Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-9, 12-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. US 2024/0259972 A1 in view of Shi et al. US 2022/0225224 A1.
Claims 1 and 18:
Li discloses a wireless communication method for use in a wireless terminal (See fig. 4a, UE), the method comprising: receiving, from a wireless network node, a satellite selection policy (See para 57, “each of the UEs may receive selection information related to selection of a LEO satellite device or a MEO satellite device from a GEO satellite device serving the UE”), and applying the satellite selection policy on a satellite selection (See para 62, “the determination unit 220 may select one DU device from the multiple DU devices as the DU device serving the user equipment 200”. Also see para 84, CU and DU devices are satellite device).
With regards to claim 18, a memory storing instructions, and a processor in communication with the memory, wherein, when the instructions are executed by the processor (See fig. 14, processor and memory).
Li doesn’t disclose that applying the satellite selection policy on the satellite selection comprises at least one of: applying the satellite selection policy on the satellite selection for accessing a network slice, or applying the satellite selection policy on the satellite selection for establishing a protocol data unit session.
Shi discloses that applying the satellite selection policy on the satellite selection comprises at least one of: applying the satellite selection policy on the satellite selection for accessing a network slice, or applying the satellite selection policy on the satellite selection for establishing a protocol data unit session (See para 345, “based on … local policies (such as security or charging policies), the MN determines that user service data of PDU Session can be carried and transmitted through the LEO satellite radio link”).
Li’s policy for selecting satellite can be modified to include Shi’s selection of LEO satellite based on local policies for PDU session and can be implemented by Li’s UE.
It would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the system of Li with the teachings of Shi to improve the method disclosed by Li by including the feature of selection of LEO satellite based on local policies for PDU session. The motivation to combine would have been to enable security and calculate charges.
Claims 2, 10 and 19:
Li discloses that the satellite selection policy comprises at least one satellite group (See para 57, “each of the UEs may receive selection information related to selection of a LEO satellite device or a MEO satellite device from a GEO satellite device serving the UE”).
Claims 3, 11 and 20:
Li discloses each of the at least one satellite group is associated with one of: a preferred satellite group, an allowed satellite group, or a forbidden satellite group (See para 62, “the selection information may include one DU device or multiple DU devices (for example, ranked according to an order of priority)”).
Claims 4 and 12:
Li discloses each of the at least one satellite group is associated with at least one satellite type (See para 57, “each of the UEs may receive selection information related to selection of a LEO satellite device or a MEO satellite device from a GEO satellite device serving the UE”).
Claims 5 and 13:
Li discloses that the at least one satellite type comprises a geostationary orbit, a medium Earth orbit, a low earth orbit or other satellite type (See para 57, “each of the UEs may receive selection information related to selection of a LEO satellite device or a MEO satellite device from a GEO satellite device serving the UE”).
Claim 9:
Li discloses a wireless communication method for use in a policy control function, the method comprising: transmitting, to a wireless terminal, a satellite selection policy associated with a satellite selection (See para 57, “each of the UEs may receive selection information related to selection of a LEO satellite device or a MEO satellite device from a GEO satellite device serving the UE”).
Li doesn’t disclose that the satellite selection policy is applied by the wireless terminal in the satellite selection for at least one of: accessing a network slice, or establishing a protocol data unit session.
Shi discloses that the satellite selection policy is applied by the wireless terminal in the satellite selection for at least one of: accessing a network slice, or establishing a protocol data unit session (See para 345, “based on … local policies (such as security or charging policies), the MN determines that user service data of PDU Session can be carried and transmitted through the LEO satellite radio link”).
Li’s policy for selecting satellite can be modified to include Shi’s selection of LEO satellite based on local policies for PDU session and can be implemented by Li’s UE.
It would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the system of Li with the teachings of Shi to improve the method disclosed by Li by including the feature of selection of LEO satellite based on local policies for PDU session. The motivation to combine would have been to enable security and calculate charges.
Claim(s) 6-8, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. US 2024/0259972 A1 in view of Shi et al. US 2022/0225224 A1 and Christopherson et al. US 2022/0312301 A1.
Claims 6 and 14:
Li in view of Shi doesn’t disclose that each of the at least one satellite group is associated with a policy scope of applying the satellite selection policy.
Christopherson discloses that each of the at least one satellite group is associated with a policy scope of applying the satellite selection policy (See para 50, “cell-satellite manager 119 may select one available satellite over another available satellite based on the application service and/or a performance metric of the application service. For example, cell-satellite manager 119 may select a satellite of a LEO satellite network over a satellite of a MEO satellite network for an uplink and/or a downlink configuration, which may yield a lower latency and/or provide better support of an application service.”).
Li’s selection can be replaced with Christopherson’s method of selection.
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 system of Li in view of Shi with the teachings of Christopherson to improve the method disclosed by Li in view of Shi by including the aforementioned feature. The motivation to combine would have been to avoid latency and/or provide better support of an application service.
Claims 7 and 15:
Li in view of Shi doesn’t disclose that the policy scope is associated with at least one of a network slice, a data network, a protocol data unit session, an application, a service or a traffic flow.
Christopherson discloses that the policy scope is associated with at least one of a network slice, a data network, a protocol data unit session, an application, a service or a traffic flow (See para 50, “cell-satellite manager 119 may select one available satellite over another available satellite based on the application service and/or a performance metric of the application service. For example, cell-satellite manager 119 may select a satellite of a LEO satellite network over a satellite of a MEO satellite network for an uplink and/or a downlink configuration, which may yield a lower latency and/or provide better support of an application service”).
Li’s selection can be replaced with Christopherson’s method of selection.
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 system of Li in view of Shi with the teachings of Christopherson to improve the method disclosed by Li in view of Shi by including the aforementioned feature. The motivation to combine would have been to avoid latency and/or provide better support of an application service.
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. US 2024/0259972 A1 in view of Shi et al. US 2022/0225224 A1 and Wu et al. US 2021/0385744 A1.
Claim 16:
Li in view of Shi doesn’t disclose that the satellite selection policy is comprised in a session management policy or a user equipment policy.
Wu discloses that the satellite selection policy is comprised in a session management policy or a user equipment policy (See para 78 and 130, “After receiving the transmission capability information of the access network device… The SMF network element determines, according to a local policy, that a PDU session uses LEO satellite communication transmission”).
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 system of Li in view of Shi with the teachings of Christopherson to improve the method disclosed by Li in view of Shi by including the aforementioned feature. The motivation to combine would have been to ensure each session complies with the service agreements and network capabilities.
Claim 17:
Li in view of Shi doesn’t disclose that the satellite selection policy is determined based on at least one of: user subscription information of the wireless terminal, a wireless terminal capability, a radio access technology associated with the wireless terminal, or a local policy associated with an enablement of the wireless terminal to apply the satellite selection policy on the satellite selection.
Wu discloses that the satellite selection policy is determined based on at least one of: user subscription information of the wireless terminal, a wireless terminal capability, a radio access technology associated with the wireless terminal, or a local policy associated with an enablement of the wireless terminal to apply the satellite selection policy on the satellite selection (See para 78 and 130, “After receiving the transmission capability information of the access network device… The SMF network element determines, according to a local policy, that a PDU session uses LEO satellite communication transmission”).
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 system of Li of Shi with the teachings of Christopherson to improve the method disclosed by Li in view of Shi by including the aforementioned feature. The motivation to combine would have been to ensure compatibility across devices and have communication without disruption.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 04/27/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASHIM S BHATTI whose telephone number is (571)270-7748. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at 571-270-3770. 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.
HASHIM S. BHATTI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/HASHIM S BHATTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights