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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahalingam et al. (US 20210029658), hereinafter referred to as Mahalingam, in view of Kim et al. (US 20210185598), hereinafter referred to as Kim.
Regarding claim 2, Mahalingam receiving, by the wireless device from a base station of the network, a second message comprising a parameter indicating whether the network performs time traceability to coordinated universal time (UTC) (see paragraph 0138; NTN (e.g., one or more base stations in an NTN) may broadcast the formatted UTC, as part of a System Information block (SIB), corresponding to the absolute on-air transmission time of the SIB. For 3GPP, a logical synchronization port for phase, time, and frequency synchronization may be necessary at the base station. For E-UTRA, requirements may be specified to ensure eNB phase and timing requirements for TDD, MBSFN, and CoMP features are met with continuous time without leap seconds, traceable to a common time reference of UTC sourced from at least a Stratum 2 level clock and see paragraph 0140; a NTN base station may broadcast the formatted UTC as part of a SIB corresponding to the absolute on-air transmission time of the specific SIB. The SIB containing the UTC time may be periodically transmitted on the downlink at a periodicity, T.sub.UTC, indicated by the scheduling block of a mandatory SIB, such as SIB #1. For example, if the SIB containing the UTC time is to be broadcast on a specific initial downlink SFN (e.g., SFN=10), and SF (e.g., SF=5), the corresponding free-running UTC formatted on-air absolute time may be transmitted at every {SFN, SF}={10, 5}*k*T.sub.UTC; where k is an integer 1. The periodicity T.sub.UTC may be semi-static and may be modified by the NTN base station as it chooses. However, the modified T.sub.UTC may be applied at the WTRU only after the value of the new T.sub.UTC is notified to the WTRUs via a system information modification indication procedure. Mahalingam does not explicitly teach transmitting, by a wireless device to an access and mobility management function (AMF) of a network, a first message indicating a registration request with the network, however it is noted that Mahalingam teaches an AMF 182a, 182b may be responsible for authenticating users of the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, support for network slicing (e.g., handling of different protocol data unit (PDU) sessions with different requirements), selecting a particular SMF 183a, 183b, management of the registration area, termination of non-access stratum (NAS) signaling, mobility management, and the like (see paragraph 0087).
Kim from the field of mobile communication system which includes an AMP similar to that of Mahalingam teaches the UE 110 transmits a service request or a registration request to the AMF (see paragraph 0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the WTRU of Mahalingam transmit a registration request in the manner taught by Kim to the AMF of Mahalingam. The motivation for doing the registration request is to connect the devices to provide for an optimum communication.
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the UE 110 transmits a service request or a registration request message, see 0088.
Regarding claim 5, Mahalingam teaches NTN (e.g., one or more base stations in an NTN) may broadcast the formatted UTC, as part of a System Information Block (SIB), see 0138.
Regarding claim 6, Mahalingam teaches NTN (e.g., one or more base stations in an NTN) may broadcast the formatted UTC (downlink), as part of a System Information Block (SIB) (parameter), see 0138.
Regarding claim 7, Mahalingam teaches a Stratum 2 level clock as a time source, traceable to a common time reference of UTC, see 0138.
Regarding claim 8, Mahalingam teaches the WTRU 302-fig.3 transmitting a RRC message to the base station 301-fig.3.
Regarding claim 9, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected under Mahalingam-Kim for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 2. Mahalingam teaches the WTRU 102 comprising a processor 118-fig.1B, and memory storing instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the WTRU to perform the claimed steps.
Regarding claim 11, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected under Mahalingam-Kim for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected under Mahalingam-Kim for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected under Mahalingam-Kim for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected under Mahalingam-Kim for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 8. Therefore, it is rejected under Mahalingam-Kim for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 16, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected under Mahalingam-Kim for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected under Mahalingam-Kim for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 4
Regarding claim 19, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected under Mahalingam-Kim for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected under Mahalingam-Kim for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 21, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected under Mahalingam-Kim for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
7. Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahalingam, in view of Kim, and further in view of Liberg et al. (US 2023/0397161), hereinafter referred to as Liberg.
Regarding claim 3, Mahalingam and Kim disclose all claimed limitations, except receiving, by the wireless device from the base station, one or more UTC timestamps.
Liberg discloses and NTN gNB carried by a satellite broadcasts its timing (e.g. in terms of a UTC timestamp) to a GNSS equipped UE, see 0045.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have a GNSS equipped UE to receive a UTC timestamp by a NTN gNB as taught by Liberg into the combined system of Mahalingam and Kim. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable the UE to use this knowledge to compensate its UL transmission for the propagation dealy and Doppler effect.
Regarding claim 10, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected under Mahalingam-Kim-Liberg for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected under Mahalingam-Kim-Liberg for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tripathi (US 2022/0046490); Qiao (US 2024/0056932)
are cited, and considered pertinent to the instant specification.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUC C HO whose telephone number is (571)272-3147. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Gary Mui can be reached on 571-270-1420 (Gary.mui@uspto.gov). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DUC C HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465