discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
Neither Ramachandra, Fu, nor Dash expressly discloses that the NTN cell reselection history report indicates a quantity of interruptions that have occurred for each reselection and a duration associated with the interruptions.
Bellamkonda discloses that the NTN cell reselection history report indicates a quantity of interruptions that have occurred for each reselection and a duration associated with the interruptions (the number of unsuccessful handover attempts (which may occur in a satellite communication system, according to [0050]) within a particular time period are counted, according to [0112]-[0113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramachandra as modified by Fu as modified by Dash with Bellamkonda such that the NTN cell reselection history report indicates a quantity of interruptions that have occurred for each reselection and a duration associated with the interruptions.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to remove neighbors, from a neighbor list, that are associated with a high number of unsuccessful handover attempts (Bellamkonda: [0112]-[0113]).
Claims 16 and 24 do not differ substantively from claim 8, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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 Fu would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights