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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/28/26 has been entered.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in Claim 1, the UE determines that the UE is to be in a discontinuous coverage on a radio access technology (RAT) and a public land mobile network (PLMN) corresponding to the RAT, and determines whether the UE will remain in no service within the discontinuous coverage. In response to a determination that the UE will remain in no service, the UE determines an unreachability period of the UE based on coverage information corresponding to the RAT and the PLMN and the UE transmits, to an access and mobility management function (AMF), the unreachability period. For example, when UE is about to enter discontinuous coverage (no service) in PLMN-1+RAT-1, the UE has 2 choices:
a) wait for coverage to return on the same PLMN-1+RAT-1 combination (e.g. 4 hours) only when this unavailability duration is indicated to the network in a registration request; or
b) select another PLMN-2+RAT-2 combination to continue with service during those 4 hours. In this case unavailability duration is not indicated to the network. In the cited references 3GPP and Qualcomm, when a UE determines that it is about to enter discontinuous coverage, the UE indicates the unavailability period to the network. In other words, for both step "a" and step "b" above, the UE indicates the unavailability period. The UE has no checking step before making a decision to send the unavailability period. However, for step "b" the UE indicating an unavailability period is not correct because the UE will select another PLMN/RAT combination and continue to remain available with the network. Thus, according to Claim 1, the UE has to determine first whether it has to remain in NO service or will select another PLMN+RAT combination, and based on this decision it will decide to indicate unavailability period or not indicate unavailability period to network. 3GPP does not disclose whether the unavailability duration is transmitted based on whether the UE remains no service in PLMN1+RAT1. Qualcomm merely discloses that if the terminal first becomes unavailable and then becomes available before the unavailability period ends, a registration update is performed without providing the unavailability period. This is distinct from Claim 1, where rather than the case where the UE first becomes unavailable and then becomes available, the decision to transmit the unavailability period is determined based on whether the UE remains in no service when the UE is to be in a discontinuous coverage on PLMN1+RAT1. The Applicant is reminded that the Examiner must give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claims.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., see bolded notation above regarding specific steps. The arguments and the reference sections are much more detailed/specific/explicit than the “catch-all” limitations of the claims. In other words, the claim is still obvious in view of the prior art) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Examiner respectfully suggest that the Applicant carefully review the prior art documents while keeping in mind with regard to the USPTO patent examination procedure, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
For at least these reasons, claim 1 and its dependent claims are not allowable. For one or more of these reasons, claims 7, 9, 15, and 18 and their respective dependent claims are not allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7,9-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.700-28 V0.2.1 (2022-04) Technical Report; 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on satellite access, Phase 2 (Release 18); 23 pages, hereinafter, ‘3GPP’ in view of Qualcomm New Solution for KI#1, KI#2: Support of UE D1Triggered Generalized Unavailability Period", 3GPP DRAFT;S2-2204712; 6 May 2022 (2022-05-06), XP052168071.
Consider claims 1, 7 and 9 and 18(e.g., see at least high level architecture in at least 6.6.2), 3GPP teaches a method of a user equipment (UE) in a satellite area network, the method comprising: determining that the UE will enter to be in a discontinuous coverage on a radio access technology (RAT) (“ UE includes Unreachability Period in its Registration Request. The Unreachability Period tells the AMF the foreseen unreachability period caused by discontinuous satellite coverage in the UE location…” – 2. Bottom of page 19 “the UE determines based on its knowledge of its location and the satellite ephemeris data when it will have coverage and when it will not have coverage” -page 13 section 6.3.1,… “Study how UE determines that it has to remain with no service or it has to attempt to register on available different RATs/PLMNs to receive the normal service during discontinuous coverage in current NTN RAT” -section 5.1.1 , “when the UE has coverage again, the UE may access; determining whether the UE will remain(i.e., this is based on the established unreachability period) in no service while within the discontinuous coverage ( “Study how UE determines that it has to remain with no service or it has to attempt to register on available different RATs/PLMNs to receive the normal service during discontinuous coverage in current NTN RAT” -section 5.1.1 ) (e.g., see at least pages 7-8 and 18-20); and in response to a determination that the UE will remain in no service while within discontinuous coverage; determining an unreachability period of the UE based on coverage information corresponding to the RAT; and transmitting, to an access and mobility management function (AMF), the unreachability period (“ UE includes Unreachability Period in its Registration Request. The Unreachability Period tells the AMF the foreseen unreachability period caused by discontinuous satellite coverage in the UE location…” – 2. Bottom of page 19 “…but for moving UE it is possible to improve the accuracy of the UE reachability prediction if the properties of the whole satellite constellation and the observed UE trajectory is taken into account. This is the task where the NWDAF can help by providing the AMF with more accurate estimate than the one received from the UE that determines the Unreachability Period based on limited amount of data on the available satellites.”) (e.g., see at least 1st paragraph page 19).
With respect to the PLMN corresponding to the RAT: Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, which the Examiner in mandated to give the claims, a RAT would include a PLMN. In the case, where one would attempt to narrowly define the RAT strictly as a NTN, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the technique disclosed would apply to PLMN because the unreachability of a UE is “{based on its knowledge of its location and the satellite ephemeris data when it will have coverage and when it will not have coverage.” The Satellite signaling data is needed to determine the satellite coverage with respect to the UE and because PLMN BS are fixed, the location of the UE with respect to the fixed location of a PLMN BS can be used to determine to the coverages on a PLMN.)
In analogous art, Qualcomm suggest in case that the UE remains in no service, determining an “impending” unreachability period of the UE based on coverage information of the RAT /PLMN (e.g., “The UE determines a period of impending unavailability based on any of e.g., satellite coverage unavailability, power savings requirements (when combined with satellite unavailability …”) see at least page 1 lines 23-25, page 4 1st paragraph and section 6.x.2, point 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include another RAT/PLMN with the technique above for the purpose of supporting a UE triggered generalized unavailability period.
Consider claims 2 and 10, 3GPP teaches further comprises: selecting another RAT in case that the UE does not remain in no service on the RAT(e.g., see at least pages 7-8 and 18-20); and performing a communication with the selected another RAT(e.g., see at least pages 7-8 and 18-20).
However, in a case where it is interpreted 3GPP does not specifically teach in case that the UE remains in no service, determining an unreachability period of the UE based on coverage information of the RAT. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, which the Examiner in mandated to give the claims, a RAT would include a PLMN. In the case, where one would attempt to narrowly define the RAT strictly as a NTN, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the technique disclosed would apply to PLMN because the unreachability of a UE is “{based on its knowledge of its location and the satellite ephemeris data when it will have coverage and when it will not have coverage.” The Satellite signaling data is needed to determine the satellite coverage with respect to the UE and because PLMN BS are fixed, the location of the UE with respect to the fixed location of a PLMN BS can be used to determine to the coverages on a PLMN.)
In analogous art, Qualcomm suggest in case that the UE remains in no service, determining an “impending” unreachability period of the UE based on coverage information of the RAT /PLMN (e.g., “The UE determines a period of impending unavailability based on any of e.g., satellite coverage unavailability, power savings requirements (when combined with satellite unavailability …”) see at least page 1 lines 23-25, page 4 1st paragraph and section 6.x.2, point 3 , in short, Qualcomm teaches in case that the UE will remain in no service, determining an unreachability period of the UE based on coverage information of the RAT (e.g., see at least page 1 lines 23-25, page 4 1st paragraph and section 6.x.2, point 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the determining whether the UE remains in no service further comprises: in case that a coverage of the another RAT is available for the UE, selecting the another RAT; and performing a communication with the selected another RAT for the purpose of supporting a UE triggered generalized unavailability period.
Consider claims 3 and 11, 3GPP teaches further comprising: in case that the UE will remain in no service on the RAT, deactivating an access stratum of the UE to optimize power consumption until the coverage returns (note: see rationale noted above in response to arguments and outlined in claim 1 ) (e.g., see at least pages 7-8 and 18-20).
Consider claims 4 and 12, 3GPP teaches wherein the access stratum of the UE is deactivated during the discontinuous coverage by considering all RATs supported by the UE in order to optimize power consumption until the coverage returns(note: see rationale noted above in response to arguments and outlined in claim 1 ) (e.g., see at least pages 7-8 and 18-20).
Consider claims 5 and 13, 3GPP teaches wherein a mobility registration update procedure is triggered to inform the unreachability period and wherein the mobility registration update procedure it triggered with sufficient time to complete the mobility registration update procedure before start of the unreachability period(i.e., optimization to improve the accuracy of the UE reachability period in those cases when the network has got sufficient information on the UE to predict its trajectory ) (e.g., see at least pages 7-8 and 18-20).
Consider claims 6 and 14, 3GPP teaches determining whether a coverage of the RAT and another PLMN corresponding to the RAT is available for the UE; and in response to a determination that a coverage of the RAT and the another PLMN corresponding to the RAT is available for the UE: selecting the RAT and the another PLMN; and performing a communication with the RAT and the another PLMN(note: see rationale noted above in response to arguments and outlined in claim 1 ) (e.g., see at least pages 7-8 and 18-20).
Consider claims 15 and 17, 3GPP teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit, to the AMF, a request for at least one of mobile initiated communication only (MICO) mode parameters, extended discontinuous reception (eDRX) in connection management-IDLE (CM-IDLE) parameters, or other non-access stratum (NAS) timers taking the unreachability period of the UE into account transmitting, to an application function, the unreachability period of the UE.(e.g., 3GPP section 6.3. 3 “The UE to take coverage info into account to 1) stay in PSM/MICO mode while out of coverage and 2) (optionally) request Active Time and Periodic TAU Timer based on coverage info. The MME/AMF to honour the UE requested Active Time value (for MICO and PSM) and Periodic TAU Timer value (for PSM) when using satellite RAT type. This behaviour could be based on Tracking Area or RAT specific MME configuration.”).
Consider Claims 16 and 20, 3GPP teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine whether the UE will remain in no service while within the discontinuous coverage by considering another RAT(“Study how UE determines that it has to remain with no service or it has to attempt to register on available different RATs/PLMNs to receive the normal service during discontinuous coverage in current NTN RAT” -section 5.1.1 ) (e.g., see at least pages 7-8 and 18-20).
Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.700-28 V0.2.1 (2022-04) Technical Report; 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on satellite access, Phase 2 (Release 18); 23 pages, hereinafter, ‘3GPP’ in view of Qualcomm New Solution for KI#1, KI#2: Support of UE D1Triggered Generalized Unavailability Period", 3GPP DRAFT;S2-2204712; 6 May 2022 (2022-05-06), XP052168071 and further in view of Chen et al. US Patent No.:11,533,708
Consider claims 8 and 19, 3GPP teaches transmitting, to an application function, the unreachability period of the UE, and wherein the UE will remain in no service while within the discontinuous coverage by considering another RAT( “Study how UE determines that it has to remain with no service or it has to attempt to register on available different RATs/PLMNs to receive the normal service during discontinuous coverage in current NTN RAT” -section 5.1.1 ) (e.g., see at least pages 7-8 and 18-20).
However, 3GPP does not specifically teach transmitting, to an application function, the unreachability period of the UE.
In analogous art, Chen teaches “Regarding architectural requirements, in addition to the common requirements in clause 4 of TR 23.724 [1], the following architecture requirements are to be supported for high latency communication in the 5G system: Send downlink data to UEs at the earliest possible opportunity when the UEs are applying power saving functions, followed by subsequent return to power saving state when the data has been delivered. Coordination of the UE sleep duration between the application, the UE, and the network. Provide the AF (i.e., SCS/AS) with UE status information (e.g., reachability notification or the time when the UE is expected to be reachable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try transmitting, to an application function, the unreachability period of the UE for the purpose of UE availability monitoring.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights