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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the claims received on 1/5/2024.
Communications via email (MPEP 502.03)
In order to advance prosecution of the instant application, the Applicants are invited to file a form PTO/SB/439 "Internet Communications Authorized", and to include, in their response, the Applicants’ contact telephone number and e-mail address:
http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
Election without Traverse
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, formed by claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 5/11/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/11/2026.
Title of Invention Is Not Descriptive
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: METHOD AND DEVICE FOR HANDOVER IN EARTH-MOVING BEAM (EMB)-BASED NONTERRESTRIAL NETWORK.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 8 are objected to due to the following informalities: Please make this correction: "in response to the decreasing to a value that is equal to or less than a first threshold, triggering an intra-satellite (intra-SAT) handover procedure." In claim 8, please make this correction: "procedure including : receiving…" Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
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 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 nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/ patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/ patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer
Rejection, Nonstatutory Double Patenting
Claims 1-2, 7-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory (obviousness-type) double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-9, 13, 15 of copending application number 18/405,492, hereinafter "reference application", and further in view of Lauridsen et al (publication number 2023/0072679), hereinafter Lauridsen. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the present (instant) application are transparently found in the reference application with obvious wording variations; in fact, the present claims are broader in each and every aspect than the copending application claims and are thus anticipated.
Regarding claim 1, the reference application claims a method of a user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving, from a first cell of a satellite, first handover configuration information including information on a first cell service timer indicating a time during which communication services can be provided by the first cell; decreasing the first cell service timer according to a first decrement interval; and in response to the decreased first cell service timer that is equal to or less than a first threshold, triggering an intra-satellite (intra-SAT) handover procedure (Reference application claim 8: A method of a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: receiving first handover configuration information from a first cell, the first handover configuration information including information on a first cell service timer that indicates a time during which a communication service can be provided in the first cell of a first satellite; decreasing a value of the first cell service timer according to a decrement interval; and in response to determining that the first cell service timer is below a threshold, transmitting a handover initiation message to the first cell. Reference application claim 15 also claims the features of claim 1 of the instant case).
The reference application does not explicitly claim intra-satellite.
Lauridsen teaches: a first cell of a satellite (Lauridsen [0002] Non-terrestrial networks (NTN) are implemented using Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites at altitudes of 500-1500 km. Each LEO satellite provides new radio (NR) service on earth through one or more NR beams and NR cells. "RA" means Random Access procedure); an intra-satellite (intra-SAT) handover procedure (Lauridsen [0069] If the target cell of the RA is provided by the same satellite as the previous cell the client device 100 was active in, the client device may identify the RA as intra-satellite. Fig. 6 and [0146] The first network node device 200_1 may identify 606 an intra-satellite handover and prepare 607 the cell handover between the first cell 601_1 and the second cell 601_2 of the first network node device 200_1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of the reference application, by incorporating the teachings of Lauridsen into the reference application, in order to efficiently choose an appropriate random access procedure using implicit signaling and network node device related identifiers, in order to identify a needed random access being intra-satellite and, in response, perform a first random access procedure, and to detect the need for RA based on need for a handover and perform the needed handover using the first or the second RA procedure (Lauridsen [0004], [0009], [0052]).
Regarding claim 2, the reference application claims wherein the first handover configuration information further includes at least one of information on the first decrement interval (Reference application claim 9: wherein the first handover configuration information further includes at least one of information indicating the decrement interval, information indicating the threshold, or information indicating a handover scheme) or information on the first threshold.
Regarding claim 7, the reference application claims wherein the triggering of the intra-SAT handover procedure comprises: in response to an event for a handover from the first cell to a second cell of the satellite that occurs, transmitting a handover initiation message including information on the second cell to the first cell; and receiving a handover command message from the first cell (Reference application claim 8: in response to determining that the first cell service timer is below a threshold, transmitting a handover initiation message to the first cell. Reference application claim 13: receiving a handover command message from the first cell; and performing a connection establishment procedure with a second cell based on the handover command message).
Regarding claim 8, the reference application claims further comprising: performing a connection establishment procedure with the second cell, the connection establishment procedure including; receiving third handover configuration information including information on a second cell service timer of the second cell (Reference application claim 13: receiving a handover command message from the first cell; and performing a connection establishment procedure with a second cell based on the handover command message; wherein second handover configuration information, including information on a second cell service timer, that indicates a time during which communication services can be provided by the second cell, is received from the second cell in the connection establishment procedure).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Joint Inventors, Common Ownership Presumed
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
Test for Obviousness
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al (publication number 2021/0051545), hereinafter Luo, and further in view of Lauridsen et al (publication number 2023/0072679), hereinafter Lauridsen, and further in view of Joseph et al (publication number 2017/0150408), hereinafter Joseph.
Luo uses the following terminology and acronyms:
[0005] Integrated access and backhaul (IAB) network; physical cell identifier (PCI); "wireless node" is the same as user equipment (UE); a UE in an IAB network may be served by a serving cell supported by an IAB node.
[0060], [0061] An IAB node may be:
IAB donor node (base station connected to the core network)
IAB relay node.
A UE may act as a relay IAB node.
Regarding claim 1, Luo teaches a method of a user equipment (UE, please refer to Luo [0141]-[0154] in reference to Fig. 4), comprising:
receiving, from a first cell, first handover configuration information (Luo Fig. 4 and [0147] At 430, IAB relay node 215-g transmits, to UE 115-h, the indication of the conditional handover configuration that specifies the set of trigger conditions for a conditional handover procedure) including information on a first cell service timer indicating a time during which communication services can be provided by the first cell (Luo Fig. 4 and [0149] The set of trigger conditions included in the conditional handover configuration includes a time duration after receipt of the conditional handover configuration for the UE 115-h to initiate the conditional handover procedure);
increasing the first cell service timer according to a first decrement interval (Luo Fig. 4 and [0078], [0136] A conditional handover triggering condition may be based on a specific time a UE 115 may start a handover, e.g., a number of time slots, frames, or milliseconds (ms) after the conditional handover configuration is received); and
in response to the decreased first cell service timer that is equal to or less than a first threshold, triggering a handover procedure (Luo Fig. 4 and [0153] At 435, UE 115-h may determine that a trigger condition of the set of trigger conditions is satisfied based on determining that the time duration after receipt of the conditional handover configuration has elapsed. [0154] At 440, UE 115-h may transmit, to the IAB relay node 215-g, a random access message to initiate the conditional handover procedure for the cell from the first cell identifier to the second cell identifier).
Luo does not explicitly teach intra-satellite (intra-SAT); decreasing a timer.
Lauridsen teaches:
a first cell of a satellite (Lauridsen [0002] Non-terrestrial networks (NTN) are implemented using Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites at altitudes of 500-1500 km. Each LEO satellite provides new radio (NR) service on earth through one or more NR beams and NR cells. "RA" means Random Access procedure);
an intra-satellite (intra-SAT) handover procedure (Lauridsen [0069] If the target cell of the RA is provided by the same satellite as the previous cell the client device 100 was active in, the client device may identify the RA as intra-satellite. Fig. 6 and [0146] The first network node device 200_1 may identify 606 an intra-satellite handover and prepare 607 the cell handover between the first cell 601_1 and the second cell 601_2 of the first network node device 200_1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Luo, by incorporating the teachings of Lauridsen into the disclosure of Luo, in order to efficiently choose an appropriate random access procedure using implicit signaling and network node device related identifiers, in order to identify a needed random access being intra-satellite and, in response, perform a first random access procedure, and to detect the need for RA based on need for a handover and perform the needed handover using the first or the second RA procedure (Lauridsen [0004], [0009], [0052]).
Luo as modified does not explicitly teach decreasing a timer.
Joseph teaches: decreasing the first cell service timer according to a first decrement interval ([0049] The handover may have been triggered at UE 102 due to the drop in filtered measurements at UE 102 for a time to trigger (TTT) duration, e.g., 160 ms, although not limited to this value, thereby resulting in triggering a handover – this suggests a decrement interval of on millisecond. Likewise in [0062] where TTT is set to 250 ms); and in response to the decreased first cell service timer that is equal to or less than a first threshold, triggering a procedure ([0063] A handover may be triggered at UE 102 if the strength of the serving cell, e.g., base station 122, is below 3 dB for 160 ms. Once STX is initiated at base station 122 and the base station 122 stops transmitting on the DL, the TTT timer at the UE starts counting down and triggers a handover of the UE when the timer expires).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Luo as modified, by incorporating the teachings of Joseph into the disclosure of Luo as modified, because there is a desire to reduce impact of suspended transmissions on connected mode user equipments; and in order to prevent base stations from triggering unnecessary and/or even more risky handovers to neighbor base stations while the neighbor base stations are significantly weaker than the current serving base station, e.g., by 4-9 dB, leading to radio link failures (RLF) at the neighbor base station after the handover from the serving cell (Joseph [0004]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 2, Luo teaches wherein the first handover configuration information (Luo Fig. 4 and [0147] At 430, IAB relay node 215-g transmits, to UE 115-h, the indication of the conditional handover configuration that specifies the set of trigger conditions for a conditional handover procedure) further includes at least one of information on the first decrement interval or information on the first threshold (Luo meets claimed "information on the first threshold" in Fig. 4 and [0078], [0136] A conditional handover triggering condition may be based on a specific time a UE 115 may start a handover, e.g., a number of time slots, frames, or milliseconds (ms) after the conditional handover configuration is received).
Regarding claim 3, Luo teaches further comprising: receiving, from the first cell of the satellite, second handover configuration information (this limitation comprises a repetition of the process in claim 1. Luo Fig. 4 and [0147] At 430, IAB relay node 215-g transmits, to UE 115-h, the indication of the conditional handover configuration that specifies the set of trigger conditions for a conditional handover procedure) including information on a satellite (SAT) service timer indicating a time during which the communication services can be provided by the satellite (Luo Fig. 4 and [0149] The set of trigger conditions included in the conditional handover configuration includes a time duration after receipt of the conditional handover configuration for the UE 115-h to initiate the conditional handover procedure); and decreasing the SAT service timer according to a second decrement interval (Luo meets claimed "second decrement interval" because Luo defines different decrement intervals such as milliseconds, frames, or time slots in Fig. 4 and [0078], [0136] A conditional handover triggering condition may be based on a specific time a UE 115 may start a handover, e.g., a number of time slots, frames, or milliseconds (ms) after the conditional handover configuration is received), wherein the decreased SAT service timer exceeds a second threshold (Luo Fig. 4 and [0078], [0136] A conditional handover triggering condition may be based on a specific time a UE 115 may start a handover, e.g., a number of time slots, frames, or milliseconds (ms) after the conditional handover configuration is received. Luo teaches a second threshold in [0019], [0033], [0043], [0149]. It would have been obvious to deploy a second threshold for Luo's conditional handover timer).
Regarding claim 4, Luo teaches wherein the second handover configuration information (this limitation comprises a repetition of the process in claim 1. Luo Fig. 4 and [0147] At 430, IAB relay node 215-g transmits, to UE 115-h, the indication of the conditional handover configuration that specifies the set of trigger conditions for a conditional handover procedure) further includes at least one of information on the second decrement interval or information on the second threshold (Luo meets claimed "information on the second threshold" in Fig. 4 and [0078], [0136] A conditional handover triggering condition may be based on a specific time a UE 115 may start a handover, e.g., a number of time slots, frames, or milliseconds (ms) after the conditional handover configuration is received. Luo teaches a second threshold in [0019], [0033], [0043], [0149]. It would have been obvious to deploy a second threshold for Luo's conditional handover timer and include it in Luo's [0147] conditional handover configuration that specifies the set of trigger conditions for a conditional handover procedure).
Regarding claim 5, Luo teaches wherein the first cell service timer starts after the UE is connected to the first cell (Luo Fig. 4 and [0149] The set of trigger conditions included in the conditional handover configuration includes a time duration after receipt of the conditional handover configuration for the UE 115-h to initiate the conditional handover procedure. In Fig. 4, the UE receives the trigger conditions in 430, after the connection has been established in 410), and the SAT service timer starts after the UE is connected to the satellite (this limitation comprises a repetition of the process in claim 5, for the first timer. Luo Fig. 4 and [0149] The set of trigger conditions included in the conditional handover configuration includes a time duration after receipt of the conditional handover configuration for the UE 115-h to initiate the conditional handover procedure. In Fig. 4, the UE receives the trigger conditions in 430, after the connection has been established in 410).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo, in view of Lauridsen, in view of Joseph, and further in view of Chai et al (publication number 2015/0181470), hereinafter Chai.
Regarding claim 7, Luo as modified does not explicitly teach transmitting a handover initiation message including information on the second cell to the first cell; and receiving a handover command message from the first cell.
Chai teaches: in response to an event for a handover from the first cell to a second cell of the satellite that occurs (Chai Fig. 3), transmitting a handover initiation message including information on the second cell to the first cell (Chai [0492] The first source base station sends a handover initiation request message to the second source base station, to make a request for a handover of the user equipment from the second source base station to the target base station); and receiving a handover command message from the first cell (Chai [0399] Step 306, the MME sends a handover command message to the source base station. [0400] Step 307, the source base station sends a handover command message to the UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Luo as modified, by incorporating the teachings of Chai into the disclosure of Luo as modified, in order to provide a handover processing solution to solve a problem in the prior art that a handover could not be performed when there exists more than one source cell or target cell (Chai [0008]).
Regarding claim 8, Luo teaches further comprising: performing a connection establishment procedure with the second cell (Luo Fig. 4 and [0154] At 440, UE 115-h may transmit, to the IAB relay node 215-g, a random access message to initiate the conditional handover procedure for the cell from the first cell identifier to the second cell identifier. After receiving the random access message, IAB relay node 215-g may establish, as part of the conditional handover procedure, a second connection with UE 115-h via the cell associated with the second cell identifier), the connection establishment procedure including; receiving third handover configuration information (Luo Fig. 4 and [0147] At 430, IAB relay node 215-g transmits, to UE 115-h, the indication of the conditional handover configuration that specifies the set of trigger conditions for a conditional handover procedure) including information on a second cell service timer of the second cell (this limitation comprises a repetition of the process in claim 1. Luo Fig. 4 and [0149] The set of trigger conditions included in the conditional handover configuration includes a time duration after receipt of the conditional handover configuration for the UE 115-h to initiate the conditional handover procedure).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections and rejections set forth in this office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, Luo teaches in [0117] the UE performing measurements and sending measurement reports to its serving base station; however, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest "variable measurement configuration information", let alone a UE receiving, from the first cell of the satellite, variable measurement configuration information; and in response to the decreased first cell service timer that is equal to or less than the first threshold, performing variable measurement procedures instead of general measurement procedures based on the variable measurement configuration information, wherein a measurement periodicity for the variable measurement procedures is shorter than a measurement periodicity for the general measurement procedures.
Therefore, in view of their respective base claims, the further limitations of the above-mentioned claims in combination with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD EISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3334. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Tuesday from 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kathy Wang-Hurst, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-5371. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats see MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/RONALD EISNER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights