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
Following response to arguments is based on Applicant’s arguments filed on 12 November 2025.
Regarding Previous Claim Objections
Previous objection to claims 13-18 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to the objected claims.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments [Pages 5-6] with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 12 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, on pages 5-6, Applicant argues that prior art of record fails to teach “wherein the system information is updated over time according to: a predefined period based on an orbit height range, or a predefined period based on a speed range of the network node, or an indication in a first system information block (SIB1)”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits as follows.
Although the claim has been amended, the incorporated limitations are not exactly the same from former claims 8-10; thus, actually changing the scope of the claim. Furthermore, these incorporated limitations are not inclusive but optional, as they recite alternative feature “or”, and only one option needs to be met by a reference.
Also, the claim is not providing further details or definitions for the “predefined periods” and the relevance of a SIB1 in comparison with another SIB.
Therefore, based on the above interpretation, Qaise’s disclosure teaches how a communication between BS 120 and UE 110 is time-variant based on the orbit distance/height between both elements [Paragraphs 16, 38, 109, 133, 161].
The Examiner respectfully recommends the incorporation of inclusive limitations and further details of the relevance of the “predefined periods and SIB1”, so that the Examiner is precluded from current interpretation of the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 12, this claim has been amended to incorporate similar limitations to those set forth in independent claim 1, and is rejected based on similar reasoning.
Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejections.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3, 12-18 have been amended. Claims 8-10 and 19-20 have been canceled. Claim 21 has been added. Thus, claims 1-7, 11-18, 21 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 11-18, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)-(a)(2) as being anticipated by Qaise et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0297147).
Regarding claim 1, Qaise teaches a method of wireless communication (Fig. 7), comprising:
transmitting, from a network node to a user device, a block of system information that includes system information that is time varying due to at least one of movement of the network node or movement of the user device (node 120 sends to UE 110 SIB based on time varying of the movement of both of them [Paragraphs 8-11, 161]);
wherein the system information is updated over time according to: a predefined period based on an orbit height range, or a predefined period based on a speed range of the network node, or an indication in a first system information block (SIB1) (Although the claim has been amended, the incorporated limitations are not exactly the same from former claims 8-10; thus, actually changing the scope of the claim. Furthermore, these incorporated limitations are not inclusive but optional, as they recite alternative feature “or”, and only one option needs to be met by a reference. Also, the claim is not providing further details or definitions for the “predefined periods” and the relevance of a SIB1 in comparison with another SIB. Therefore, based on the above interpretation, Qaise’s disclosure teaches how a communication between BS 120 and UE 110 is time-variant based on the orbit distance/height between both elements [Paragraphs 16, 38, 109, 133, 161]).
Regarding claim 2, Qaise further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the network node is a non-terrestrial base station (BS 120), and the user device is an aircraft-based UE (UE 110).
Regarding claim 3, Qaise further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the system information includes a position-velocity-time (PVT) information indicative a position of the non-terrestrial base station, a velocity of the non-terrestrial base station and a time at the base station ([Paragraph 16]).
Regarding claim 4, Qaise further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the system information includes a scheduling delay value ([Paragraphs 16, 55]).
Regarding claim 5, Qaise further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the system information includes a timing advance value ([Paragraph 76]).
Regarding claim 6, Qaise further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the system information includes a timing drift value ([Paragraph 16]).
Regarding claim 7, Qaise further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the block of system information comprises a system information block (SIB) ([Paragraph 161]).
Regarding claim 11, Qaise further teaches the method of wireless communication of claim 7, wherein the system information block is updated over time aperiodically with a corresponding indication in a short message with a bit indication ([Paragraphs 113, 219]).
Regarding claims 12-18, 21, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 1-7, 11.
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 FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
March 11, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633