DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
In remarks and amendments filed 2026-07-20 (“Remarks”), applicant: amended claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 14-16, and 18-20; canceled claims 3, 10, and 13; and added new claim 21. Thus, claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 12, and 14-21 are pending, with claims 1, 11, and 21 being independent claims.
Drawings
Amended drawings have been received. The objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
Specification
The Abstract has been amended. The objection to the Specification is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
The claims have been amended. The objections regarding minor informalities in claims 1-3, 5-11, 15, 16, and 18 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (please see Remarks, p. 13) with respect to independent claims 1 and 11 (and similarly, claims 2, 4-9, 12, and 14-20, which depend from claims 1 and 11) have been fully considered and in light of the amended claims are persuasive. Thus,
the rejections under 35 USC § 102 of claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, 15, and 16 are withdrawn;
the rejections under 35 USC § 103 of claims 6, 17, and 20 are withdrawn;
the nonstatutory double patenting rejections of claims 1, 5, 11, 15, and 16 are withdrawn; and
the prior rejections to claims 8-10, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
However, the amendments raise new issues under 35 USC § 112. Please see the following section Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 12, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended independent claims 1 and 11 (and similarly, new claim 21) now recite: “…switch at least a portion of the communication circuitry from an active mode to a low power mode, in response to transmitting the signal related to the RACH; and switch the at least a portion of the communication circuitry from the low power mode to the active mode to identify a response signal related to the RACH based on expiration of the determined specified time” (emphasis added).
Newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure (please see MPEP § 2163 and § 608.04). A review of applicant’s originally filed disclosure did not yield sufficient support for the newly recited limitation(s) of “a low power mode”.
Specifically, the original claims and the disclosure as originally filed is drawn to an “inactive state” rather than a “low power mode”. The disclosure as originally filed only mentions “low power mode” once, in paragraph 15, and nowhere does it relate or equate the new limitation “low power mode” to the “inactive state” of the original claims; nor does the disclosure recite or suggest the “low power mode” in the context of the specific limitations of the amendments to the claims (i.e., “…switch at least a portion of the communication circuitry from an active mode to a low power mode, in response to transmitting the signal related to the RACH; and switch the at least a portion of the communication circuitry from the low power mode to the active mode to identify a response signal related to the RACH based on expiration of the determined specified time”). Unlike the amended term “active mode” (which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to equate to the “active state” of the original claim language), the new limitation “low power mode” would not be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to equate to “inactive state”, as there could be other “low power modes” that are not considered a fully “inactive state”. In other words, the new limitation “low power mode” is broader than the former limitation “inactive state” and therefore the amended claim language is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed.
Thus, independent claims 1, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Claims 5, 7, 15, 16, and 18 each recited the new limitation “low power mode” with similar lack of support from the disclosure as originally filed and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Claims 2, 4-9, 12, and 14-20 each depend variously from claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 15, 16, and/or 18 and therefore are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Examiner recommends amending the claims to maintain the original nomenclature “inactive state” to overcome this rejection. Examiner further recommends amending the claims to maintain the original nomenclature “active state” (instead of “active mode”) to remain clear and consistent with the rest of the disclosure as originally filed.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 12, and 14-21 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended independent claims 1 and 11 (and similarly, new claim 21) now recite: “…identify a transmission delay time of a satellite based on the satellite being detected; determine a specified time based on the transmission delay time of the satellite and an operation mode of the satellite; transmit, via the communication circuitry, a signal related to a random access channel (RACH) to the satellite; switch at least a portion of the communication circuitry from an active mode to a low power mode, in response to transmitting the signal related to the RACH; and switch the at least a portion of the communication circuitry from the low power mode to the active mode to identify a response signal related to the RACH based on expiration of the determined specified time” (emphasis added).
Newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure (please see MPEP § 2163 and § 608.04). A review of applicant’s originally filed disclosure did not yield sufficient support for these newly recited limitations.
Specifically, though the original claims and the disclosure as originally filed provide support for these various limitations in separate embodiments, examiner was unable find adequate support for the specific combination recited in the amended (and new) independent claims, as demonstrated in the following paragraphs.
The original claims and disclosure as originally filed recite and/or support “…identify a transmission delay time of a satellite based on the satellite being detected; … transmit, via the communication circuitry, a signal related to a random access channel (RACH) to the satellite; switch at least a portion of the communication circuitry from an active mode to [an inactive] mode, in response to transmitting the signal related to the RACH; and switch the at least a portion of the communication circuitry from the [inactive] mode to the active mode to identify a response signal related to the RACH based on expiration of the determined specified time”. Support can be found in originally filed claims 1 and 11, as well as in the disclosure: Figs. 4 and 6, ¶¶0090-0100, and ¶¶0105-0117.
The disclosure as originally filed recites and/or supports “identify a transmission delay time of a satellite based on the satellite being detected; determine a specified time based on the transmission delay time of the satellite and an operation mode of the satellite”. Support can be found in the disclosure: Fig. 5 and ¶¶0101-0104.
However, the disclosure as originally filed does not support the combination of these limitations in a single embodiment, as recited in the amended independent claims. Examiner notes ¶0105, “at least a part of FIG. 6 may include a detailed operation of operation 413 of FIG. 4” and further notes that there appears to be no similar statement supporting the combination of the limitations of Fig. 5 (i.e., identify transmission delay with satellite; identify operation mode of satellite; configure inactive time based on transmission delay with satellite and operation mode of satellite) with those of Figs. 4 and 6 (i.e., transmit, via the communication circuitry, a signal related to a random access channel (RACH) to the satellite; switch at least a portion of the communication circuitry from an active mode to [an inactive] mode, in response to transmitting the signal related to the RACH; and switch the at least a portion of the communication circuitry from the [inactive] mode to the active mode to identify a response signal related to the RACH based on expiration of the determined specified time).
Thus, independent claims 1, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Claims 2, 4-9, 12, and 14-20 each depend variously from claims 1 and/or 11 and therefore are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 12, and 14-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
References Cited
Kim et al. (2005). Method for retransmitting a radio resource control connection request message in mobile communication system capable of providing a multimedia broadcast/multicast service (US 2005/0026597 A1). Filed 2004-08-02.
Wu, Shangbin (2021). Improvements in and relating to random access in a telecommunication network (US 2021/0014905 A1). Filed 2019-03-26.
Wu, Shangbin (2024). Random access in a telecommunication network (US 12,082,255 B2). Filed 2019-03-26.
Zhou, Hua et al. (2022). Random access associated with buffer status reporting (US 2022/0322459 A1). Filed 2022-03-31.
Other Pertinent References
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Bergström, Mattias et al. (2022). Method and apparatus for handling discontinuous reception in a communications network (US 20220210867 A1). Filed 2022-03-21.
Chen, Chun-Chia et al. (2024). Beam management in non-terrestrial networks (US 20240015623 A1). Filed 2023-06-06.
Catovic, Amer et al. (2024). Power saving mode for satellite access (US 2024/0236843 A1). Filed 2022-06-27.
Chen, Yuqin et al. (2025). Non-terrestrial networks with store and forward (US 20250105913 A1). Filed 2024-08-23.
Dong, Xiandong (2023). Data transmission method and apparatus, terminal, network device and medium (US 20230379971 A1). Filed 2020-09-20.
Hwang, Seunggye et al. (2023). Method and apparatus for transmitting and receiving wireless signal in wireless communication system (US 20230032154 A1). Filed 2022-09-22.
Jano, Alba et al. (2023). Energy efficient, rrc state aware uplink radio resource allocation (US 11622388 B2). Filed 2021-03-08.
Jung, Sunghoon et al. (2018). Device-to-device (d2d) operation method carried out by terminal in rrc connection state in wireless communication system, and terminal using the method (US 10154530 B2). Filed 2015-04-23.
Kim, Ji Hyung (2020). Timing synchronization method and apparatus therefor (US 20200351957 A1). Filed 2020-04-30.
Khoshkholgh Dashtaki, Mohammad Ghadir et al. (2025). Positioning sounding reference signal transmission and reception in non-terrestrial networks (US 20250219796 A1). Filed 2025-03-21.
Ryoo, Sunheui et al. (2021). Low power rrc operating method and device (US 20210168603 A1). Filed 2021-02-05.
Tripathi, Nishith D. et al. (2022). Flexible high capacity-radio network temporary identifier (US 11388621 B2). Filed 2020-11-09.
Wigard, Jeroen et al. (2021). Dynamic cell-specific delay for timing scaling in a non-terrestrial network (ntn) (US 20210273717 A1). Filed 2021-02-05.
Yu, Zhi Zhong et al. (2023). Satcom gsm solution directly communicate with gsm phones (US 20230023871 A1). Filed 2022-10-03.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAMUEL H LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)272-5720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571)272-7855. 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.
/SAMUEL H. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights