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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rune et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230300700 A1 (hereinafter Rune).
Regarding Claim 1, Rune discloses a user equipment (UE) (e.g., FIG. 7, wireless device 110), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code (e.g., FIG. 7, ¶ [0182] processing circuitry 120, including memory) to cause the UE to:
receive, from a first cell of a non-terrestrial network (e.g., ¶ [0099] a method by a wireless device for cell selection in a NTN; e.g., ¶ [0158] [0159] target cell selection criterion for cell (re)selection… obtained [from] a satellite/gNB… satellite communication network; e.g., FIG. 5, wireless network; e.g., ¶ [0125] Solutions, techniques, and methods are described herein in terms of NTNs… communication between the UE and the satellite/gNB), a broadcast signal (e.g., ¶ [0029] [0131] [0133] cell reselection configured through broadcast system information) indicating respective parameters associated with the first cell and one or more target cells of the non-terrestrial network that are different from the first cell (e.g., FIG. 10, ¶ [0221] In a further particular embodiment, the wireless device 110 obtains additional information. The additional information includes a plurality of RSRP values and/or a plurality of RSRQ values. Each of the plurality of RSRP values and/or RSRQ values is associated with an associated one of the plurality of target cells. The wireless device 110 ranks the plurality of target cells based at least in part on the additional information; e.g., ¶ [0222] In a particular embodiment, the expected time for the wireless device to be served in the at least one cell is one of a plurality of criteria used for determining whether to perform a cell selection or reselection procedure, and the plurality of criteria includes at least one of: RSRP, RSRQ, Signal Interference to Noise Ratio (SINR), Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR), Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI), and pathloss. The wireless device 110 determines whether to perform a cell selection or reselection procedure by comparing one or more of the plurality of criteria to one or more thresholds), the respective parameters associated with cell selection or cell reselection (e.g., ¶ [0016] Cell selection by leveraging stored information, where the UE has stored previously acquired information about frequencies and possibly also cell parameters, which the UE utilizes to streamline the procedure of selection a suitable cell to camp on; e.g., ¶ [0028] Cell reselection involves reselection between cells on the same carrier frequency, between cells on different carrier frequencies, and between different RATs (on different carrier frequencies); e.g., ¶ [0029] The network can configure priorities which govern how the UE performs cell reselection between carrier frequencies and Radio Access Technologies (RATs). The network can further configure threshold-based conditions which must be fulfilled for inter-frequency/RAT cell reselection to take place. The carrier frequency and RAT priorities and the thresholds governing inter-frequency and inter-RAT cell reselection can be configured through the broadcast system information (also see ¶ [0131] [0133], with respect to cell parameters received via broadcast}); e.g., ¶ [0031] Cell reselection to a higher priority RAT/carrier frequency has precedence over a lower priority RAT/frequency, if multiple cells of different priorities fulfil the cell reselection criteria. If multiple cells fulfill the cell reselection criteria on the selected (i.e. highest priority) carrier frequency and this carrier frequency is an NR carrier, the UE reselects to the highest ranked of these cells according to the above-mentioned cell ranking procedure. If multiple cells fulfill the cell reselection criteria on the selected (i.e. highest priority) (non-NR) RAT, the UE reselects to one of these cells in accordance with the criteria that apply for that RAT; e.g., ¶ [0033] When multiple NR cells with equal priority fulfil the cell reselection criteria, including both intra-frequency cells and inter-frequency cells (where the inter-frequency carrier frequencies have a priority that is equal to the priority of the UE's current carrier frequency), the UE uses a cell ranking procedure to identify the best (highest ranked) cell to reselect to. The cell ranking is performed as follows: [0034] For each cell involved in the cell ranking the UE calculates a ranking value (denoted R.sub.n for a neighbor cell and R.sub.s for the serving cell) according to the following two formulae (one for the serving cell and one for neighbor cells):
PNG
media_image1.png
314
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
store the respective parameters associated with the one or more target cells of the non-terrestrial network (since UE leverages stored information about frequencies and possibly cell parameters to select a cell (e.g., ¶ [0016] [0023[), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that UE would store the received information (e.g., ¶ [0029] [0032]) as part of cell reselection procedure);
and perform a cell selection procedure or a cell reselection procedure with a first target cell of the one or more target cells of the non-terrestrial network using stored respective parameters associated with the first target cell (e.g., ¶ [0031] [0033] [0038] [0128] [0157] [0158] UE reselects [cell] in accordance with… criteria [target cell selection criterion for cell (re)selection]).
Regarding Claim 11, Rune discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 1.
Rune discloses wherein, the UE is moving relative to a terrestrial plane (e.g., ¶ [0092] [0094]-[0095] UEs may move at various speeds in a NTN system; e.g., ¶ [0096] normal mobility scenarios), and to perform a handover procedure the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: measure, via a respective frequency associated with each target cell of the one or more target cells (UE leverages acquired information about frequencies and cell parameters (e.g., ¶ [0016])) within a range of a geographic location of the UE (e.g., ¶ [0098] UE can expect one or more cells to serve the wireless device, i.e. to cover the wireless device's location with good enough channel quality (expected time to be served”) [which is] incorporated in the cell (re)selection criteria), a respective reference signal received power value (e.g., ¶ [0036]-[0038] UEs may determine a cell’s RSRP with respect to a threshold; e.g., ¶ [0221] In a further particular embodiment, the wireless device 110 obtains additional information. The additional information includes a plurality of RSRP values and/or a plurality of RSRQ values. Each of the plurality of RSRP values and/or RSRQ values is associated with an associated one of the plurality of target cells. The wireless device 110 ranks the plurality of target cells based at least in part on the additional information); and determine one or more candidate cells for handover from the one or more target cells, wherein each candidate cell of the one or more candidate cells has a respective reference signal received power value that satisfies a threshold (e.g., ¶ [0036]-[0038] UEs may determine a cell’s RSRP with respect to a threshold; e.g., ¶ [0221] In a further particular embodiment, the wireless device 110 obtains additional information. The additional information includes a plurality of RSRP values and/or a plurality of RSRQ values. Each of the plurality of RSRP values and/or RSRQ values is associated with an associated one of the plurality of target cells. The wireless device 110 ranks the plurality of target cells based at least in part on the additional information).
Regarding Claim 21, the claim is directed to a method for wireless communications at a UE, comprising operations that are functionally similar to those performed by the UE of claim 1. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 1 shall be applied to claim 21.
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 2-4 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rune in view of Rune et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20260040251 A1 (hereinafter Rune_251).
Regarding Claim 2, Rune discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 1.
Rune discloses cell reselection to a target cell, but does not expressly disclose to determine the first target cell as a candidate cell for cell selection using the stored respective parameters associated with the first target cell; and establish a second radio link between the UE and the first target cell using the stored respective parameters associated with the first target cell.
Rune_251 discloses determine the first target cell as a candidate cell for cell selection using the stored respective parameters associated with the first target cell; and establish a second radio link between the UE and the first target cell using the stored respective parameters associated with the first target cell (e.g., ¶ [0060] if the handover attempt fails due to, e.g., a radio link failure or expiry of timer T304, the UE will typically perform a cell selection and continue with an RRC re-establishment procedure; e.g., ¶ [0125] CHO [conditional handover] configuration may…be used in a potential recovery procedure, e.g., caused by a radio link failure (RLF) in the source cell followed by a cell selection (as the first action of an RRC connection re-establishment procedure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of cell reselection to a target cell, as disclosed by Rune, with the disclosure of cell reselection to a different cell due to a link failure to a serving cell, as disclosed by Rune_251. The motivation to combine would have been to support location information for mobility in a non-terrestrial network (NTN) (Rune_251: e.g., ¶ [0001]).
Regarding Claim 3, Rune in view of Rune_251 discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 2.
Rune discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: determine a first frequency associated with the first target cell using the stored respective parameters associated with the first target cell; and measure, via the first frequency associated with the first target cell, one or more cell suitability criteria, wherein determining the first target cell as the candidate cell for cell selection or cell reselection is based at least in part on the first target cell satisfying the one or more cell suitability criteria (e.g., ¶ [0013] a suitable cell is a cell that fulfills the cell selection criterion and in which the UEs can receive normal service; e.g., ¶ [0016] Cell selection by leveraging stored information, where the UE has stored previously acquired information about frequencies and possibly also cell parameters, which the UE utilizes to streamline the procedure of selection a suitable cell to camp on; e.g., ¶ [0029] The network can configure priorities which govern how the UE performs cell reselection between carrier frequencies and Radio Access Technologies (RATs). e.g., ¶ [0031] Cell reselection to a higher priority RAT/carrier frequency has precedence over a lower priority RAT/frequency, if multiple cells of different priorities fulfil the cell reselection criteria. If multiple cells fulfill the cell reselection criteria on the selected (i.e. highest priority) carrier frequency and this carrier frequency is an NR carrier, the UE reselects to the highest ranked of these cells according to the above-mentioned cell ranking procedure. If multiple cells fulfill the cell reselection criteria on the selected (i.e. highest priority) (non-NR) RAT, the UE reselects to one of these cells in accordance with the criteria that apply for that RAT).
Regarding Claim 4, Rune in view of Rune_251 discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 3.
Rune discloses wherein the one or more cell suitability criteria comprises one or more of a reference signal received power value of the first target cell, a reference signal received quality value of the first target cell, a cell load of the first target cell, a cell identifier of the first target cell, quality of service parameters of the first target cell, a signal to noise ratio value of the first target cell, the first frequency of the first target cell, a coverage area overlap between the first target cell and the first cell, a public land mobile network or tracking area code of the first target cell, or a status of the first target cell (e.g., ¶ [0016] acquired information about frequencies and possibly also cell parameters; e.g., ¶ [0222] plurality of criteria used for determining whether to perform a cell selection or reselection procedure, and the plurality of criteria includes at least one of: RSRP, RSRQ, Signal Interference to Noise Ratio (SINR), Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR), Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI), and pathloss. The wireless device 110 determines whether to perform a cell selection or reselection procedure by comparing one or more of the plurality of criteria to one or more thresholds [i.e., the citations suggest that one or more cell suitability criteria comprises one or more of a reference signal received power value of the first target cell, a reference signal received quality value of the first target cell, a signal to noise ratio value of the first target cell, and/or the frequency of the target cell]).
Regarding Claim 22, Rune discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 21.
The functional limitations of Claim 22 are similar to claim 2. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 2 shall be applied to claim 22.
Regarding Claim 23, Rune discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 22.
The functional limitations of Claim 23 are similar to claim 3. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 3 shall be applied to claim 23.
Regarding Claim 24, Rune discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 23.
The functional limitations of Claim 24 are similar to claim 4. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 4 shall be applied to claim 24.
Claims 5 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rune in view of Medles et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20250267530 A1 (hereinafter Medles).
Regarding Claim 5, Rune discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 1.
Rune discloses cell reselection to a target cell, but does not expressly disclose wherein the respective parameters indicate a respective master information block (MIB) and a respective system information block 1 (SIB1) for each target cell of the one or more target cells.
Medles discloses wherein the respective parameters indicate a respective master information block (MIB) and a respective system information block 1 (SIB1) for each target cell of the one or more target cells (e.g., ¶ [0026] For UE 110 in RRC Connected mode mobility, handover is the procedure through which the UE 110 hands over an ongoing session from the source cell 131 to a neighboring target cell 132. Before handing over to the target cell 132, the UE 110 needs to obtain the system information (e.g., master information block (MIB) and system information block (SIB)) of the target cell 132. SIB maybe used in NTN for synchronization with the terrestrial network nodes 131, 132).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of cell reselection to a target cell, as disclosed by Rune, with the disclosure of cell reselection utilizing system information of target cell, as disclosed by Medles. The motivation to combine would have been to support timing synchronization for handover in non-terrestrial network (NTN) communications (Medles: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Regarding Claim 25, Rune discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 21.
The functional limitations of Claim 25 are similar to claim 5. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 5 shall be applied to claim 25.
Claims 6 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rune in view of Medles, in further view of He et al, Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN 118055407 A (hereinafter He, using PE@E Search machine translation for citations).
Regarding Claim 6, Rune in view of Medles discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 5.
Rune discloses cell reselection to a target cell, but does not expressly disclose wherein the respective parameters indicate a respective master information block (MIB) and a respective system information block 1 (SIB1) for each target cell of the one or more target cells.
He discloses wherein the respective MIB for a given target cell is indicated via a first string of bits and the respective SIB1 for the given target cell is indicated via a second string of bits (e.g., Page 2: the terminal receives the target information of the target cell in the cell selection or reselection process, wherein the target information comprises at least one of MIB and SIB1; e.g., Page 8: FIG. 3, Step 301, the terminal receives target information of a target cell during cell selection or reselection, wherein the target information includes at least one of MIB and SIB1…. The MIB may include, but are not limited to, at least one of the following parameters: …receiving cell basic physical layer information required by SIB1 (i.e., essentialphysical layer information of the cell), for scheduling parameters of SIB1) [It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that MIB and SIB1 are represented by one or more bits, as is the case in standard format of 3GPP specified networks. Prior art example, Chen et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20100232524 A1, describes MB sent over multiple bits (e.g., ¶ [0029] FIG. 2A shows a format 210 of the MIB in LTE Releases 8 and 9. The MIB includes a total of 24 bits, which include 14 information bits and 10 reserved bits in LTE Releases 8 and 9). It also stands to reason that SIB1 is represented as bits, as well])..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of cell reselection to a target cell, as disclosed by Rune in view of Medles, with the disclosure of cell reselection information sent as system information for the target cell, as disclosed by He. The motivation to combine would have been to support a cell reselection process (He: e.g., Page 2).
Regarding Claim 26, Rune discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 25.
The functional limitations of Claim 26 are similar to claim 6. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 6 shall be applied to claim 26.
Claims 9 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rune in view of Wei et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230354121 A1 (hereinafter Wei).
Regarding Claim 9, Rune discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 1.
Rune discloses cell reselection to a target cell, but does not expressly disclose wherein: the first cell comprises a set of sub-cell sections each associated with a respective geographic coverage area; and a geographic location of the UE is within the respective geographic coverage area of a first sub-cell section of the set of sub-cell sections.
Wei discloses wherein: the first cell comprises a set of sub-cell sections each associated with a respective geographic coverage area; and a geographic location of the UE is within the respective geographic coverage area of a first sub-cell section of the set of sub-cell sections (e.g., ¶ [0136] definition of spatial “sub-cell regions” within the area of geographic coverage corresponding to a cell, there being two or more such sub-cell regions within the serving cell 310).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of cell reselection to a target cell, as disclosed by Rune, with the disclosure of sub-cell sections each associated with a respective geographic coverage area, as disclosed by Wei. The motivation to combine would have been to support determining when a cell change should occur (Wei: e.g., ¶ [0001]).
Regarding Claim 29, Rune discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 21.
The functional limitations of Claim 29 are similar to claim 9. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 9 shall be applied to claim 29.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rune in view of Wei in further view of Akkarakaran et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200266942 A1 (hereinafter Akkarakaran).
Regarding Claim 10, Rune in view of Wei discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 9.
Rune discloses cell reselection to a target cell, Wei discloses sub-cell sections each associated with a respective geographic coverage area, but Rune in view of Wei does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more target cells associated with the broadcast signal and the respective parameters associated with the one or more target cells are based at least in part on the geographic location of the UE being with the respective geographic coverage area of the first sub-cell section.
Akkarakaran discloses wherein the one or more target cells associated with the broadcast signal and the respective parameters associated with the one or more target cells are based at least in part on the geographic location of the UE being with the respective geographic coverage area of the first sub-cell section (e.g., ¶ [0127] At 525, UE 115-d may select the cell based on the received information and the determined geographic position of UE 115-d; e.g., ¶ [0128] UE 115-d may identify, based on the received information and the determined geographic position, a first candidate cell of the set of cells and a second candidate cell of the set of cells and may select the first candidate cell as the selected cell based on determining that the first candidate cell includes one or more RRHs. In some implementations, UE 115-d may receive system information indicating that the first candidate cell includes the one or more RRHs, where the system information is received from the first candidate cell (for example, in a MIB or SIB) or a current serving cell of UE 115-d (for example, in a neighbor-cell or candidate-cell list which may include a cell ID and other information about the first candidate cell, such as the number of RRHs)… UE 115-d may determine a position of itself relative to the one or more RRHs of the first candidate cell and may select the first candidate cell as the selected cell based on determining that the first candidate cell includes the one or more RRHs and the determined geographic position of the UE relative to the one or more RRHs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of cell reselection to a target cell, and sub-cell sections each associated with a respective geographic coverage area, as disclosed by Rune in view of Wei, with the disclosure of target cells based at least in part on the geographic location of the UE, as disclosed by Akkarakaran. The motivation to combine would have been to support interaction of positioning and media access control procedures (Akkarakaran: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Claims 12, 20 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rune in view of Hong, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240205783 A1.
Regarding Claim 12, Rune discloses a non-terrestrial network entity comprising a first cell of a non-terrestrial network (e.g., FIG. 6, network node 160), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code (e.g., FIG. 6, ¶ [0168] processing circuitry 170, including memory) to cause the first cell to: transmit, a broadcast signal from the first cell indicating respective parameters associated with one or more target cells of the non-terrestrial network e.g., ¶ [0158] [0159] target cell selection criterion for cell (re)selection… obtained [from] a satellite/gNB… satellite communication network; e.g., FIG. 5, wireless network; e.g., ¶ [0125] Solutions, techniques, and methods are described herein in terms of NTNs… communication between the UE and the satellite/gNB; e.g., ¶ [0029] [0131] [0133] cell reselection configured through broadcast system information), the respective parameters associated with a cell selection or cell reselection from the first cell e.g., ¶ [0029] The network can configure priorities which govern how the UE performs cell reselection between carrier frequencies and Radio Access Technologies (RATs). The network can further configure threshold-based conditions which must be fulfilled for inter-frequency/RAT cell reselection to take place).
Rune discloses UE trajectory calculations with respect to available ephemeris data (e.g., ¶ [0132]-[0134] [0137] [0217]).
Rune does not expressly disclose the network entity calculating a trajectory of the first cell with respect to a plurality of user equipments (UEs) served by the first cell, the trajectory of the first cell based at least in part on ephemeris information associated with the non-terrestrial network entity; wherein the one or more target cells and the respective parameters are based at least in part on the ephemeris information associated with the non-terrestrial network entity.
Hong discloses calculate a trajectory of the first cell with respect to a plurality of user equipments (UEs) served by the first cell (e.g., ¶ [0140] The source base station may determine to perform handover to the target cell or conditional handover based on one or more of the radio measurement result information, UE position, satellite orbit information, measurement reporting information received from the UE, any assistance information received from the UE and any assistance information received from the core network. For example, the source terrestrial network base station may determine to hand over to the target non-terrestrial network base station. Or, the source non-terrestrial network base station may determine to use conditional handover to the target terrestrial network base station), the trajectory of the first cell based at least in part on ephemeris information associated with the non-terrestrial network entity (e.g., ¶ [0171] The base station may determine the candidate target cell, base station order, and time of the UE by considering or using the UE's location, satellite's trajectory, satellite ephemeris information, information received from the core network, and information requested and received from the candidate target cell. The base station may receive or configure the satellite ephemeris information and candidate target cell/base station order/time for the physical/geographic location/area/region where the UE is located); wherein the one or more target cells and the respective parameters are based at least in part on the ephemeris information associated with the non-terrestrial network entity (e.g., ¶ [0171] The base station may determine the candidate target cell [using] satellite ephemeris information… The base station may receive or configure the satellite ephemeris information and candidate target cell/base station order/time for the physical/geographic location/area/region where the UE is located).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of cell reselection to a target cell, as disclosed by Rune, with the disclosure of a non-terrestrial serving network node calculating a trajectory of the first cell with respect to a plurality of UEs, based at least in part on ephemeris information associated with the non-terrestrial network entity, as disclosed by Hong. The motivation to combine would have been to support UE mobility in a NTN (Hong: e.g., ¶ [0001]).
Regarding Claim 20, Rune in view of Hong discloses all the limitations of the first cell of claim 12.
Rune discloses wherein the non-terrestrial network entity comprises the one or more target cells, one or more second non-terrestrial network entities comprise the one or more target cells, or both (e.g., ¶ [0001] handover target cell selection criterion in a Non-Terrestrial Network (NTN); e.g., ¶ [0219] In a particular embodiment, the information comprises a plurality of values, and each of the plurality of values is associated with an expected time for the wireless device to be served in a respective one of a plurality of target cells).
Regarding Claim 30, the claim is directed to a method for wireless communications at a non-terrestrial network entity, comprising operations that are functionally similar to those performed by the non-terrestrial network entity of claim 12. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 12 shall be applied to claim 30.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rune in view of Hong, in further view of Medles.
Regarding Claim 13, Rune in view of Hong discloses all the limitations of the first cell of claim 12.
Rune discloses cell reselection to a target cell, but does not expressly disclose wherein the respective parameters indicate a respective master information block (MIB) and a respective system information block 1 (SIB1) for each target cell of the one or more target cells.
Medles discloses wherein the respective parameters indicate a respective master information block (MIB) and a respective system information block 1 (SIB1) for each target cell of the one or more target cells (e.g., ¶ [0026] For UE 110 in RRC Connected mode mobility, handover is the procedure through which the UE 110 hands over an ongoing session from the source cell 131 to a neighboring target cell 132. Before handing over to the target cell 132, the UE 110 needs to obtain the system information (e.g., master information block (MIB) and system information block (SIB)) of the target cell 132. SIB maybe used in NTN for synchronization with the terrestrial network nodes 131, 132).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of cell reselection to a target cell, as disclosed by Rune in view of Hong, with the disclosure of cell reselection utilizing system information of target cell, as disclosed by Medles. The motivation to combine would have been to support timing synchronization for handover in non-terrestrial network (NTN) communications (Medles: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rune in view of Hong, in further view of Medles, in further view of He.
Regarding Claim 14, Rune in view of Hong discloses all the limitations of the first cell of claim 13.
The functional limitations of Claim 14 are similar to claim 6. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 6 shall be applied to claim 14.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rune in view of Hing, in further view of Wei.
Regarding Claim 17, Rune in view of Hong discloses all the limitations of the first cell of claim 12.
Rune discloses cell reselection to a target cell, but does not expressly disclose wherein: the first cell comprises a set of sub-cell sections each associated with a respective geographic coverage area; and a respective geographic location of each of the plurality of UEs is within the respective geographic coverage area of a first sub-cell section of the set of sub-cell sections.
Wei discloses wherein: the first cell comprises a set of sub-cell sections each associated with a respective geographic coverage area; and a respective geographic location of each of the plurality of UEs is within the respective geographic coverage area of a first sub-cell section of the set of sub-cell sections (e.g., ¶ [0136] definition of spatial “sub-cell regions” within the area of geographic coverage corresponding to a cell, there being two or more such sub-cell regions within the serving cell 310).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of cell reselection to a target cell, as disclosed by Rune in view of Hong, with the disclosure of sub-cell sections each associated with a respective geographic coverage area, as disclosed by Wei. The motivation to combine would have been to support determining when a cell change should occur (Wei: e.g., ¶ [0001]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rune in view of Hong, in further view of Wei, in further view of Akkarakaran.
Regarding Claim 18, Rune in view of Hong in further view of Wei discloses all the limitations of the first cell of claim 17.
Rune discloses cell reselection to a target cell, Wei discloses sub-cell sections each associated with a respective geographic coverage area, but Rune in view of Hong, in further view of Wei does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more target cells associated with the broadcast signal are based at least in part on the respective geographic location of each of the plurality of UEs being with the respective geographic coverage area of the first sub-cell section.
Akkarakaran discloses wherein the one or more target cells associated with the broadcast signal are based at least in part on the respective geographic location of each of the plurality of UEs being with the respective geographic coverage area of the first sub-cell section (e.g., ¶ [0127] At 525, UE 115-d may select the cell based on the received information and the determined geographic position of UE 115-d; e.g., ¶ [0128] UE 115-d may identify, based on the received information and the determined geographic position, a first candidate cell of the set of cells and a second candidate cell of the set of cells and may select the first candidate cell as the selected cell based on determining that the first candidate cell includes one or more RRHs. In some implementations, UE 115-d may receive system information indicating that the first candidate cell includes the one or more RRHs, where the system information is received from the first candidate cell (for example, in a MIB or SIB) or a current serving cell of UE 115-d (for example, in a neighbor-cell or candidate-cell list which may include a cell ID and other information about the first candidate cell, such as the number of RRHs)… UE 115-d may determine a position of itself relative to the one or more RRHs of the first candidate cell and may select the first candidate cell as the selected cell based on determining that the first candidate cell includes the one or more RRHs and the determined geographic position of the UE relative to the one or more RRHs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of cell reselection to a target cell, and sub-cell sections each associated with a respective geographic coverage area, as disclosed by Rune in view Hong, in further view of Wei, with the disclosure of target cells based at least in part on the geographic location of the UE, as disclosed by Akkarakaran. The motivation to combine would have been to support interaction of positioning and media access control procedures (Akkarakaran: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rune in view of Hong, in further view of Wei, in further view of Vogedes et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240063894 A1 (hereinafter Vogedes.
Regarding Claim 19, Rune in view of Hong in further view of Wei discloses all the limitations of the first cell of claim 17.
Rune discloses cell reselection to a target cell, Wei discloses sub-cell sections each associated with a respective geographic coverage area, but Rune in view of Hong, in further view of Wei does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first cell to: receive a respective tracking area code from each UE of the plurality of UEs, wherein the respective geographic location of each of the plurality of UEs is determined based at least in part on the respective tracking area code from each UE of the plurality of UEs.
Vogedes discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first cell to: receive a respective tracking area code from each UE of the plurality of UEs, wherein the respective geographic location of each of the plurality of UEs is determined based at least in part on the respective tracking area code from each UE of the plurality of UEs (e.g., ¶ [0076] [0240] UE reports all the tracking area code(s) [and it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that TACs are used for management of UE locations (as may be seen in example, Patanakar et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240422635 A1 (e.g., ¶ [0079] A TAC may be used by the wireless network to track a location of a UE)]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of cell reselection to a target cell, and sub-cell sections each associated with a respective geographic coverage area, as disclosed by Rune in view Hong, in further view of Wei, with the disclosure of receiving a tracking area code from each UE, as disclosed by Vogedes. The motivation to combine would have been to support management of terrestrial and non-terrestrial network communications (Vogedes: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, 15-16, and 27-28 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.
Regarding Claim 7, dependent from claim 5, Claim 15, dependent from claim 13, and Claim 27, dependent from claim 25, the prior art of record fails to disclose individually or in combination or render obvious the limitations wherein the respective MIB for a given target cell is indicated via a set of delta MIB parameters relative to a first MIB of the first cell, and the respective SIB1 for the given target cell is indicated via a set of delta SIB1 parameters relative to a first SIB1 of the first cell.
Claim 8, dependent from claim 7, Claim 16, dependent from claim 15, and Claim 28, dependent from claim 27, are also objected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References considered relevant to this application are listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited” (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADISLAV Y AGUREYEV whose telephone number is (571)272-0549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday--Friday (9-5).
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/VLADISLAV Y AGUREYEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2471