DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on March 2, 2026. Claims 1-11, 13-23, 25, 27, 28, and 30 are now pending in the present application. This Action is made NON-FINAL.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2 of paragraph 0027, replace “station 120s” with --stations 120--; and
On lines 8, 9, 14, 15, 19, 21, 24, and 25 of paragraph 0037 and on lines 2 and 4 of
paragraph 0038, replace “(e.g.” with --(e.g.,--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopherson et al. (US 2022/0312301 A1) in view of Altman (US 2021/0114616 A1) and further in view of O’Connell et al. (US 2010/0036604 A1).
Consider claim 1, Christopherson et al. disclose a method for configuring multi-network wireless communication of a user equipment (UE) (Abstract: “cellular device-satellite
communications service is provided”; ¶[0011]: service configures uplink/downlink
communications between end device and satellite/terrestrial networks), comprising:
obtaining multi-network wireless coverage information, wherein the multi-network wireless coverage information includes terrestrial network (TN) wireless coverage information (Christopherson et al. disclose that cell-satellite manager (CSM) 119 analyzes network information pertaining to the radio access network (¶[0065]: “cell-satellite manager 119 may analyze current or predictive states associated with uplink and/or downlink links, congestion levels, resource utilization values and capacity values, position and mobility of end device 130, performance metrics”). The TN coverage information includes channel conditions between end device 130 and access device 107, including RSRP, RSSI, RSRQ, SNR, and SINR values, congestion levels associated with access network 105, and threshold performance metrics (¶[0037])) and non-terrestrial network (NTN) wireless coverage information (Christopherson et al. also disclose that CSM 119 analyzes satellite information including satellite connectivity between a satellite and a ground station, and satellite routing information (¶[0035]: “satellite router 205 may determine where and/or how traffic may be routed via satellites 127”; ¶[0036]: “satellite connector 210 may include logic that manages information indicating satellites 127 that are connected to ground stations 129”; ¶[0065]: “satellite connectivity information, satellite routing information”));
determining a joint TN/NTN wireless communication configuration for the UE based on the multi-network wireless coverage information (Christopherson et al. disclose that CSM 119, via mapper 215, determines whether an uplink communication and/or a downlink communication is supported by a satellite route, a terrestrial route, or a satellite and a terrestrial route (¶[0037]). In blocks 520 and 525 (FIG. 5A; ¶[0066]), CSM 119 determines whether the uplink and/or the downlink is to be supported by a terrestrial-only connection, a satellite connection, or both terrestrial and satellite connections based on the analysis of the network information and satellite information); and
sending the joint TN/NTN wireless communication configuration to the UE
(Christopherson et al. disclose that CSM 119 transmits control information to access device 107, ground station 129, core device 122, and/or end device 130 to establish an end-to-end connection (¶[0066]). Request handler 225 provides scheduling messages to end devices 130 (¶[0040]). During a changeover procedure, CSM 119 provides new connection or routing information to network devices and end device 130 (¶[0071])).
However, Christopherson et al. do not explicitly disclose:
identifying a travel route for travel of the UE from a start location to a destination location;
obtaining the multi-network wireless coverage information for the travel route; determining the joint TN/NTN wireless communication configuration for the travel
route; and
sending, to the UE, configuration information that indicates the joint TN/NTN wireless communication configuration and the travel route.
In the same field of endeavor, Altman discloses:
identifying a travel route for travel of the UE from a start location to a destination location (Altman discloses that a mapping/navigation analysis module 201 of a Bonding/Multi-Link Agent receives route information indicating which route the vehicle has chosen or is expected to ride (¶[0086]: “determine that the vehicle is expected to drive from Albany to Boston in the next 180 minutes”; FIG. 3: Starting Point (SP) 301, Destination Point (DP) 302; ¶[0105]:
“determining that a user…wishes to travel…from its current point or current location…to a
destination point or a destination location”));
obtaining multi-network (i.e., TN/NTN) wireless coverage information for the travel route (Altman discloses a Communication Map Generator 210 that generates a communication map of available communication performance along route segments for multiple networks (¶[0117]–[0119]; FIG. 3: route segments 311A–311D with varying bandwidth/QoS; ¶[0130]: “data about link, network, operator, geo-location…may be collected”). The coverage information includes data from multiple wireless networks along the route (¶[0017]: cellular, Wi-Fi, V2X, satellite; ¶[0105]: “collecting data and/or receiving data and/or analyzing data pertaining to the QoS of the wireless connectivity along Route 1”));
determining a multi-network (i.e., TN/NTN) wireless communication configuration for the travel route (Altman discloses that the Bonding/Multi-Link Agent determines the combination of communication links to use per route segment based on the communication map (¶[0071], [0095]: Link Reservation Unit 205 reserves links in advance according to the selected route; ¶[0092]: “to query or request to reserve in advance…for bandwidth allocation according to the route”)); and
communicating route and communication configuration information to the device (Altman discloses that an application running on the vehicle processors or the driver’s smartphone may receive information about the expected communication performance along the route (¶[0109]). Route modification suggestions are communicated to the driver/device (¶[0101]–[0102])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cellular device-satellite communications service of Christopherson et al. to incorporate the route-based multi-network communication planning of Altman. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Altman teaches that route-based communication planning enables proactive reservation of network resources, reduces performance fluctuations during travel, and improves QoS continuity for demanding applications by allowing the system to optimize the combination of available communication links in advance rather than reacting to degraded conditions after they occur (See, for example, Altman ¶[0087], [0092], [0095], [0100], and [0128]). Applying Altman’s predictive route-based approach to Christopherson et al.’s TN/NTN system would yield the predictable benefit of improved satellite-terrestrial resource allocation and reduced service interruptions along a planned travel path (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
However, Christopherson et al., as modified by Altman, do not explicitly disclose sending, to the UE, configuration information that indicates the joint TN/NTN wireless communication configuration and the travel route in a manner where the UE receives from a network node the computed configuration and route responsive to the UE providing its start and destination locations.
In the same field of endeavor, O’Connell et al. disclose sending, to the UE, configuration information that indicates the wireless communication configuration and the travel route (O’Connell et al. disclose that a route computing device 245 computes an optimal mobile device coverage route and outputs the computed result to the mobile device 200 (¶[0024]: “computation of the optimal coverage route is performed by the route computing device 245 and then outputted…to the mobile device 200”). The server “performs the computation and then returns the optimal route to the mobile phone device 100 along with the starting point and the end point” (¶[0030]). The optimal route is provided to the mobile device via one of a web site, text message, voice operated feed, or direct feed (¶[0035]). O’Connell et al. further disclose that the mobile device receives a starting point and an end point (¶[0026]–[0028], figure 3 blocks 305–306), the provider’s mobile coverage information is used to compute the route (¶[0031], figure 3 blocks 310–315), and the computed optimal mobile device coverage route is returned to and received by the mobile device (¶[0034]–[0035], figure 3 blocks 340–341)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Christopherson et al. and Altman with the coverage-optimized route computation and delivery mechanism of O’Connell et al., in which a mobile device provides start and destination points to a server/computing device that computes an optimal coverage route and returns the route to the mobile device. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because O’Connell et al. teach that users experience disruption of communications due to holes in the network (O’Connell ¶[0004]) and that computing and delivering an optimal coverage route to the mobile device enables the user to maintain optimal communication while traveling (See, for example, O’Connell et al. ¶[0006], [0034], and [0035]). Applying O’Connell et al.’s server-computed, route-delivered paradigm to the combined TN/NTN system of Christopherson et al. and Altman would yield the predictable benefit of enabling the UE to proactively apply appropriate satellite and terrestrial configurations along a planned route with reduced real-time signaling overhead (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Consider claim 4, and as applied to claim 1 above, Christopherson et al., as modified by Altman and O’Connell et al., further disclose wherein the joint TN/NTN wireless communication configuration indicates a region, along the travel route, in which the UE is to perform wireless data communication in a dual-connectivity mode using both a terrestrial network and a non-terrestrial network (Christopherson et al. disclose uplink configuration 355 (FIG. 3E; ¶[0048]): “a dual connectivity uplink configuration including both terrestrial and satellite connections/traffic flows may be from end device 130 to gNB 107 and end device 130 to ground station 129-1.” Similarly, downlink configuration 395 (FIG. 3I; ¶[0049]) discloses a “dual connectivity downlink configuration including both terrestrial and satellite connections/traffic flows.” CSM 119 determines and configures these dual-connectivity modes based on network and satellite information (¶[0066], blocks 520/525), and communicates the configuration to end device 130 (¶[0040] and [0066])). The route-based, per-region aspect of the configuration is taught by Altman’s per-route-segment communication planning (¶[0071], [0087], and [0119]) and O’Connell et al.’s coverage-optimized route delivery (¶[0024], [0030]), as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Consider claim 5, and as applied to claim 4 above, Christopherson et al., as modified by Altman and O’Connell et al., further disclose wherein the joint TN/NTN wireless communication configuration indicates a second region, along the travel route, in which the UE is to exit the dual-connectivity mode and perform wireless data communication using either the terrestrial network or the non-terrestrial network (Christopherson et al. disclose a changeover procedure in which CSM 119 determines to change the uplink and/or downlink connection configuration (¶[0069]–[0071]; FIG. 5B, block 540-YES → block 555). CSM 119 “may select a new connection configuration (e.g., in the uplink, the downlink, or both) based on network information and satellite information” (¶[0071]). The new configuration may be terrestrial-only (FIG. 3D, uplink config 345; FIG. 3H, downlink config 385) or satellite-only (FIG. 3B, uplink config 325; FIG. 3F, downlink config 365), effectively exiting the dual-connectivity mode. CSM 119 provides the new connection information to end device 130 (¶[0071]: “Cell-satellite manager 119 may provide new connection or routing information to network devices…and end device 130”). The per-region, route-based aspect is taught by Altman and O’Connell as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Consider claim 10, and as applied to claim 1 above, Christopherson et al. do not explicitly disclose selecting the travel route from among multiple candidate travel routes based on the multi-network wireless coverage information and a time of day of the travel of the UE.
Altman teaches selecting the travel route from among multiple candidate travel routes based on the multi-network wireless coverage information (Altman discloses a Vehicle Route Modification Unit 207 and Route-Segment QoS Estimator/Comparator 208 (¶[0101] and [0105]) that determine multiple candidate routes to a destination (¶[0105]: “determining that there exist at least two routes to travel to said destination point, for example, Route 1 and Route 2”) and select among them based on communication QoS (¶[0105]: “selecting to guide the user to travel via Route 2 and not via Route 1, based on…a determination that the QoS metric of Route 2 is greater or otherwise better”; FIG. 3: current route 311 vs. alternate route 312)) while O’Connell et al. teach selecting the travel route based on a time of day of the travel of the UE (O’Connell et al. disclose that a current time value is determined and utilized in computing the optimal mobile device coverage route (¶[0037]–[0038]; FIG. 4, block 435: “current time value is determined or retrieved. The current time value is utilized to determine, based on historical or other data, the level of bandwidth usage, drop calls, service quality reduction, and other factors, corresponding to that time of travel within the particular area in which the mobile device will be travelling”).
The motivation to combine Altman and O’Connell with Christopherson is as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Consider claim 11, and as applied to claim 1 above, Christopherson et al., as modified
by Altman and O’Connell et al., further disclose wherein determining the joint TN/NTN wireless communication configuration comprises determining the joint TN/NTN wireless communication configuration for the UE for the travel route based on the TN wireless coverage information, the NTN wireless coverage information, and one or more quality of experience (QoE) criteria for the UE (Christopherson et al. disclose that the cellular device-satellite communications service may improve “quality of experience (QoE), a service level agreement (SLA) requirement, user experience, and/or a mean opinion score (MOS)” (¶[0013]). CSM 119 determines configuration based on “a threshold performance metric associated with an application service (e.g., throughput, latency, and/or another type of metric)” (¶[0037]). These QoE criteria are used alongside TN coverage information (RSRP, SINR, congestion — ¶[0037]) and NTN coverage information (satellite connectivity, routing — ¶[0035]–[0036]) to determine the joint configuration).
Consider claim 13, Christopherson et al. disclose an apparatus for configuring multi-network wireless communication of a user equipment (UE) (¶[0051]–[0058]: device 400), comprising:
at least one memory (memory/storage 415 (¶[0055]–[0056]));
at least one transceiver (communication interface 425 including one or multiple transmitters and receivers, or transceivers (¶[0058]);
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and the at least one transceiver (processor 410 connected via bus 405 to memory/storage 415 and communication interface 425 (¶[0051]–[0054]); and
the remaining limitations of Claim 13 correspond to the method steps of Claim 1.
Christopherson et al., Altman, and O’Connell et al. teach these limitations for the reasons set
forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Consider claim 16, and as applied to claim 13 above, Christopherson et al., as modified by Altman and O’Connell et al., further disclose wherein the joint TN/NTN wireless communication configuration indicates a region, along the travel route, in which the UE is to perform wireless data communication in a dual-connectivity mode using both a terrestrial network and a non-terrestrial network (Christopherson et al. disclose uplink configuration 355 (FIG. 3E; ¶[0048]): “a dual connectivity uplink configuration including both terrestrial and satellite connections/traffic flows may be from end device 130 to gNB 107 and end device 130 to ground station 129-1.” Similarly, downlink configuration 395 (FIG. 3I; ¶[0049]) discloses a “dual connectivity downlink configuration including both terrestrial and satellite connections/traffic flows.” CSM 119 determines and configures these dual-connectivity modes based on network and satellite information (¶[0066], blocks 520/525), and communicates the configuration to end device 130 (¶[0040] and [0066])). The route-based, per-region aspect of the configuration is taught by Altman’s per-route-segment communication planning (¶[0071], [0087], and [0119]) and O’Connell et al.’s coverage-optimized route delivery (¶[0024], [0030]), as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Consider claim 17, and as applied to claim 16 above, Christopherson et al., as modified by Altman and O’Connell et al., further disclose wherein the joint TN/NTN wireless communication configuration indicates a second region, along the travel route, in which the UE is to exit the dual-connectivity mode and perform wireless data communication using either the terrestrial network or the non-terrestrial network (Christopherson et al. disclose a changeover procedure in which CSM 119 determines to change the uplink and/or downlink connection configuration (¶[0069]–[0071]; FIG. 5B, block 540-YES → block 555). CSM 119 “may select a new connection configuration (e.g., in the uplink, the downlink, or both) based on network information and satellite information” (¶[0071]). The new configuration may be terrestrial-only (FIG. 3D, uplink config 345; FIG. 3H, downlink config 385) or satellite-only (FIG. 3B, uplink config 325; FIG. 3F, downlink config 365), effectively exiting the dual-connectivity mode. CSM 119 provides the new connection information to end device 130 (¶[0071]: “Cell-satellite manager 119 may provide new connection or routing information to network devices…and end device 130”). The per-region, route-based aspect is taught by Altman and O’Connell as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Consider claim 22, and as applied to claim 13 above, Christopherson et al. do not explicitly disclose selecting the travel route from among multiple candidate travel routes based on the multi-network wireless coverage information and a time of day of the travel of the UE.
Altman teaches selecting the travel route from among multiple candidate travel routes based on the multi-network wireless coverage information (Altman discloses a Vehicle Route Modification Unit 207 and Route-Segment QoS Estimator/Comparator 208 (¶[0101] and [0105]) that determine multiple candidate routes to a destination (¶[0105]: “determining that there exist at least two routes to travel to said destination point, for example, Route 1 and Route 2”) and select among them based on communication QoS (¶[0105]: “selecting to guide the user to travel via Route 2 and not via Route 1, based on…a determination that the QoS metric of Route 2 is greater or otherwise better”; FIG. 3: current route 311 vs. alternate route 312)) while O’Connell et al. teach selecting the travel route based on a time of day of the travel of the UE (O’Connell et al. disclose that a current time value is determined and utilized in computing the optimal mobile device coverage route (¶[0037]–[0038]; FIG. 4, block 435: “current time value is determined or retrieved. The current time value is utilized to determine, based on historical or other data, the level of bandwidth usage, drop calls, service quality reduction, and other factors, corresponding to that time of travel within the particular area in which the mobile device will be travelling”).
The motivation to combine Altman and O’Connell with Christopherson is as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Consider claim 23, and as applied to claim 13 above, Christopherson et al., as modified
by Altman and O’Connell et al., further disclose wherein determining the joint TN/NTN wireless communication configuration comprises determining the joint TN/NTN wireless communication configuration for the UE for the travel route based on the TN wireless coverage information, the NTN wireless coverage information, and one or more quality of experience (QoE) criteria for the UE (Christopherson et al. disclose that the cellular device-satellite communications service may improve “quality of experience (QoE), a service level agreement (SLA) requirement, user experience, and/or a mean opinion score (MOS)” (¶[0013]). CSM 119 determines configuration based on “a threshold performance metric associated with an application service (e.g., throughput, latency, and/or another type of metric)” (¶[0037]). These QoE criteria are used alongside TN coverage information (RSRP, SINR, congestion — ¶[0037]) and NTN coverage information (satellite connectivity, routing — ¶[0035]–[0036]) to determine the joint configuration).
Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 14, 18, 19, 21, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopherson et al. (US 2022/0312301 A1) in view of Altman (US 2021/0114616 A1) further in view of O’Connell et al. (US 2010/0036604 A1) and further in
view of Lauridsen et al. (US 11,083,026 B2).
Consider claims 2, 9, 14, and 21, and as applied to claims 1 and 13 above and claims 7 and 19 below, Christopherson et al., as modified by Altman and O’Connell et al., further teach wherein the joint TN/NTN wireless communication configuration indicates that the UE is to refrain from use of a non-terrestrial network (Christopherson et al. disclose that CSM 119 can determine a terrestrial-only connection/route for the uplink and/or downlink (¶[0066], blocks 520/525; FIG. 3D: terrestrial-only uplink configuration 345; FIG. 3H: terrestrial-only downlink configuration 385). In these configurations, the UE communicates exclusively via gNB 107 without satellite resources, which is functionally equivalent to refraining from use of a non-terrestrial network).
However, Christopherson et al., as modified by Altman and O’Connell et al., do not explicitly disclose that the configuration indicates a specific region, along the travel route, in which the UE is to refrain from use of a non-terrestrial network (i.e., a geographic region along the route where NTN usage is restricted).
In the same field of endeavor, Lauridsen et al. teach a region along a path in which NTN coverage is unavailable and the device refrains from NTN use (Lauridsen et al. disclose that coverage availability estimates are associated with geographical locations of the mobile non-terrestrial access node (claim 1; column 1 lines 53-56: “coverage availability estimates associated with geographical locations of the mobile non-terrestrial access node”). The coverage availability estimates indicate unavailability of coverage at certain geographic locations due to satellite/HAPS orbital movement (column 6 lines 51-55: “deployments of the mobile non-terrestrial access nodes such as LEO satellites…may not provide continuous coverage for a given area on the Earth surface”). When NTN coverage is unavailable, the wireless device refrains from connection attempts to the NTN (claim 1: “cause the wireless device to one of: enter a power save mode, or control one or more connection attempts to the mobile non-terrestrial access node”; column 6 lines 11-18: “when a wireless device should not initiate a connection attempt to the mobile non-terrestrial access node”). FIG. 9 shows geographic/time intervals (902) of NTN unavailability where the device refrains from NTN use).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Christopherson et al., Altman, and O’Connell et al. with the teachings of Lauridsen et al.. Specifically, Lauridsen et al. teach that non-terrestrial access nodes (LEO satellites, HAPS) do not provide continuous coverage at all geographic locations, and that a wireless device should refrain from attempting NTN connections in regions where NTN coverage is unavailable (Lauridsen et al., column 1 lines 53-56, column 6 lines 11-18 and 51-55, claim 1: “coverage availability estimates associated with geographical locations of the mobile non-terrestrial access node”). The coverage availability estimates indicate unavailability of coverage at certain geographic locations due to satellite/HAPS orbital movement). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate Lauridsen et al.’s geographic NTN availability determination into the route-based joint TN/NTN configuration of the combined system, such that the configuration indicates regions along the travel route where the UE should refrain from NTN use, because Lauridsen et al. teach that unnecessary NTN connection attempts cause interference to nearby wireless devices and waste power (Lauridsen et al. column 7 lines 7-14: “unnecessary connection attempts, when there is no coverage by the mobile non-terrestrial access nodes, causes interference to nearby wireless devices, access nodes and networks”; “inefficient utilization of the power save mode causes unnecessary power consumption”).
Consider claims 6 and 18, and as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, Christopherson et
al., as modified by Altman and O’Connell et al., further teach determining the joint TN/NTN wireless communication configuration based on the multi-network wireless coverage information (As discussed in the rejection of Claim 1 (¶[0037], [0065], and [0066]). O’Connell et al. also teach determining the configuration based on a time of day of the travel of the UE (O’Connell et al. disclose that a current time value is determined and utilized in computing the optimal mobile device coverage route (¶[0037]–[0038]; FIG. 4, block 435: “current time value is determined or retrieved. The current time value is utilized to determine, based on historical or other data, the level of bandwidth usage, drop calls, service quality reduction, and other factors, corresponding to that time of travel within the particular area”).
However, Christopherson et al., as modified by Altman and O’Connell et al. do not explicitly disclose using time of day specifically in relation to NTN coverage variability (i.e., NTN coverage that changes based on time due to satellite orbital dynamics).
In the same field of endeavor Lauridsen et al. teach NTN coverage that varies based on time (Lauridsen et al. disclose that mobile non-terrestrial access nodes (LEO satellites) follow periodic orbits such that their coverage of a given area is time-dependent (column 1 lines 22-28: “LEO satellites…provide wireless coverage to wireless devices from their respective trajectories above the earth surface. Since the LEO satellites and HAPS are moving relative to the earth their coverage area is also changing”; column 2 lines 24-30: “if the determined coverage availability estimates indicate a periodic coverage of the mobile non-terrestrial access node…on the basis of a time period according to a periodicity”). Coverage availability is determined in association with time-periodic satellite passes (FIG. 9: periodic availability windows 904; column 8 line 34 to column 9 line 27: ephemeris data determines satellite position as function of time)).
The motivation to combine Lauridsen et al. is as set forth in the rejection of Claim 2
above, with the additional rationale that incorporating Lauridsen et al.’s time-dependent NTN coverage availability into the joint TN/NTN configuration determination enables the system to account for satellite orbital periodicity, ensuring that the configuration matches actual NTN availability at the predicted time of UE travel through each region along the route.
Consider claims 7 and 19, and as applied to claims 6 and 18 above, Christopherson et al., as modified by Altman, O’Connell et al., and Lauridsen et al. disclose the claimed invention with Lauridsen et al. also disclosing wherein determining the joint TN/NTN wireless communication configuration comprises identifying, based on the NTN wireless coverage information and the time of day, a region along the travel route within which wireless coverage of a non-terrestrial network is diminished (Lauridsen et al. disclose determining coverage availability estimates that indicate unavailability or reduced likelihood of NTN coverage at certain geographical locations and times (column 6 lines 51-55: “deployments of the mobile non-terrestrial access nodes…may not provide continuous coverage for a given area on the Earth surface”; FIG. 10: likelihood of coverage 1002 drops below threshold at certain locations/times; column 2 lines 24-30: coverage availability estimates determined on the basis of time periodicity of satellite passes). The coverage estimates are based on signal strength/quality measurements (Claim 1: “based, at least partially, on one or more measurements…of at least one of: signal strength, or a signal quality, of the mobile non-terrestrial access node” (i.e., RSRP, RSRQ measurements). Ephemeris data provides time-based prediction of satellite position and therefore coverage (column 8 line 34 to column 9 line 27)). The route-based, per-region aspect is taught by Altman and O’Connell as discussed in the rejection of Claim 1.
Consider claim 25, Christopherson et al. disclose a method for configuring multi-network
wireless communication of a user equipment (UE) (Abstract; ¶[0011]), comprising:
receiving, from the network node, configuration information indicating a joint terrestrial network (TN)/non-terrestrial network (NTN) wireless communication configuration for the UE (Christopherson et al. discloses that CSM 119 (network node) sends control information and scheduling messages to end device 130 (UE) to establish and configure uplink/downlink connections via terrestrial and satellite resources (¶[0040], [0066], and [0071]). The configuration information indicates the joint TN/NTN configuration (e.g., terrestrial-only, satellite-only, or dual - ¶[0066], FIGS. 3B–3I));
applying the joint TN/NTN wireless communication configuration at the UE during travel (Christopherson et al. disclose that end device 130 adjusts connection and/or route configurations based on information received from CSM 119 (¶[0071]: “The network devices and end device 130 may adjust connection and/or route configurations”));
However, Christopherson et al. do not explicitly disclose:
sending position and destination information from the UE to a network node, indicating a start location and destination location;
the configuration being for a travel route from start to destination;
the configuration indicating a region, along the travel route, in which the UE is to refrain from use of a non-terrestrial network.
Altman teaches:
identifying a travel route and communicating multi-network coverage information for the route (As discussed in the rejection of Claim 1 (¶[0086], [0105], and [0117]–[0119]).
Motivation to combine Altman with Christopherson is as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
However, Christopherson et al., as modified by Altman, do not explicitly disclose:
the UE sending position and destination information to a network node;
the network node returning configuration information that indicates both the joint TN/NTN config and the travel route; and
the configuration indicating a region to refrain from NTN.
O’Connell et al. teach:
sending position and destination information from the UE to a network node (O’Connell et al. disclose that the mobile device provides a starting point/location and a destination point/location to a route computing device 245 or service provider server (¶[0024]: "one or more of (a) coverage information 225, (b) historical data 124 and (c) end user feedback 235 is/are provided to a route computing device 245 accessible via the Internet 240 or on the service provider’s network”; ¶[0029]: “a starting point and an end point may be entered into web site. The web site may then complete the computation of the optimal route…and then return the optimal route to the mobile device”; ¶[0030]: the user “provides the feedback” including starting point and end point to the server via voice input, and “the background server…performs the computation and then returns the optimal route to the mobile phone device 100 along with the starting point and the end point”). The starting point may be the physical location from which the mobile device is carried (Claim 1: “receiving a starting point for a travel route, said starting point being a physical location from which a mobile device is to be carried”));
receiving, from the network node, configuration information for a travel route from the start location to the destination location (O’Connell et al. disclose that the route computing device 245 or service provider server computes the optimal mobile device coverage route and outputs/returns the computed result to the mobile device (¶[0024]: “computation of the optimal coverage route is performed by the route computing device 245 and then outputted…to the mobile device 200”; ¶[0030]: server “returns the optimal route to the mobile phone device 100 along with the starting point and the end point”; ¶[0034]–[0035]: “optimal mobile device coverage route 340 is then outputted to and received by (the user of) the mobile device 100”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Christopherson et al. and Altman with the teachings of O’Connell et al.. O’Connell et al. teach a system in which a mobile device sends start and destination location information to a remote computing device/server, the server computes an optimal coverage route using provider coverage information, and the server returns the computed route to the mobile device for use during travel (O’Connell et al. ¶[0024], [0029]–[0030], [0034], and [0035]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate O’Connell et al.’s UE-initiated request/response paradigm into the combined system of Christopherson et al. and Altman so that the UE can proactively request and receive a pre-computed joint TN/NTN configuration for its planned travel route, thereby reducing real-time control signaling overhead and enabling seamless application of appropriate network configurations during travel (O’Connell et al. ¶[0004]–[0006]; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
However, Christopherson et al., as modified by Altman and O’Connell et al., do not explicitly disclose:
the joint TN/NTN wireless communication configuration indicating a region, along the travel route, in which the UE is to refrain from use of a non-terrestrial network for wireless data communications.
Lauridsen et al. teach:
a region along a route in which the UE is to refrain from NTN use (Lauridsen et al.
disclose that mobile non-terrestrial access nodes (LEO satellites, HAPS) do not provide continuous coverage for a given area on the Earth surface due to their orbital/trajectory movement (column 6 lines 51-55: “deployments of the mobile non-terrestrial access nodes such as LEO satellites…may not provide continuous coverage for a given area on the Earth surface”). Coverage availability estimates associated with geographical locations indicate unavailability of NTN coverage at certain locations (claim 1; column 1 lines 53-56: “coverage availability estimates associated with geographical locations of the mobile non-terrestrial access node”). When NTN coverage is unavailable at a geographic location, the wireless device refrains from connection attempts to the NTN (claim 1: “cause the wireless device to one of: enter a power save mode, or control one or more connection attempts to the mobile non-terrestrial access node, on the basis of a time period according to a periodicity of the determined coverage availability estimates”; column 6 lines 11-18: “when a wireless device should not initiate a connection attempt to the mobile non-terrestrial access node”). FIG. 9 illustrates time intervals 902 of NTN unavailability during which the device refrains from NTN use).
Additionally, Christopherson et al. teach terrestrial-only configurations (FIG. 3D, FIG. 3H; ¶[0066]) where the UE communicates without satellite/NTN resources, which is functionally refraining from NTN use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Christopherson et al., Altman, and O’Connell et al. with the teachings of Lauridsen et al.. Lauridsen et al. teach that non-terrestrial access nodes do not provide continuous coverage at all geographic locations and that a wireless device should refrain from NTN connection attempts in regions where NTN coverage is unavailable (Lauridsen et al. column 6 lines 11-18 and 51-55 and claim 1). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate Lauridsen et al.’s geographic NTN unavailability information into the joint TN/NTN configuration of the combined system such that the configuration indicates regions along the travel route where the UE should refrain from NTN use, because doing so avoids unnecessary power consumption and reduces interference to nearby wireless devices and networks (Lauridsen et al., column 7 lines 7-14: “unnecessary connection attempts, when there is no coverage by the mobile non-terrestrial access nodes, causes interference to nearby wireless devices, access nodes and networks” and “inefficient utilization of the power save mode causes unnecessary power consumption in the wireless devices”).
Consider claim 28, Christopherson et al. disclose an apparatus for configuring multi-network wireless communication of a user equipment (UE) (¶[0051]–[0058]: device 400), comprising:
at least one memory (memory/storage 415 (¶[0055]–[0056]);
at least one transceiver (communication interface 425 including one or multiple transmitters and receivers, or transceivers (¶[0058]); and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and the at least one transceiver (processor 410 connected via bus 405 to memory/storage 415 and communication interface 425 (¶[0051]–[0054])); the at least one processor configured to:
receive, from the network node, via the at least one transceiver, configuration information indicating a joint TN/NTN wireless communication configuration for the UE (As discussed in the rejection of Claim 25 (¶[0040], [0066], and [0071]);
apply the joint TN/NTN wireless communication configuration at the UE during travel (As discussed in the rejection of Claim 25 (¶[0071]).
However, Christopherson et al. do not explicitly disclose:
the processor configured to send, via the transceiver, position and destination information from the UE to a network node;
the configuration being for a travel route from start to destination; and
the configuration indicating a region to refrain from NTN.
Altman teaches:
route-based multi-network communication planning as discussed in the rejection of Claim 25.
Motivation to combine Altman with Christopherson et al. is as set forth in the rejection of Claim 25 above.
Christopherson et al., as modified by Altman, do not explicitly disclose:
UE sending position/destination to a network node;
network node returning config for a travel route; and
the configuration indicating a region to refrain from NTN.
O’Connell et al. teach:
the UE sending start/destination to a network node and receiving the computed route/configuration from that network node, as discussed in the rejection of Claim 25 (¶[0024], [0029]–[0030], [0034]–[0035]).
Motivation to combine O’Connell et al. with Christopherson et al. and Altman is as set forth in the rejection of Claim 25 above.
However, Christopherson et al., Altman, and O’Connell et al. do not explicitly disclose the configuration indicating a region along the travel route in which the UE is to refrain from NTN.
Lauridsen et al. teach NTN coverage unavailability at certain geographic locations and the device refraining from NTN connection attempts in those regions, as discussed in the rejection of Claim 25 (claim 1; column 6; FIG. 9).
Motivation to combine Lauridsen et al. with Christopherson et al., Altman, and O’Connell et al. is as set forth in the rejection of Claim 25 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 2, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, 18, 19, 21-24, 26, and 29 is withdrawn in view of the following references to Christopherson et al. (US 2022/0312301 A1), Altman (US 2021/0114616 A1), O’Connell et al. (US 2010/0036604 A1), and Lauridsen et al. (US 11,083,026 B2). Rejections based on these references were set forth above.
Claims 3, 8, 15, and 20 are 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.
Claims 27 and 30 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) should be directed to Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez whose telephone number is (571)272-7915. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6:15 am to 4:15 pm EST.
SPE 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.
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.
Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez
R.P.G./rpg
/Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2642
August 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights