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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: In claim 18:
a communication unit, configured to receive.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 12-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Li et al. US 2024/0259972 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).
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”).
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) 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 Christopherson et al. US 2022/0312301 A1
Claims 6 and 14:
Li 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 with the teachings of Christopherson to improve the method disclosed by Li 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 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 with the teachings of Christopherson to improve the method disclosed by Li 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 8:
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, applying the satellite selection policy on the satellite selection for establishing a protocol data unit session, or applying the satellite selection policy on the satellite selection for one of an application, a service or a traffic flow.
Christopherson 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, applying the satellite selection policy on the satellite selection for establishing a protocol data unit session, or applying the satellite selection policy on the satellite selection for one of 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 with the teachings of Christopherson to improve the method disclosed by Li 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 Wu et al. US 2021/0385744 A1.
Claim 16:
Li 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 with the teachings of Christopherson to improve the method disclosed by Li 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 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 with the teachings of Christopherson to improve the method disclosed by Li by including the aforementioned feature. The motivation to combine would have been to ensure compatibility across devices and have communication without disruption.
Conclusion
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