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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 15-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/021,289 (“Reference Application”).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application
Reference Application
15. A wireless device capable of performing cell selection or reselection in a non-terrestrial network (NTN), the wireless device comprising processing circuitry operable to:
determine whether to perform one or more cell selection or reselection measurements based on a cell selection or reselection criteria, wherein the cell selection or reselection criteria is based on a signal quality of a serving cell and a relationship between the wireless device and a satellite or spot beam of the NTN;
upon determining that the cell selection or reselection criteria for performing measurements is satisfied, perform the one or more cell selection or reselection measurements.
16. The wireless device of claim 15, wherein the relationship between the wireless device and the satellite or spot beam comprises a remaining service time (Tservice) associated with the satellite or spot beam.
17. The wireless device of claim 16, wherein the processing circuitry is operable to determine that the cell selection or reselection criteria for performing measurements is satisfied by determining that Tservice is below a threshold remaining service time value.
18. A wireless device adapted to:
receive, from a network node, information indicating an expected time for the wireless device to be served in at least one cell;
determine whether to perform a cell selection or reselection procedure based at least in part on the information indicating the expected time for the wireless device to be served in the at least one cell, and
wherein when determining whether to perform the cell selection or reselection procedure based at least in part on the information, the wireless device is adapted to determine to perform the cell selection or reselection procedure when the expected time for the wireless device to be served in the at least one cell drops below a threshold.
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 17 (in view of its base claim 15 and intervening claim 16) of the Instant Application, it is clear that all of the claim elements are to be found in Reference Application’s claim 1. The difference between the Instant Application claim 17 and Reference Application’s claim 1 lies in the fact that Instant Application’s claim 17 includes additional elements and thus are narrower in scope. For example, the Instant Application’s independent claim 15 recites an additional limitation(s), “wherein the cell selection or reselection criteria is based on a signal quality of a serving cell” and “perform the one or more cell selection or reselection measurements.” Thus, the Instant Application’s claims 15-17 are, in effect, a “species” of the “generic” invention of Reference Application’s claim 18. As such, the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species.” See MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2) (citing In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2015-16 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Because the Reference Application’s claim 18 is “anticipated” by the Instant Application’s claim 17, the Instant Application’s claim 17 is not patentably distinct from the Reference Application’s claim 18.
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 the 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.
Claims 1, 15-25, 27, 29, 39-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over US 2024/0196294 (hereinafter, “LI”) in view of “NOKIA” (R2-2102015, NPL cited on PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1, LI discloses:
A method performed by a wireless device (device 300) for cell selection or reselection in a non-terrestrial network (NTN) (¶ 0054: [T]he NTN may provide information for assisting the terminal to perform the cell reselection), the method comprising:
determining whether to perform one or more cell selection or reselection measurements based on a cell selection or reselection criteria, (¶ 0081: In step S71, it is determined to measure the neighboring cell, in response to a current moment reaching the first service moment; ¶¶ 0084-0085: In step S81, a service time threshold for the cell reselection is determined. [T]he service time threshold may also be predefined for a cell providing a service. The service time threshold is determined as a threshold for the cell reselection)
wherein the cell selection or reselection criteria is based on a signal quality of a serving cell and . . . ; (¶ 0003: [W]hen performing the cell reselection, the terminal may measure a service quality of a neighboring cell based on a signal quality of a serving cell)
upon determining that the cell selection or reselection criteria for performing measurements is satisfied, performing the one or more cell selection or reselection measurements. (¶ 0086: In step S82, it is determined to measure the neighboring cell, in response to a relationship between the first time information and the service time threshold)
While LI at ¶ 0053 discloses: [T]he NTN performs communication based on a satellite, LI does not explicitly disclose:
a relationship between the wireless device and a satellite or spot beam of the NTN
In the same field of endeavor, however, NOKIA teaches:
a relationship between the wireless device and a satellite or spot beam of the NTN (p. 12, sec. 3: [T]he awareness of cell expiry time shall be considered for cell selection/reselection and . . . consider . . . the distance between the UE and the satellite or cell center)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LI’s cell reselection procedure to consider the distance between the UE and the satellite or cell center as taught by NOKIA, to provide measurements beyond RSRP/RSRQ, such that with cell expiry time, UE would know when to trigger cell reselection procedure even though signal strength from the service cell is good. See NOKIA, at p. 17, sec. 3, Q. 5, Qualcomm comment.
Regarding claim 15, LI discloses:
A wireless device (device 300) capable of performing cell selection or reselection in a non-terrestrial network (NTN) (¶ 0054: [T]he NTN may provide information for assisting the terminal to perform the cell reselection), the wireless device comprising processing circuitry (processing component 302) operable to:
determine whether to perform one or more cell selection or reselection measurements based on a cell selection or reselection criteria, (¶ 0081: In step S71, it is determined to measure the neighboring cell, in response to a current moment reaching the first service moment; ¶¶ 0084-0085: In step S81, a service time threshold for the cell reselection is determined. [T]he service time threshold may also be predefined for a cell providing a service. The service time threshold is determined as a threshold for the cell reselection)
wherein the cell selection or reselection criteria is based on a signal quality of a serving cell and . . . ; (¶ 0003: [W]hen performing the cell reselection, the terminal may measure a service quality of a neighboring cell based on a signal quality of a serving cell)
upon determining that the cell selection or reselection criteria for performing measurements is satisfied, perform the one or more cell selection or reselection measurements. (¶ 0086: In step S82, it is determined to measure the neighboring cell, in response to a relationship between the first time information and the service time threshold)
While LI at ¶ 0053 discloses: [T]he NTN performs communication based on a satellite, LI does not explicitly disclose:
a relationship between the wireless device and a satellite or spot beam of the NTN
In the same field of endeavor, however, NOKIA teaches:
a relationship between the wireless device and a satellite or spot beam of the NTN (p. 12, sec. 3: [T]he awareness of cell expiry time shall be considered for cell selection/reselection and . . . consider . . . the distance between the UE and the satellite or cell center)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LI’s cell reselection procedure to consider the distance between the UE and the satellite or cell center as taught by NOKIA, to provide measurements beyond RSRP/RSRQ, such that with cell expiry time, UE would know when to trigger cell reselection procedure even though signal strength from the service cell is good. See NOKIA, at p. 17, sec. 3, Q. 5, Qualcomm comment.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of LI and NOKIA, as applied above, renders obvious the wireless device of claim 15. LI further discloses:
wherein the relationship between the wireless device and the satellite or spot beam comprises a remaining service time (Tservice) associated with the satellite or spot beam. (¶ 0162: [T]he first message includes time information for triggering a terminal to perform a cell reselection. The time information may include at least one of time information when a serving cell may provide a service, time information when a serving cell stops a service, and time information of a neighboring cell that is about to provide a service)
Regarding claim 17, the combination of LI and NOKIA, as applied above, renders obvious the wireless device of claim 16. LI further discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to determine that the cell selection or reselection criteria for performing measurements is satisfied by determining that Tservice is below a threshold remaining service time value. (¶¶ 0084-0086: In step S81, a service time threshold for the cell reselection is determined. [T]he service time threshold may also be predefined for a cell providing a service. The service time threshold is determined as a threshold for the cell reselection. In step S82, it is determined to measure the neighboring cell, in response to a relationship between the first time information and the service time threshold)
Regarding claim 18, the combination of LI and NOKIA, as applied above, renders obvious the wireless device of claim 16. LI further discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to determine that the cell selection or reselection criteria for performing measurements is satisfied by determining that Tservice is below a threshold remaining service time value regardless of the signal quality of the serving cell. (¶ 0068: [E]ven if the signal quality of the serving cell is higher than a predefined signal quality threshold, the measurement is performed based on time information)
Regarding claim 19, the combination of LI and NOKIA, as applied above, renders obvious the wireless device of claim 16. LI does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to determine that the cell selection or reselection criteria for performing measurements is not satisfied by determining that Tservice is above a threshold remaining service time value.
In the same field of endeavor, however, NOKIA teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to determine that the cell selection or reselection criteria for performing measurements is not satisfied by determining that Tservice is above a threshold remaining service time value. (p. 17, Question 5, ZTE comment: [A] TIntraSearch and a TnonIntraSearch can be configured to UE. UE will start to perform intra-frequency measurements when the remaining valid time of the current cell Tremaining <= TIntraSearch before the Srxlev <= SIntraSearchP or SSqual <= SIntraSearchQ is fullfiled)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LI’s cell reselection procedure to provide a threshold of the remaining valid time of the current cell, such that UE will not start performing measurements when that threshold is not reached, i.e., Tremaining > TIntraSearch. See NOKIA, at p. 17, sec. 3, Q. 5, ZTE comment.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of LI, as applied above, renders obvious the wireless device of claim 16. LI does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to determine that the cell selection or reselection criteria for performing measurements is not satisfied by determining that Tservice is above a threshold remaining service time value regardless of the signal quality of the serving cell.
In the same field of endeavor, however, NOKIA teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to determine that the cell selection or reselection criteria for performing measurements is not satisfied by determining that Tservice is above a threshold remaining service time value regardless of the signal quality of the serving cell. (p. 17, sec. 3, Q. 5, Qualcomm comment: With cell expiry time, UE would know when to trigger cell reselection procedure even though signal strength from the service cell is good)
Regarding claim 21, the combination of LI and NOKIA, as applied above, renders obvious the wireless device of claim 16. LI does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the threshold remaining service time equals an amount of coexistence time between two satellites or spot beams.
In the same field of endeavor, however, NOKIA teaches:
wherein the threshold remaining service time equals an amount of coexistence time between two satellites or spot beams. (p. 20, sec. 3, Q. 6, ZTE comment: Configure a Threshold of the distance between UE and the satellite/cell center and only neighbor cells with distance shorter than the Threshold will be considered during cell selection or reselection; p. 21, sec. 3, Q. 6, Convida comment: UE location can be leveraged for cell (re)selection and measurement triggers, along with satellite ephemeris, to assist in IDLE procedures. This assistance information, depending on implementation can aid in determining, e.g., relative UE distance to cell centre, cell edge, and/or distance to satellite)
Regarding claim 22, the combination of LI and NOKIA, as applied above, renders obvious the wireless device of claim 15. LI does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the relationship between the wireless device and the satellite or spot beam comprises a location of the wireless device.
In the same field of endeavor, however, NOKIA teaches:
wherein the relationship between the wireless device and the satellite or spot beam comprises a location of the wireless device. (p. 21, sec. 3, Q. 6, Convida comment: UE location can be leveraged for cell (re)selection and measurement triggers, along with satellite ephemeris, to assist in IDLE procedures. This assistance information, depending on implementation can aid in determining, e.g., relative UE distance to cell centre, cell edge, and/or distance to satellite)
Regarding claim 23, the combination of LI and NOKIA, as applied above, renders obvious the wireless device of claim 22. LI does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to determine whether the cell selection or reselection criteria for performing measurements is satisfied by determining whether the wireless device is located within a designated coverage area.
In the same field of endeavor, however, NOKIA teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to determine whether the cell selection or reselection criteria for performing measurements is satisfied by determining whether the wireless device is located within a designated coverage area. (p. 21, sec. 3, Q. 6, Convida comment: UE location can be leveraged for cell (re)selection and measurement triggers, along with satellite ephemeris, to assist in IDLE procedures. This assistance information, depending on implementation can aid in determining, e.g., relative UE distance to cell centre, cell edge, and/or distance to satellite; p. 14, sec. 3, Q. 4, InterDigital comment: [T]ime the UE is within cell coverage will vary depending on UE location relative to cell centre. In this case other information such as cell centre coordinates might be required for UE to calculate; p. 15, sec. 3, Q. 4, Rakuten Mobile comment: UE’s at different location of a cell will experience different serving cell time)
Regarding claim 24, the combination of LI and NOKIA, as applied above, renders obvious the wireless device of claim 22. LI does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to determine whether the cell selection or reselection criteria for performing measurements is satisfied by determining whether the wireless device is located within a threshold distance of a center of the serving cell.
In the same field of endeavor, however, NOKIA teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to determine whether the cell selection or reselection criteria for performing measurements is satisfied by determining whether the wireless device is located within a threshold distance of a center of the serving cell. (p. 21, sec. 3, Q. 6, Convida comment: UE location can be leveraged for cell (re)selection and measurement triggers, along with satellite ephemeris, to assist in IDLE procedures. This assistance information, depending on implementation can aid in determining, e.g., relative UE distance to cell centre, cell edge, and/or distance to satellite)
Regarding claim 25, the combination of LI and NOKIA, as applied above, renders obvious the wireless device of claim 22. LI does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to determine whether the cell selection or reselection criteria for performing measurements is satisfied by determining whether the wireless device is located within a threshold distance of an edge of the serving cell.
In the same field of endeavor, however, NOKIA teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to determine whether the cell selection or reselection criteria for performing measurements is satisfied by determining whether the wireless device is located within a threshold distance of an edge of the serving cell. (p. 21, sec. 3, Q. 6, ETRI comment: The UE location will be help in cell re-selection for UEs on the edge of cell; Id., Convida comment: UE location can be leveraged for cell (re)selection and measurement triggers, along with satellite ephemeris, to assist in IDLE procedures. This assistance information, depending on implementation can aid in determining, e.g., relative UE distance to cell centre, cell edge, and/or distance to satellite)
Regarding claim 27, the combination of LI and NOKIA, as applied above, renders obvious the wireless device of claim 22. LI does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to determine whether the cell selection or reselection criteria for performing measurements is satisfied by determining a direction of movement of the wireless device with respect to a direction of movement of the satellite or spot beam.
In the same field of endeavor, however, NOKIA teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to determine whether the cell selection or reselection criteria for performing measurements is satisfied by determining a direction of movement of the wireless device with respect to a direction of movement of the satellite or spot beam. (p. 15, sec. 3, Q. 4, Panasonic comment: [F]or the Earth-moving scenario, the moving velocity, the cell size, and the centre position of the cell can be used by the UE to determine when the cell is going to leave; p. 14, sec. 3, Q. 4, ZTE comment: One possible solution to let UE aware of the cell expire time is to provide the cell deployment information of each satellite as part of ephemeris information and let UE derive the expire time of each cell;
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
Regarding claim 29, LI discloses:
A method performed by a wireless device (device 300) for cell selection or reselection in a non-terrestrial network (NTN) (¶ 0054: [T]he NTN may provide information for assisting the terminal to perform the cell reselection), the method comprising:
ranking one or more cells subject to a cell selection or reselection evaluation procedure, wherein the ranking is based on a signal quality of each cell of the one or more cells and . . . ; (¶ 0115; [T]he R value of each cell is determined and ranked based on the R criterion. The first number of cells ranked in front are selected. For example, according to the ranking of the R values, N cells with the best signal qualities ranked in front are selected)
based on the ranking, choosing one cell of the one or more cells for cell selection or reselection. (¶ 0115: In the N cells with the best signal qualities, a neighboring cell that provides the service for the terminal fastest is determined. In other words, according to the ranking of the R value of each cell, in the N cells with a maximum R value, a cell with the minimum difference between the second service moment at which the service may be provided for the terminal and the first service moment at which the serving cell stops the service is determined as the target cell)
While LI at ¶ 0053 discloses: [T]he NTN performs communication based on a satellite, LI does not explicitly disclose:
a relationship between the wireless device and a satellite or spot beam of each cell of the one or more cells
In the same field of endeavor, however, NOKIA teaches:
a relationship between the wireless device and a satellite or spot beam of each cell of the one or more cells (p. 19, sec. 3, Q. 6, OPPO comment: UE could firstly select N best cells using [legacy] ranking and then among the N best cells, UE selects a target cell with the shortest distance to the cell center)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LI’s cell reselection procedure to consider the distance between the UE and the satellite or cell center as taught by NOKIA, to provide measurements beyond RSRP/RSRQ, such that UE could perform cell reselection based on UE location information. See NOKIA, at p. 17, sec. 3, Q. 5, Qualcomm comment.
Regarding claim 39, LI discloses:
A wireless device (device 300) capable of performing cell selection or reselection in a non-terrestrial network (NTN) ((¶ 0054: [T]he NTN may provide information for assisting the terminal to perform the cell reselection), the wireless device comprising processing circuitry (processor 102) operable to:
rank one or more cells subject to a cell selection or reselection evaluation procedure, wherein the ranking is based on a signal quality of each cell of the one or more cells and . . . ; (¶ 0115; [T]he R value of each cell is determined and ranked based on the R criterion. The first number of cells ranked in front are selected. For example, according to the ranking of the R values, N cells with the best signal qualities ranked in front are selected)
based on the ranking, choose one cell of the one or more cells for cell selection or reselection. (¶ 0115: In the N cells with the best signal qualities, a neighboring cell that provides the service for the terminal fastest is determined. In other words, according to the ranking of the R value of each cell, in the N cells with a maximum R value, a cell with the minimum difference between the second service moment at which the service may be provided for the terminal and the first service moment at which the serving cell stops the service is determined as the target cell)
While LI at ¶ 0053 discloses: [T]he NTN performs communication based on a satellite, LI does not explicitly disclose:
a relationship between the wireless device and a satellite or spot beam of each cell of the one or more cells
In the same field of endeavor, however, NOKIA teaches:
a relationship between the wireless device and a satellite or spot beam of each cell of the one or more cells (p. 19, sec. 3, Q. 6, OPPO comment: UE could firstly select N best cells using [legacy] ranking and then among the N best cells, UE selects a target cell with the shortest distance to the cell center)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LI’s cell reselection procedure to consider the distance between the UE and the satellite or cell center as taught by NOKIA, to provide measurements beyond RSRP/RSRQ, such that UE could perform cell reselection based on UE location information. See NOKIA, at p. 17, sec. 3, Q. 5, Qualcomm comment.
Regarding claim 40, the combination of LI and NOKIA, as applied above, renders obvious the wireless device of claim 39. LI further discloses:
wherein the relationship between the wireless device and the satellite or spot beam comprises a remaining service time (Tservice) associated with the satellite or spot beam. (¶ 0162: [T]he first message includes time information for triggering a terminal to perform a cell reselection. The time information may include at least one of time information when a serving cell may provide a service, time information when a serving cell stops a service, and time information of a neighboring cell that is about to provide a service)
Regarding claim 41, the combination of LI and NOKIA, as applied above, renders obvious the wireless device of claim 40. LI further discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to rank the one or more cells by determining whether Tservice is below a threshold remaining service time value. (¶¶ 0084-0086: In step S81, a service time threshold for the cell reselection is determined. [T]he service time threshold may also be predefined for a cell providing a service. The service time threshold is determined as a threshold for the cell reselection. In step S82, it is determined to measure the neighboring cell, in response to a relationship between the first time information and the service time threshold)
Regarding claim 42, the combination of LI and NOKIA, as applied above, renders obvious the wireless device of claim 40. LI does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the threshold remaining service time equals an amount of coexistence time between two satellites or spot beams.
In the same field of endeavor, however, NOKIA teaches:
wherein the threshold remaining service time equals an amount of coexistence time between two satellites or spot beams. (p. 20, sec. 3, Q. 6, ZTE comment: Configure a Threshold of the distance between UE and the satellite/cell center and only neighbor cells with distance shorter than the Threshold will be considered during cell selection or reselection; p. 21, sec. 3, Q. 6, Convida comment: UE location can be leveraged for cell (re)selection and measurement triggers, along with satellite ephemeris, to assist in IDLE procedures. This assistance information, depending on implementation can aid in determining, e.g., relative UE distance to cell centre, cell edge, and/or distance to satellite)
Regarding claim 43, the combination of LI and NOKIA, as applied above, renders obvious the wireless device of claim 39. LI does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the relationship between the wireless device and the satellite or spot beam comprises a location of the wireless device.
In the same field of endeavor, however, NOKIA teaches:
wherein the relationship between the wireless device and the satellite or spot beam comprises a location of the wireless device. (p. 21, sec. 3, Q. 6, Convida comment: UE location can be leveraged for cell (re)selection and measurement triggers, along with satellite ephemeris, to assist in IDLE procedures. This assistance information, depending on implementation can aid in determining, e.g., relative UE distance to cell centre, cell edge, and/or distance to satellite)
Regarding claim 44, the combination of LI and NOKIA, as applied above, renders obvious the wireless device of claim 43. LI does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to rank the one or more cells by determining whether the wireless device is located within a designated coverage area.
In the same field of endeavor, however, NOKIA teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to rank the one or more cells by determining whether the wireless device is located within a designated coverage area. (p. 21, sec. 3, Q. 6, Convida comment: UE location can be leveraged for cell (re)selection and measurement triggers, along with satellite ephemeris, to assist in IDLE procedures. This assistance information, depending on implementation can aid in determining, e.g., relative UE distance to cell centre, cell edge, and/or distance to satellite; p. 14, sec. 3, Q. 4, InterDigital comment: [T]ime the UE is within cell coverage will vary depending on UE location relative to cell centre. In this case other information such as cell centre coordinates might be required for UE to calculate; p. 15, sec. 3, Q. 4, Rakuten Mobile comment: UE’s at different location of a cell will experience different serving cell time)
Regarding claim 45, the combination of LI and NOKIA, as applied above, renders obvious the wireless device of claim 43. LI does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to rank the one or more cells by determining whether the wireless device is located within a threshold distance of a center of the cell.
In the same field of endeavor, however, NOKIA teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to rank the one or more cells by determining whether the wireless device is located within a threshold distance of a center of the cell. (p. 21, sec. 3, Q. 6, Convida comment: UE location can be leveraged for cell (re)selection and measurement triggers, along with satellite ephemeris, to assist in IDLE procedures. This assistance information, depending on implementation can aid in determining, e.g., relative UE distance to cell centre, cell edge, and/or distance to satellite)
Regarding claim 46, the combination of LI and NOKIA, as applied above, renders obvious the wireless device of claim 43. LI does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to rank the one or more cells by determining whether the wireless device is located within a threshold distance of an edge of the cell.
In the same field of endeavor, however, NOKIA teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to rank the one or more cells by determining whether the wireless device is located within a threshold distance of an edge of the cell. (p. 21, sec. 3, Q. 6, ETRI comment: The UE location will be help in cell re-selection for UEs on the edge of cell; Id., Convida comment: UE location can be leveraged for cell (re)selection and measurement triggers, along with satellite ephemeris, to assist in IDLE procedures. This assistance information, depending on implementation can aid in determining, e.g., relative UE distance to cell centre, cell edge, and/or distance to satellite)
Regarding claim 47, the combination of LI and NOKIA, as applied above, renders obvious the wireless device of claim 43. LI does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to rank the one or more cells by determining a direction of movement of the wireless device with respect to a direction of movement of the satellite or spot beam.
In the same field of endeavor, however, NOKIA teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to rank the one or more cells by determining a direction of movement of the wireless device with respect to a direction of movement of the satellite or spot beam. (p. 15, sec. 3, Q. 4, Panasonic comment: [F]or the Earth-moving scenario, the moving velocity, the cell size, and the centre position of the cell can be used by the UE to determine when the cell is going to leave; p. 14, sec. 3, Q. 4, ZTE comment: One possible solution to let UE aware of the cell expire time is to provide the cell deployment information of each satellite as part of ephemeris information and let UE derive the expire time of each cell;
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over LI in view of NOKIA, and further in view of US 2023/0046490 (hereinafter, “TRIPATHI”).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of LI and NOKIA, as applied above, renders obvious the wireless device of claim 22. LI does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to determine whether the cell selection or reselection criteria for performing measurements is satisfied by determining whether the wireless device is located within a threshold distance of a center of a neighbor cell.
In the same field of endeavor, however, TRIPATHI teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is operable to determine whether the cell selection or reselection criteria for performing measurements is satisfied by determining whether the wireless device is located within a threshold distance of a center of a neighbor cell. (¶ 0284: To implement “Regular Reporting Trigger,” another embodiment of the disclosure uses the distance from the center of a neighbor cell as a standalone quantity. For example, if (distance<Threshold2_Distance_NTN), the UE sends a Measurement Report)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LI’s cell reselection procedure to provide position-based signaling and trigger mechanisms as taught by TRIPATHI, to provide a location relationship of the UE with respect to the cell center of a neighboring cell, such that event-based triggering of handover/cell reselection includes the neighboring cell becomes better than a threshold. See TRIPATHI, ¶ 0330.
Claims 28 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over LI in view of NOKIA, and further in view of US 2018/0049078 (hereinafter, “YANG”).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of LI and NOKIA, as applied above, renders obvious the wireless device of claim 15. LI does not explicitly disclose:
wherein thresholds for evaluating a signal quality of a serving cell are scaled based on the relationship between the wireless device and the satellite or spot beam.
In the same field of endeavor, however, YANG teaches:
wherein thresholds for evaluating a signal quality of a serving cell are scaled based on the relationship between the wireless device and the satellite or spot beam. (¶ 0063: At block 335, UE 115-b may adjust a measurement reporting procedure of other handover parameters to prevent the chances of performing a ping-pong handover. In some cases, the handover parameters may include a signal strength threshold, a signal quality threshold, a TTT timer, or a measurement report scheduling. In some cases, UE 115-b may scale the signal quality threshold or the TTT timer for a serving cell on the list of recent high speed serving cells)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LI’s cell reselection procedure to provide adjustment of a measurement reporting procedure as taught by YANG, to prevent the occurrence of performing a ping-pong handover. See YANG, ¶ 0063.
Regarding claim 48, the combination of LI and NOKIA, as applied above, renders obvious the wireless device of claim 39. LI does not explicitly disclose:
wherein thresholds for evaluating a signal quality of a cell of the one or more cells are scaled based on the relationship between the wireless device and the satellite or spot beam.
In the same field of endeavor, however, YANG teaches:
wherein thresholds for evaluating a signal quality of a cell of the one or more cells are scaled based on the relationship between the wireless device and the satellite or spot beam. (¶ 0063: At block 335, UE 115-b may adjust a measurement reporting procedure of other handover parameters to prevent the chances of performing a ping-pong handover. In some cases, the handover parameters may include a signal strength threshold, a signal quality threshold, a TTT timer, or a measurement report scheduling. In some cases, UE 115-b may scale the signal quality threshold or the TTT timer for a serving cell on the list of recent high speed serving cells)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Garth D Richmond whose telephone number is (703)756-4559. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/GARTH D RICHMOND/Examiner, Art Unit 2644
/KATHY W WANG-HURST/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2644