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 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In pages 10-11, Applicant argues that:
Applicant respectfully traverses each of the art-based rejections.
Independent claim 1 sets forth an apparatus for wireless communication at a UE, and recites, inter alia, to estimate an elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border based on at least one of a current heading of a vehicle associated with the UE, at least one distance of the set of distances, or a current speed of the UE. Independent claims 19 and 20 include similar features.
While Speks may provide for a step S28 and "a guard interval timer" that may be utilized "to delay the activation of the automatic network selection mode" (Speks, col. 7, lines 29-50), nowhere does the reference mention to estimate an elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border based on at least one of a current heading of a vehicle associated with the UE, at least one distance of the set of distances, or a current speed of the UE, as in the claim 1 recitation above. The rejection argues on pages 4-5 of the Office Action that "[i]ndeed in order to perform 528, the UE must estimate the elapsed time since it has crossed the border because the guard timer starts when the border is crossed," but Applicant respectfully asserts that this is incorrect. In Speks, a guard interval timer is utilized to actually measure time: "to track a guard time interval from when the mobile terminal crosses the border from the home country to the foreign country" (Speks, claim 8); "introduces a hysteresis to network mode selection for subsequent crossings of the border between the home network and the foreign network" (Speks, col. 7, lines 59-61). In contrast, the claim 1 recitation above calls for estimating an elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border based on a current heading of a vehicle associated with the UE, a distance(s), and/or a current speed of the UE. That is, the guard interval timer in Speks is an actively running timer, not an estimation of an elapsed time, and is not based on any of a vehicle heading, distances, or a current speed of a UE. This is admitted in the rejection on page 5.
Applicant respectfully asserts that Hietalahti does not remedy the deficiencies of Speks. While Hietalahti may provide for "ensuring that the PLMN country and the geolocation type are the same" (Hietalahti, paragraph [0201]) and may provide "to periodically determine its geo - location," e.g., "using a mapping application" (Hietalahti, paragraph [0202]), nowhere does the reference teach or suggest the above claim 1 recitation. That is, the geo-location in Hietalahti does not teach or suggest to estimate an elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border based on at least one of a current heading of a vehicle associated with the UE, at least one distance of the set of distances, or a current speed of the UE, as in the claim 1 recitation above. Simply put, Hietalahti does not teach or suggest a heading, a distance(s), or a current speed as basis to estimate an elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border, as in the claim 1 recitation.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully asserts that Hietalahti does not remedy the deficiencies of Speks and does not teach or suggest the above claim 1 recitation. An thus, Speks and Hietalahti, taken individually or in any rational combination, fail to teach or suggest all the limitations of independent claim 1.
Independent claims 19 and 20 include features similar to those presented in claim 1 discussed above. Accordingly, the arguments for the patentability of claim 1 above apply to claims 19 and 20 with equal force.
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reason:
Applicant argues that Speks fails to teach or suggest “estimating an elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border based on at least one of a current heading of a vehicle associated with the UE, at least one distance of the set of distances, or a current speed of the UE.” However, Applicant's argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not rely on Speks alone for the entire claimed feature. Rather, Speks is relied upon for teaching the elapsed-time/border-crossing aspect, while Hietalahti is relied upon for teaching or suggesting the location-based information used in connection with determining a change in country or territorial location.
Speks discloses that “there is initiated a guard time interval when the mobile terminal 10 crosses the border from the home country to the foreign country.” Speks further discloses determining whether the mobile terminal is in a state of crossing a border, determining whether the crossing is from the home country to the foreign country or from the foreign country to the home country, determining whether the guard interval timer is running, and allowing the guard interval timer to continue to run and expire. Thus, Speks teaches tracking time after the mobile terminal crosses the border by use of the guard interval timer. In other words, the running guard interval timer represents elapsed time measured from the border-crossing event. See Speks, col. 6, lines 48-col. 7, line 55; see also Fig. 5; steps S22, S24, S28, S32, and S34-S36.
Applicant's argument that Speks merely uses an “actively running timer” is not persuasive because the claim does not require a particular algorithm or special calculation for the “elapsed time”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, initiating a timer when the UE/mobile terminal crosses a border and determining
whether that timer is running or has expired teaches or at least suggests estimating or tracking an elapsed time from the border-crossing event. Speks expressly ties the guard time interval to the event of crossing the border, and the timer is used to delay network selection for a time period after that crossing. See Speks, col. 6, lines 48-col. 7, line 55.
Applicant further argues that Hietalahti does not teach estimating the elapsed time based on a current heading, distance, or speed. This argument is also not persuasive because it attacks Hietalahti individually rather than addressing the combination as set forth in the rejection. Hietalahti is relied upon for teaching that
the UE periodically determines its geo-location using a mapping application or any other suitable technique, determines the country as part of the geo-location, and triggers re-registration when the country has changed. See Hietalahti, para. [0202]. Hietalahti further teaches that the UE may determine or obtain its location before a registration or update procedure to ensure that it is still in the country associated with the PLMN. See
Hietalahti, para. [0204]. Hietalahti also teaches that when the UE needs to register, it first checks its geolocation and limits PLMN selection based on the UE's location/country. See Hietalahti, para. [0206].
Moreover, the claim recites “based on at least one of” a current heading of a vehicle associated with the UE, at least one distance of the set of distances, or a current speed of the UE. Because the claim uses “or,” the prior art need not teach all three listed alternatives. It is sufficient for the cited art to teach or suggest one of the
alternatives. Hietalahti's disclosure of periodically determining the UE's geo-location using a mapping application or other suitable technique teaches or at least suggests using location/distance-related information for determining whether the UE has changed country or crossed a territorial boundary. See Hietalahti, paras. [0201]-[0206].
Accordingly, Speks teaches determining that the mobile terminal has crossed a border and tracking elapsed time from that crossing using a guard interval timer. Hietalahti teaches periodically determining UE geolocation, determining the UE's country based on that geo-location, and triggering network re-registration or PLMN selection when the country/location changes. See Speks, col. 6, lines 48-col. 7, line 55; Hietalahti, paras. [0201]-[0206]. The combination therefore teaches or suggests estimating elapsed time associated with the UE crossing a border based on location information obtained by the UE.
The combination is proper because both Speks and Hietalahti are directed to mobile terminal/UE network selection or registration based on geographic or territorial location, including border or country changes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Hietalahti's geo-location determination techniques with Speks's border-crossing and guard-timer process in order to improve the accuracy and
reliability of determining when the UE has crossed a territorial boundary and when network registration or PLMN selection should be updated.
Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection of independent claim 1 is maintained. Independent claims 19 and 20 recite similar features, and Applicant has not presented separate arguments for those claims. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 19 and 20 is maintained for at least the same
reasons. Rejection for the dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 11-13, 17 and 18 are also maintained for the reason given above.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 11-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speks (US 8929892, hereinafter “Speks”) and further in view of HIETALAHTI (US 20220303887, hereinafter “Hiet”)
Regarding claim 1, Speks discloses,
An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) ( FIG. 3 shows a further detailed schematic diagram of the mobile terminal shown in FIG. 1), comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory (shown in FIG. 3, the network selection mode control unit 14 comprises a border memory unit 18, a mode selection area memory unit 20), the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to:
calculate a set of distances from a location of the UE to at least one crossing of a border between a first region and a second region (monitoring step S10 shown in FIG. 2 is a determination whether the mobile terminal crosses a border of its home country, either from the home country to at least one foreign country or from a foreign country to the home country'. Indeed determining whether the terminal crossed a border using a GPS position implies calculating distances to known border location points, Col. 4; lines 50-58), wherein the UE is initially located in the first region (Fig. 5; step 24), wherein the set of distances is based on a corresponding set of border points and a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) location fix for the UE (Position Monitoring Unit 12 in fig.1 and mobile terminal based solutions typically calculate the position using satellite positioning services, e.g., GPS');
estimate an elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border (there is initiated a guard time interval when the mobile terminal 10 crosses the border from the home country to the foreign country to delay registration to a foreign network according to a “predetermined guard time interval” and Guard Timer Running” at S28 in fig.5. As shown in FIG. 5, assuming that the interrogation in step S24 is affirmative, then in step S28, operatively executed by the guard interval timer 22 shown in FIG. 3, it is interrogated whether the guard interval timer 22 is running. If so, the process branches back to step the S22 to delay the activation of the automatic network selection mode. Indeed in order to perform S28, the UE must estimate the elapsed time since it has crossed the border because the guard timer starts when the border is crossed, Col. 7; lines 20-55); and
provide, for a network entity and based on the elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border and a crossing threshold condition, an indication (The reason for the provision of the guard interval timer 22 is that due to limited accuracy of the positioning solution or a movement along the border under certain conditions it may happen that the mobile terminal 10 considers itself to be repeatedly moving between the home country and the foreign country. This leads to frequent location registration if loss and regaining of coverage of the home network occurs in this process. Here, the guard interval timer 22 may be used to overcome this problem without violating the principle that the mobile terminal 10 is registered to the home network while located in the home country. Registration to the foreign network is delayed by a certain time, Col. 7; lines 29-50).
However, Speks does not disclose, estimate an elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border based on at least one of a current heading of a vehicle associated with the UE, at least one distance of the set of distances, or a current speed of the UE and provide indication of a regional communication code of the second region
associated with roaming of the UE in the second region.
In the same field of endeavor, Hiet discloses, estimate an elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border based on at least one of a current heading of a vehicle associated with the UE, at least one distance of the set of distances, or a current speed of the UE and provide indication of a regional communication code of the second region
associated with roaming of the UE in the second region (the territorial requirement may apply to a group of two or more countries or any other territorial requirements. For example, the territorial requirement may be for part of a country. By way of example only, the territorial requirement may be that the PLMN is associated with the same island where the UE is geo-located. In some embodiments, the apparatus of the UE is configured to periodically determine its geo-location. This may be using a mapping application or any other suitable technique. As part of the geo-location, the country may be determined. When the apparatus of the UE determines that the country has changed, this may cause the apparatus of the UE to trigger a re-registration process to change to a different PLMN. In some embodiments, the apparatus of the UE may provide the MCC code associated with the country of the geo-location to the network entity. This may be compared with the MCC of the PLMN to determine if there is a discrepancy or to recommend one or more PLMNs, [0201]-[0206]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Speks by specifically providing estimate an elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border based on at least one of a current heading of a vehicle associated with the UE, at least one distance of the set of distances, or a current speed of the UE and provide indication of a regional communication code of the second region associated with roaming of the UE in the second region, as taught by Hiet for the purpose of ensuring that the UE geo-location country is the same as that of the PLMN in the case of satellite communications where the cells may be big enough to cover two or more countries [0217].
Regarding claim 2, the combination Speks and Hiet discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), further Speks discloses,
wherein to calculate the set of distances from the location of the UE to the at least one crossing of the border between the first region and the second region, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to periodically calculate the set of distances based on a dynamic periodicity, wherein the dynamic periodicity is adjusted based on the elapsed time estimated at which the UE crossed the border and a periodicity threshold condition; wherein to estimate the elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to estimate updated elapsed times at which the UE crossed the border for each performance of periodically calculating the set of distances ( As shown in FIG. 5, the interrogation step S22 may be supplemented by an optional interrogation whether the mobile terminal is located in an area either of the home country or the foreign country to which location based network selection according to the present invention applies. The logic behind this is that for the purpose of power saving the positioning mechanism may be activated only for location areas that are close to the border. The data that is provisioned to the mobile terminal 10 must in this case be extended by a list of location areas where positioning shall apply as stored in the area memory unit 20 shown in FIG. 3. As shown in FIG. 5, assuming that the interrogation in step S22 is affirmative, in a step S24, operatively executed by the position monitoring unit 12 shown in FIG. 3, it is interrogated whether the border is crossed from the home country to the foreign country in a step S24 or from the foreign country to the home country in a step S26. Here, the latter step S26 may be considered as optional assuming that the border is either crossed form the home country to the foreign country or vice versa, Col. 7; lines 29-50).
Regarding claim 3, the combination Speks and Hiet discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), further Speks discloses,
wherein the periodicity threshold condition is met when the elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border is less than or equal to a trigger time minus a time offset (Fig. 5; S22-S28).
Regarding claim 5, the combination Speks and Hiet discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 2), in addition Hiet discloses,
wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: identify that the location of the UE is in the second region based on an updated GNSS location fix; wherein to provide the indication of the regional communication code of the second region, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to provide the indication further based on at least one of (i) a latest one of the updated elapsed times being greater than or equal to a minimum time threshold after the elapsed time plus a time offset, (ii) the location of the UE being in the second region, or (iii) the current heading of the vehicle associated with the UE (the territorial requirement may apply to a group of two or more countries or any other territorial requirements. For example, the territorial requirement may be for part of a country. By way of example only, the territorial requirement may be that the PLMN is associated with the same island where the UE is geo-located. In some embodiments, the apparatus of the UE is configured to periodically determine its geo-location. This may be using a mapping application or any other suitable technique. As part of the geo-location, the country may be determined. When the apparatus of the UE determines that the country has changed, this may cause the apparatus of the UE to trigger a re-registration process to change to a different PLMN. In some embodiments, the apparatus of the UE may provide the MCC code associated with the country of the geo-location to the network entity. This may be compared with the MCC of the PLMN to determine if there is a discrepancy or to recommend one or more PLMNs, [0201]-[0206]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination Speks and Hiet discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 5), in addition Hiet discloses,
wherein the indication of the regional communication code of the second region is based on historical information, wherein the historical information includes at least one of trip history information associated with the UE, a map geometry, a road geometry, or cell history information associated with the UE (A UE that has roamed to a VPLMN may experience restrictions in the way that further PLMN selections shall take place. Current restrictions are that the UE only considers other VPLMNs of the same country as the current RPLMN (registered PLMN) as determined by the MCC. Consider the scenario illustrated by FIG. 7. A UE 702 registered for example in a French satellite network moves to Netherlands via Belgium. Using the existing procedure, the UE remains in the HPLMN coverage area for the whole journey and there is no need to select any other PLMN. Currently, there is the concept of equivalent PLMNS. In the case that the UE has a stored a list of equivalent PLMNs, the UE only selects a PLMN if it is of a higher priority than those of the same country as the current serving PLMN which are stored in the equivalent PLMNs list. There is currently an additional MCC-based country restriction that applies on equivalent PLMNs. The UE only considers the priorities of the equivalent PLMNs in the same country, [0152]-[0155]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination Speks and Hiet discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 11), in addition Hiet discloses,
wherein the cell history information associated with the UE includes at least one of a public land mobile network (PLMN) of a last serving cell for the UE in the second region, a cell identity of the last serving cell for the UE in the second region, a roaming transition identifier, a number of times the UE has traversed the border, or another number of times the UE has traversed the border over a period of time; wherein the cell history information associated with the UE is based on a UE record or is based on a crowdsourcing data associated with a cloud-based entity (A UE that has roamed to a VPLMN may experience restrictions in the way that further PLMN selections shall take place. Current restrictions are that the UE only considers other VPLMNs of the same country as the current RPLMN (registered PLMN) as determined by the MCC. Consider the scenario illustrated by FIG. 7. A UE 702 registered for example in a French satellite network moves to Netherlands via Belgium. Using the existing procedure, the UE remains in the HPLMN coverage area for the whole journey and there is no need to select any other PLMN. Currently, there is the concept of equivalent PLMNS. In the case that the UE has a stored a list of equivalent PLMNs, the UE only selects a PLMN if it is of a higher priority than those of the same country as the current serving PLMN which are stored in the equivalent PLMNs list. There is currently an additional MCC-based country restriction that applies on equivalent PLMNs. The UE only considers the priorities of the equivalent PLMNs in the same country, [0152]-[0155]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination Speks and Hiet discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 11), in addition Hiet discloses,
wherein the minimum time threshold after the elapsed time is a reduced value based on the historical information (If the coverage is provided by satellite and the network is aware of the availability and PLMN configuration of the satellites in the constellation, then the network may also additionally associate a validity time with the recommended PLMN(s) to tell the UE for how long the recommendation is valid, [0163]-[0165]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination Speks and Hiet discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), further Speks discloses,
wherein the UE comprises the vehicle (the outcome of the monitoring step S10 shown in FIG. 2 is a determination whether the mobile terminal crosses a border of its home country, either from the home country to at least one foreign country or from a foreign country to the home country).
Regarding claim 18, the combination Speks and Hiet discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), further Speks discloses,
a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor; wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: receive, from the network entity via the transceiver, a configuration indicative of a switch to a cell associated with the regional communication code of the second region; and switch to the cell based on the configuration (As shown in FIG. 5, when it is determined in the step S28 that the guard interval timer is not running then follows a step S30, operatively executed by the network selection mode control unit 14 shown in FIGS. 1 and 3, so as to switch to the automatic network selection mode.)
Regarding claim 19, Speks discloses,
A method of wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) ( FIG. 3 shows a further detailed schematic diagram of the mobile terminal shown in FIG. 1), comprising:
calculating a set of distances from a location of the UE to at least one crossing of a border between a first region and a second region (monitoring step S10 shown in FIG. 2 is a determination whether the mobile terminal crosses a border of its home country, either from the home country to at least one foreign country or from a foreign country to the home country'. Indeed determining whether the terminal crossed a border using a GPS position implies calculating distances to known border location points, Col. 4; lines 50-58), wherein the UE is initially located in the first region (Fig. 5; step 24), wherein the set of distances is based on a corresponding set of border points and a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) location fix for the UE (Position Monitoring Unit 12 in fig.1 and mobile terminal based solutions typically calculate the position using satellite positioning services, e.g., GPS');
estimating an elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border (there is initiated a guard time interval when the mobile terminal 10 crosses the border from the home country to the foreign country to delay registration to a foreign network according to a “predetermined guard time interval” and Guard Timer Running” at S28 in fig.5. As shown in FIG. 5, assuming that the interrogation in step S24 is affirmative, then in step S28, operatively executed by the guard interval timer 22 shown in FIG. 3, it is interrogated whether the guard interval timer 22 is running. If so, the process branches back to step the S22 to delay the activation of the automatic network selection mode. Indeed in order to perform S28, the UE must estimate the elapsed time since it has crossed the border because the guard timer starts when the border is crossed, Col. 7; lines 20-55); and
providing, for a network entity and based on the elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border and a crossing threshold condition, an indication (The reason for the provision of the guard interval timer 22 is that due to limited accuracy of the positioning solution or a movement along the border under certain conditions it may happen that the mobile terminal 10 considers itself to be repeatedly moving between the home country and the foreign country. This leads to frequent location registration if loss and regaining of coverage of the home network occurs in this process. Here, the guard interval timer 22 may be used to overcome this problem without violating the principle that the mobile terminal 10 is registered to the home network while located in the home country. Registration to the foreign network is delayed by a certain time, Col. 7; lines 29-50).
However, Speks does not disclose, estimating an elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border based on at least one of a current heading of a vehicle associated with the UE, at least one distance of the set of distances, or a current speed of the UE and providing indication of a regional communication code of the second region
associated with roaming of the UE in the second region.
In the same field of endeavor, Hiet discloses, estimating an elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border based on at least one of a current heading of a vehicle associated with the UE, at least one distance of the set of distances, or a current speed of the UE and provide indication of a regional communication code of the second region
associated with roaming of the UE in the second region (the territorial requirement may apply to a group of two or more countries or any other territorial requirements. For example, the territorial requirement may be for part of a country. By way of example only, the territorial requirement may be that the PLMN is associated with the same island where the UE is geo-located. In some embodiments, the apparatus of the UE is configured to periodically determine its geo-location. This may be using a mapping application or any other suitable technique. As part of the geo-location, the country may be determined. When the apparatus of the UE determines that the country has changed, this may cause the apparatus of the UE to trigger a re-registration process to change to a different PLMN. In some embodiments, the apparatus of the UE may provide the MCC code associated with the country of the geo-location to the network entity. This may be compared with the MCC of the PLMN to determine if there is a discrepancy or to recommend one or more PLMNs, [0201]-[0206]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Speks by specifically providing estimate an elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border based on at least one of a current heading of a vehicle associated with the UE, at least one distance of the set of distances, or a current speed of the UE and provide indication of a regional communication code of the second region associated with roaming of the UE in the second region, as taught by Hiet for the purpose of ensuring that the UE geo-location country is the same as that of the PLMN in the case of satellite communications where the cells may be big enough to cover two or more countries [0217].
Regarding claim 20, Speks discloses,
A computer-readable medium storing computer executable code at a user equipment (UE) ( FIG. 3 shows a further detailed schematic diagram of the mobile terminal shown in FIG. 3 and shown in FIG. 3, the network selection mode control unit 14 comprises a border memory unit 18, a mode selection area memory unit 20), the code when executed by at least one processor causes the at least one processor to:
calculate a set of distances from a location of the UE to at least one crossing of a border between a first region and a second region (monitoring step S10 shown in FIG. 2 is a determination whether the mobile terminal crosses a border of its home country, either from the home country to at least one foreign country or from a foreign country to the home country'. Indeed determining whether the terminal crossed a border using a GPS position implies calculating distances to known border location points, Col. 4; lines 50-58), wherein the UE is initially located in the first region (Fig. 5; step 24), wherein the set of distances is based on a corresponding set of border points and a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) location fix for the UE (Position Monitoring Unit 12 in fig.1 and mobile terminal based solutions typically calculate the position using satellite positioning services, e.g., GPS');
estimate an elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border (there is initiated a guard time interval when the mobile terminal 10 crosses the border from the home country to the foreign country to delay registration to a foreign network according to a “predetermined guard time interval” and Guard Timer Running” at S28 in fig.5. As shown in FIG. 5, assuming that the interrogation in step S24 is affirmative, then in step S28, operatively executed by the guard interval timer 22 shown in FIG. 3, it is interrogated whether the guard interval timer 22 is running. If so, the process branches back to step the S22 to delay the activation of the automatic network selection mode. Indeed in order to perform S28, the UE must estimate the elapsed time since it has crossed the border because the guard timer starts when the border is crossed, Col. 7; lines 20-55); and
provide, for a network entity and based on the elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border and a crossing threshold condition, an indication (The reason for the provision of the guard interval timer 22 is that due to limited accuracy of the positioning solution or a movement along the border under certain conditions it may happen that the mobile terminal 10 considers itself to be repeatedly moving between the home country and the foreign country. This leads to frequent location registration if loss and regaining of coverage of the home network occurs in this process. Here, the guard interval timer 22 may be used to overcome this problem without violating the principle that the mobile terminal 10 is registered to the home network while located in the home country. Registration to the foreign network is delayed by a certain time, Col. 7; lines 29-50).
However, Speks does not disclose, estimate an elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border based on at least one of a current heading of a vehicle associated with the UE, at least one distance of the set of distances, or a current speed of the UE and provide indication of a regional communication code of the second region
associated with roaming of the UE in the second region.
In the same field of endeavor, Hiet discloses, estimate an elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border based on at least one of a current heading of a vehicle associated with the UE, at least one distance of the set of distances, or a current speed of the UE and provide indication of a regional communication code of the second region
associated with roaming of the UE in the second region (the territorial requirement may apply to a group of two or more countries or any other territorial requirements. For example, the territorial requirement may be for part of a country. By way of example only, the territorial requirement may be that the PLMN is associated with the same island where the UE is geo-located. In some embodiments, the apparatus of the UE is configured to periodically determine its geo-location. This may be using a mapping application or any other suitable technique. As part of the geo-location, the country may be determined. When the apparatus of the UE determines that the country has changed, this may cause the apparatus of the UE to trigger a re-registration process to change to a different PLMN. In some embodiments, the apparatus of the UE may provide the MCC code associated with the country of the geo-location to the network entity. This may be compared with the MCC of the PLMN to determine if there is a discrepancy or to recommend one or more PLMNs, [0201]-[0206]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Speks by specifically providing estimate an elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border based on at least one of a current heading of a vehicle associated with the UE, at least one distance of the set of distances, or a current speed of the UE and provide indication of a regional communication code of the second region associated with roaming of the UE in the second region, as taught by Hiet for the purpose of ensuring that the UE geo-location country is the same as that of the PLMN in the case of satellite communications where the cells may be big enough to cover two or more countries [0217].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-10 and 14-16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the prior arts, Speks and Hiet, whether taken alone or in combination does not disclose the following novel feature: “wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: obtain traffic information associated with the vehicle associated with the UE; wherein the dynamic periodicity is adjusted further based on the traffic information and the current heading of the vehicle associated with the UE being indicative of UE movement away from a crossing of the at least one crossing of the border at which the UE crossed the border”, in combination with the other limitations in claim 1 and claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, the prior arts, Speks and Hiet, whether taken alone or in combination does not disclose the following novel feature: “wherein to estimate the elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to estimate a set of elapsed times at which the UE crossed the border respectively associated with one or more distances of the set of distances; wherein for a number of preceding elapsed times of the set of elapsed times: the elapsed time is greater than the minimum time threshold after the elapsed time plus the time offset, the location of the UE is in the second region, and the current heading of the vehicle associated with the UE is indicative of UE movement that is away from a crossing of the at least one crossing of the border at which the UE crossed the border”, in combination with the other limitations in claims 1, 2 and 5.
Claim 7 is allowed as those inherit the allowable subject matter from
claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, the prior arts, Speks and Hiet, whether taken alone or in combination does not disclose the following novel feature: “wherein to estimate the elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to estimate a set of elapsed times at which the UE crossed the border respectively associated with one or more distances of the set of distances; wherein for a number of preceding elapsed times of the set of elapsed times: the elapsed time is greater than or equal to the periodicity threshold condition minus the time offset, the location of the UE is in the first region, and the current heading of the vehicle associated with the UE is indicative of UE movement that is away from a crossing of the at least one crossing of the border; wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: increase a time interval for calculating distances of the set of distances from the location of the UE to the at least one crossing of the border between the first region and the second region”, in combination with the other limitations in claims 1, 2 and 5.
Claims 9 and 10 are allowed as those inherit the allowable subject matter from
claim 8.
Regarding claim 14, the prior arts, Speks and Hiet, whether taken alone or in combination does not disclose the following novel feature: “wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: obtain, from an inference engine and based on at least one vehicle camera input of a camera of the vehicle, an inference of a road traffic status for a road associated with the UE of the vehicle, wherein the inference of the road traffic status indicates an amount of traffic that meets a traffic threshold condition; and wherein the minimum time threshold after the elapsed time is a reduced value based on the inference of the road traffic status, or wherein to provide the indication of the regional communication code of the second region, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to provide the indication further based on a distance of the set of distances that meets a distance threshold condition associated with the at least one crossing of the border between the first region and the second region, wherein the distance threshold condition is a reduced condition based on the inference of the road traffic status”, in combination with the other limitations in claims 1, 2 and 5.
Regarding claim 15, the prior arts, Speks and Hiet, whether taken alone or in combination does not disclose the following novel feature: “wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: obtain, based on at least one vehicle camera input of a camera of the vehicle, a road indication of a road type or a road geometry for a road associated with the UE of the vehicle; and wherein the minimum time threshold after the elapsed time is a reduced value based on the road indication of the road type or the road geometry, or wherein to provide the indication of the regional communication code of the second region, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to provide the indication further based on a distance of the set of distances that meets a distance threshold condition associated with the at least one crossing of the border between the first region and the second region, wherein the distance threshold condition is a reduced condition based on the road indication of the road type or the road geometry”, in combination with the other limitations in claims 1, 2 and 5.
Regarding claim 16, the prior arts, Speks and Hiet, whether taken alone or in combination does not disclose the following novel feature: “wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: identify that the location of the UE is in the first region based on an updated GNSS location fix; and obtain, based on at least one vehicle camera input of a camera of the vehicle, a sign indication of a road sign for a road associated with the UE of the vehicle, wherein the sign indication of the road sign is indicative of a distance from the location of the UE to the at least one crossing of the border between the first region and the second region; wherein to estimate the elapsed time at which the UE crossed the border, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to estimate the elapsed time further based on the distance from the location of the UE to the at least one crossing of the border between the first region and the second region, or wherein to periodically calculate the set of distances based on the dynamic periodicity, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to periodically calculate the set of distances further based on the distance from the location of the UE to the at least one crossing of the border between the first region and the second region”, in combination with the other limitations in claims 1 and 2.
Prior Art of the Record:
The prior art made of record not relied upon and considered pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure:
WO 2023135061: The method involves determining a second reception-transmission (Rx-Tx) time difference between a pair of signals communicated with a network node of a communications network. A second message is transmitted to the network node, where the second message comprises an indication of the second Rx-Tx time difference. An aperiodic tracking reference signal (TRS) is received, where the second message is transmitted in response to receiving the aperiodic TRS.
WO 2022045867: The user equipment has a transceiver receiving system information having information corresponding to location coordinates for a non-terrestrial network (NTN) gateway. The information corresponds to a processing delay between the equipment and a base station (BS). A processor (340) is operably connected to the transceiver. The processor determines a timing advance based on a timing difference between a reference point location and the BS. The transceiver transmits the timing advance report based on the determined timing advance.
US 20200322756: he apparatus comprises processing circuitry, and memory to determine a position estimate of user equipment (UE). The processing circuitry is configured to generate signaling to configure a multiple of transmit-receive points (TRPs) of the NG-RAN to transmit downlink (DL) position reference signals (DL PRSs). Encoded positioning data for transmission to the UE, the positioning data is received from a location server to assist the UE with positioning. Decoded from the UE, one or more measurement reports has UE Rx-Tx time differences.
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 GOLAM SOROWAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3761. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at (571) 272-7904. 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.
/GOLAM SOROWAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights