DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to the communication filed on 1/16/2024. Claims 1-19 are pending in this application.
Examiner Note
The examiner is here to serve, to assist, and to help applicant to the very best of his ability. The Primary Patent Examiner position is a position of serving and it is an honor to externally serve the applicant and attorney and to internally serve junior examiners and supervisors. The goal of the examiner is to work with and assist applicant to move cases along as efficiently as possible.
Applicant is encouraged to call examiner to schedule an interview if applicant has any questions about this action, wants to discuss any possible paths forward, has proposed amendments to the claims to run by the examiner, or for any other issues that applicant would like to discuss.
Examiner can normally be reached at (571) 270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov, Monday-Friday, from about 6 AM - 10 PM EST and if your call is missed examiner will try to return call quickly, thank you.
Priority
This application claims priority of GB2110569.7, filed 7/22/2021. The assignee of record is NEC Corporation. The listed inventor(s) is/are: CHEN, Yuhua; GUPTA, Neeraj; IJAZ, Ayesha.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1/16/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “relatively long” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively long” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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)(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.
(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, 7-10, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 3GPP (3GPP TSG RAN WG2 #114-e, R2-2105663, May 2021, included in the file with the 1/16/2024 submission; hereinafter 3GPP663).
For Claim 1, 3GPP663 teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE) configured to communicate via a non-terrestrial network (3GPP663 Title: Discussion on mobility enhancement for IoT NTN), the method comprising:
determining whether to delay or suspend a data transmission, based on at least one parameter for indicating whether the data transmission will be completed before a current serving cell of the UE will stop service (3GPP663 2.1.1 Proposal 1: To capture the following candidate solution to minimise the risk of RLF happening in the TR:
UE delays the RRC connection establishment when it estimates the remaining serving time of the cell is not sufficient to complete the UL data transmission.); and
initiating or resuming the data transmission, before or after the current serving cell will stop service based on the determining (3GPP663 2.1.1 The following agreement was made in NR NTN:
Agreements:
Existing cell reselection principles are considered as baseline and that information about when a cell is going to stop serving the area and information about new upcoming cell can be further considered. In which form and how this is exactly implemented in the cell reselection principles is FFS.
Such information could be used for the UE to postpone the connection establishment when the UE determines that the remaining serving cell time is not sufficient to complete the data transmission, e.g. in the LEO with moving beam scenario.
Before establishing a connection, the UE will have to determine its location using its GNSS capability to estimate and pre-compensate timing and frequency offset with sufficient accuracy for the uplink transmission. It could at this point use the assistance information included in SIB (e.g. the coverage remaining time or the coverage area information) to decide whether it will have enough time to complete the UL data transmission before the cell serving time end.).
For Claim 2, 3GPP363 teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining is performed by determining whether to delay the data transmission to perform cell reselection to a new cell, based on the at least one parameter for indicating whether the data transmission will be completed before the current serving cell will stop service (3GPP363 2.1.1); and
the initiating is performed by initiating the data transmission, before or after the cell reselection, based on the determining (3GPP363 2.1.1).
For Claim 3, 3GPP363 teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the determining is performed based on at least one of: a time parameter relating to the cell reselection; and a time parameter relating to the data transmission (3GPP363 2.1-3).
For Claim 4, 3GPP363 teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the at least one parameter includes one or more of: a time parameter, a QoS parameter associated with data for the data transmission; a data volume; a parameter relating to availability of the new cell; a parameter relating to a movement of the new cell; an offset; a parameter from the network indicating that the UE is allowed to delay data transmission; and a parameter from the network indicating that the UE is allowed to perform early cell reselection (3GPP363 2.1-3).
For Claim 5, 3GPP363 teaches the method according to claim 2, further comprising: performing the cell reselection before the initiating the data transmission in a case where a packet delay budget with data for the data transmission is relatively long (3GPP363 2.1-3).
For Claim 7, 3GPP363 teaches the method according to claim 2, further comprising: performing the cell reselection before the initiating the data transmission in a case where it is determined that a remaining service time of a current cell is less than a threshold and the new cell is available (3GPP363 2.1.1).
For Claim 8, 3GPP363 teaches the method according to claim 2, further comprising: performing the cell reselection before the initiating the data transmission based on at least one of: information identifying a direction of a current cell of the UE (3GPP363 2.1.1); and information identifying a direction of the new cell (3GPP363 2.1.1).
For Claim 9, 3GPP363 teaches the method according to claim 2, further comprising: applying, after the cell reselection, a random backoff timer or a predetermined delay timer before the initiating the data transmission (3GPP363 2.1-3).
For Claim 10, 3GPP363 teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining is performed by determining that a radio link failure (RLF) is about to occur with respect to the data transmission in the current serving cell, based on the at least one parameter for indicating whether the data transmission will be completed before the RLF (3GPP363 2.1-3); and the initiating includes proceeding with the data transmission in a new path (3GPP363 2.1-3).
For Claim 17, 3GPP363 teaches a method performed by a network node configured to communicate with a user equipment (UE) via a non-terrestrial network, the method comprising:
transmitting, to the UE, at least one parameter for indicating whether data transmission will be completed before a current serving cell of the UE will stop service, for determining whether to delay or suspend the data transmission and to initiate or resume the data transmission before or after the current serving cell will stop service (3GPP363 2.1-3).
For Claim(s) 18, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 19, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 17 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP363 in view of Periyasamy et al. (US 20180184307 A1, published 6/28/2018; hereinafter Per)
For Claim 6, 3GPP363 teaches the method according to claim 2, 3GPP363 does not explicitly teach further comprising: performing the cell reselection before the initiating the data transmission in a case where an offset indicates to cause the UE to perform an early cell reselection.
However, Per teaches performing the cell reselection before the initiating the data transmission in a case where an offset indicates to cause the UE to perform an early cell reselection (Per ¶ 0090).
Per and 3GPP363 are analogous art because they are both related to networking.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the reselection techniques of Per with the system of 3GPP363 to trigger a handover and reselection to a better cell (Per ¶ 0090).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP363 in view of Sharma et al. (US 20240314664 A1, EP 21168206.7 filed 4/13/2021; hereinafter Sha)
For Claim 11, 3GPP363 teaches the method according to claim 10, 3GPP363 does not explicitly teach wherein the proceeding with the data transmission in the new path includes proceeding with the data transmission in a new cell, after declaring the RLF for the current cell.
However, Sha teaches wherein the proceeding with the data transmission in the new path includes proceeding with the data transmission in a new cell, after declaring the RLF for the current cell (Sha ¶ 0116, 0145-0147, Claim 7 7. A method according to claim 1, wherein the step of determining that the communications device should select a different cell to continue the transmission of the uplink data comprises detecting that a radio link failure, RLF, has occurred as a result of the change in the relative position of the communications device with respect to the coverage region of the first cell, and declaring the RLF.)
Sha and 3GPP363 are analogous art because they are both related to NTN.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the reestablishment techniques of Sha with the system of 3GPP363 to efficiently support communications with devices (Sha ¶ 0005).
For Claim 12, 3GPP363 teaches the method according to claim 10, 3GPP363 does not explicitly teach wherein the proceeding with the data transmission in the new path includes proceeding with the data transmission via a relay device based on the determining. However, Sha teaches wherein the proceeding with the data transmission in the new path includes proceeding with the data transmission via a relay device based on the determining (Sha ¶ 0148, Claim 8).
For Claim 13, 3GPP363 teaches the method according to claim 10, 3GPP363 does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one parameter identifies a specific time, and the method comprises declaring the RLF for the current serving cell at the specific time. However, Sha teaches wherein the at least one parameter identifies a specific time, and the method comprises declaring the RLF for the current serving cell at the specific time (Sha ¶ 0185, Claim 10).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP363 in view of 3GPP (3GPP TR 38.821, V16.1.0, 2021-05, 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Solutions for NR to support non-terrestrial networks (NTN), Release 16; hereinafter 3GPP821).
For Claim 14, 3GPP363 teaches the method according to claim 10, 3GPP363 does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one parameter identifies at least one threshold, and the method comprises declaring the RLF for the current serving cell in a case where:i) a distance between a current location of the UE relative to a location of the current cell is more than a first threshold; and/or ii) a distance between the current location of the UE relative to the new cell is less than a second threshold.
However, 3GPP821 teaches wherein the at least one parameter identifies at least one threshold, and the method comprises declaring the RLF for the current serving cell in a case where:i) a distance between a current location of the UE relative to a location of the current cell is more than a first threshold; and/or ii) a distance between the current location of the UE relative to the new cell is less than a second threshold (3GPP821 9.2 Additional CHO triggering conditions (e.g. location/time based), and adaptation of measurement-based thresholds and events to the NTN environment.).
3GPP821 and 3GPP363 are analogous art because they are both related to NTN.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the threshold techniques of 3GPP821 with the system of 3GPP363 for selecting reasonable values (3GPP821 7.2.2.2).
For Claim 15, 3GPP363 teaches the method according to claim 10, 3GPP363 does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one parameter identifies a data volume threshold, and the method comprises declaring the RLF with respect to the data transmission in the current cell in a case where a data volume associated with the data transmission is more than the data volume threshold. However, 3GPP821 teaches wherein the at least one parameter identifies a data volume threshold, and the method comprises declaring the RLF with respect to the data transmission in the current cell in a case where a data volume associated with the data transmission is more than the data volume threshold (3GPP821 8.7.1.1 maximum number of RLC retransmissions. 7.3.2.2.2).
For Claim 16, 3GPP363 teaches the method according to claim 10, 3GPP363 does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one parameter identifies a time threshold, and the method comprises declaring the RLF with respect to the data transmission in the current serving cell in a case where a time required for completing the data transmission is more than the time threshold. However, 3GPP821 teaches wherein the at least one parameter identifies a time threshold, and the method comprises declaring the RLF with respect to the data transmission in the current serving cell in a case where a time required for completing the data transmission is more than the time threshold (3GPP821 7.2.2.2 RetransmissionTime: In RLC, the retransmission time of RLC SDUs is dependent on the time that it takes for the transmitting RLC entity to retransmit an RLC SDU when it is lost. RLC retransmissions are based on RLC status reporting and these need to be scheduled the way any data need to be scheduled, thus the retransmission time may be difficult to characterize. One simplification for the retransmission time would be retransmissionTime = (RTD (maxRetxThreshold+1). With RTD = (25.77 ms, 541.46 ms) and maxRetxThreshold = (1, 4) we get retransmission times (51.54 ms, 128.85 ms, 1082.92 ms, 2707.3 ms) which rounded up to account for scheduling delays become (75 ms, 150 ms, 1.5 s, 3.0 s).)
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed below, thank you:
i. 3GPP TR 36.763 V0.0.0 (2020-12), Technical Report, 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Study on Narrow-Band Internet of Things (NB-IoT) / enhanced Machine Type Communication (eMTC) support for Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTN) (Release 17); 2020
ii. NPL Caching-Aware Intelligent Handover Strategy for LEO Satellite Networks, Leng 6/7/2021
iii. 3GPP TS 38.304 V16.4.0 (2021-03), 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; User Equipment (UE) procedures in Idle mode and RRC Inactive state (Release 16); 2021
Please see PTO-892 for additional listing of relevant prior art made of record but not relied upon, thank you.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Keller at (571)270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952.
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.
/MICHAEL A KELLER/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446