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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) dated 2024-02-22, 2024-10-16, and 2024-11-19 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informality: it appears that item 811 in Fig. 8 should read “Detect Satellite” (please refer to Applicant’s Specification, ¶0127).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The language should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. Please see MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
in order to make the claims absolutely clear, Examiner notes that – in line 5 of claim 1 and line 1 of claims 2, 3, and 5-10 – “wherein at least one processor” should read “wherein the at least one processor”.
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following minor informality:
in claim 1, line 14 (and in claim 11, line 9), “the inactive time” should read “an inactive time”.
Claims 6 and 16 are objected to because of the following minor informality:
in claim 6, line 4 (and claim 16, line 6), “the switching time point” should read “a switching time point” or “a switching time point associated with the switching the electronic device to the active state”.
Claims 7, 10, 15, 16, and 18 are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
in claim 7, line 6 (and in claim 10, line 3; in claim 15, lines 1 and 3; and claim 18, line 5), “an inactive state” should read “the inactive state”; and
in claim 7, line 8 (and in claim 16, line 3; and claim 18, line 7), “an active state” should read “the active state”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8-10, 19, and 20 are 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.
Claim 8 (and similarly claim 19) recites the limitation "the RRC connection" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the RRC connection” will be read as “an RRC connection” and given appropriate patentable consideration. Examiner recommends amending the claim appropriately.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 8 and claim 20 is dependent on claim 19; thus, claims 9 and 20 are similarly rejected.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the functions related to satellite communication or communication circuits” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the functions related to satellite communication or communication circuits” will be read as “functions related to satellite communication or communication circuits” and given appropriate patentable consideration, i.e., interpreted to refer broadly to any satellite communication or communication functions that the electronic device may perform (e.g., switching the device to an inactive state – which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand as a communicatively inactive state – as required by claim 1).
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the RRC connection request signal” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the RRC connection request signal” will be read as “an RRC connection request signal” and given appropriate patentable consideration. Examiner recommends amending the claim appropriately, whether that be to amend “the RRC connection request signal” to read “an RRC connection request signal”, or to amend claim 20 to depend from claim 19, which would provide proper antecedent basis for the limitation (i.e., claim 18, line 2, “a radio resource control (RRC) connection request message”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, i.e., claim 1. Claims 1 and 10 are compared below:
Claim 1
Claim 10
An electronic device comprising:
The electronic device of claim 1,
a communication circuit; and
at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, operatively connected to the communication circuit, wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to:
wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to
identify a transmission delay time of a satellite based on the satellite being detected;
control the electronic device to transmit, via the communication circuit, a signal related to a random access channel (RACH) to the satellite;
switch the electronic device to an inactive state, based on transmission of the signal related to the RACH; and
switch at least one of the functions related to satellite communication or communication circuits to an inactive state based on the transmission signals related to the RACH.
switch the electronic device to an active state to identify a response signal related to the RACH based on the inactive time configured based on the transmission delay time of the satellite elapsing.
As shown above, the limitations of claim 10 are already included in the claim from which it depends (claim 1). Thus, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - Nonstatutory 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 1, 5, 11, 15, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,082,255 to Wu (“Wu ‘255”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Applicant’s claims 1, 5, 11, 15, and 16 are variously anticipated by claims 1 and 8 of Wu ‘255.
As to claim 1: Wu ‘255, claim 8, compares to claim 1 of the instant application below:
Instant Application, Claim 1
Reference Patent, Wu ‘255, Claim 8
An electronic device comprising:
A terminal in a non-terrestrial network (NTN), the terminal comprising: a
a communication circuit; and
transceiver; and
at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, operatively connected to the communication circuit, wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to:
a controller configured to:
identify a transmission delay time of a satellite based on the satellite being detected;
receive, from a base station of the NTN via the transceiver, system information including a response delay value to accommodate a propagation delay between the terminal and the base station in the NTN, wherein the base station is a satellite,
control the electronic device to transmit, via the communication circuit, a signal related to a random access channel (RACH) to the satellite;
transmit, to the base station via the transceiver, a random access preamble,
switch the electronic device to an inactive state, based on transmission of the signal related to the RACH; and
enter a power saving mode for a period of time determined based on the response delay value, wherein the terminal is inoperable to monitor a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) in the power saving mode, and
switch the electronic device to an active state to identify a response signal related to the RACH based on the inactive time configured based on the transmission delay time of the satellite elapsing.
monitor the PDCCH for a random access response associated with the random access preamble after the power saving mode is over, wherein the response delay value is determined based on a load of the base station and a processing capability of the base station.
As can be seen above, claim 1 of the instant application is broader in scope than claim 8 of the reference patent Wu ‘255. Therefore, claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 8 of Wu ‘255. Any patent granted on claim 1 of the instant application would result in the unjustifiable timewise extension of Wu ‘255. Thus, claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,082,255 to Wu (“Wu ‘255”).
In the instant application, claim 5 narrows the claim 1 limitation “a signal related to a random access channel (RACH)” to a “RACH preamble”, but otherwise comprises substantially the same limitations as instant claim 1. As can be seen above, claim 8 of Wu ‘255 recites the more narrow “random access preamble”. Thus, claim 5 is similarly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,082,255 to Wu (“Wu ‘255”).
As to claim 11: Wu ‘255, claim 1, compares to claim 11 of the instant application below:
Instant Application, Claim 11
Reference Patent, Wu ‘255, Claim 1
A method of operating an electronic device, the method comprising:
A method performed by a terminal in a non-terrestrial network (NTN), the method comprising:
identifying a transmission delay time of a satellite based on the satellite being detected;
receiving, from a base station of the NTN, system information including a response delay value to accommodate a propagation delay between the terminal and the base station in the NTN, wherein the base station is a satellite;
transmitting a signal related to a random access channel (RACH) to the satellite;
transmitting, to the base station, a random access preamble;
switching the electronic device to an inactive state, based on transmission of the signal related to the RACH; and
entering a power saving mode for a period of time determined based on the response delay value, wherein the terminal is inoperable to monitor a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) in the power saving mode; and
switching the electronic device to an active state to identify a response signal related to the RACH based on the inactive time configured based on the transmission delay time of the satellite elapsing.
monitoring the PDCCH for a random access response associated with the random access preamble after the power saving mode is over, wherein the response delay value is determined based on a load of the base station and a processing capability of the base station.
As can be seen above, claim 11 of the instant application is broader in scope than claim 1 of the reference patent Wu ‘255. Therefore, claim 11 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 1 of Wu ‘255. Any patent granted on claim 11 of the instant application would result in the unjustifiable timewise extension of Wu ‘255. Thus, claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,082,255 to Wu (“Wu ‘255”).
In the instant application, claims 15 and 16 narrow the claim 11 limitation “a signal related to a random access channel (RACH)” to a “RACH preamble”, but otherwise comprise substantially the same limitations as instant claim 11. As can be seen above, claim 1 of Wu ‘255 recites the more narrow “random access preamble”. Thus, claims 15 and 16 are similarly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,082,255 to Wu (“Wu ‘255”).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 10-12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0014905 A1 to Wu (“Wu ‘905”).
As to claim 1 (and similarly applied to claim 11), Wu ‘905 discloses an electronic device (Wu ‘905, Figs. 2A and 5, UE; ¶0033 and ¶0041; see also Claims 1 and 15) comprising: a communication circuit; and at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, operatively connected to the communication circuit (Wu ‘905, Figs. 2A and 5; see also Claim 15: the terminal (UE) comprises a transceiver and controller, and ¶0060), wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to: identify a transmission delay time of a satellite based on the satellite being detected (Wu ‘905, Fig. 5, "Response delay information via System Information Block (SIB)" and step S110; ¶0041; see also ¶0033, ¶0039, and Claims 1 and 15); control the electronic device to transmit, via the communication circuit, a signal related to a random access channel (RACH) to the satellite (Wu ‘905, Fig. 5, "Random access MSG 1"; ¶0042; see also Claims 1 and 15); switch the electronic device to an inactive state, based on transmission of the signal related to the RACH (Wu ‘905, Fig. 5, "Random access MSG 1" and step S120; ¶0042; see also Claims 1 and 15); and switch the electronic device to an active state to identify a response signal related to the RACH based on the inactive time configured based on the transmission delay time of the satellite elapsing (Wu ‘905, Figs. 5, step S130, and Fig. 6, items 130 and 150; ¶¶0042-0045; see also Claims 1 and 15).
As to claim 2 (and similarly applied to claim 12), Wu ‘905 discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to identify the transmission delay time of the satellite, based on at least one of reference delay information defined in a standard related to a satellite, timing information received from the satellite, or a transmission delay time based on the orbit of the satellite (Wu ‘905, Fig. 5, "Response delay information via System Information Block (SIB)" and step S110; ¶0041; see also ¶0033, ¶0039, and Claims 1 and 15).
As to claim 5 (and similarly applied to claim 15), Wu ‘905 discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to: control the electronic device to transmit, via the communication circuit, a RACH preamble to the satellite (Wu ‘905, Fig. 5, "Random access MSG 1"; ¶0042; see also Claims 1 and 15); switch the electronic device to an inactive state, based on transmission of the RACH preamble (Wu ‘905, Fig. 5, "Random access MSG 1" and step S120; ¶0042; see also Claims 1 and 15); and switch the electronic device to an active state to identify reception of a RACH response message based on the inactive time elapsing (Wu ‘905, Figs. 5, step S130, and Fig. 6, items 130 and 150; ¶¶0042-0045; see also Claims 1 and 15).
As to claim 10, Wu ‘905 discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to switch at least one of the functions related to satellite communication or communication circuits to an inactive state based on the transmission of signals related to the RACH (Wu ‘905, Fig. 5, "Random access MSG 1" and step S120; ¶0042; see also Claims 1 and 15).
As to claim 16, Wu ‘905 discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the identifying the response signal related to the RACH comprises: switching the electronic device to an active state based on driving the timer expiring (Wu ‘905, Figs. 5, step S130, and Fig. 6, items 130 and 150; ¶¶0042-0045; see also Claims 1 and 15); and identifying whether the RACH response message is received during a first reference time specified based on the switching time point to the active state (Wu ‘905, Fig. 6, items 120 and 140; ¶0044; see also Fig. 1, ¶0032, and ¶0040).
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.
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 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu ‘905 in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0322459 to Zhou et al. (“Zhou”).
As to claim 6 (and similarly applied to claim 17), Wu ‘905 discloses the electronic device of claim 5, wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to: identify whether the RACH response message is received during a first reference time specified based on the switching time point to the active state (Wu ‘905, Fig. 6, items 120 and 140; ¶0044; see also Fig. 1, ¶0032, and ¶0040).
Wu ‘905 does not disclose: control the electronic device to retransmit, via the communication circuit, the RACH preamble to the satellite based on the RACH response message not being received during the specified first reference time.
However, Zhou discloses: control the electronic device to retransmit, via the communication circuit, the RACH preamble to the satellite based on the RACH response message not being received during the specified first reference time (Zhou, Fig. 13A; ¶0172).
Wu ‘905 and Zhou are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communication systems; arrangements for managing radio resources, e.g. establishing or releasing a connection, random access, etc.; and/or transitions between radio resource control (RRC) states. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu ‘905 to incorporate the teachings of Zhou to include: control the electronic device to retransmit, via the communication circuit, the RACH preamble to the satellite based on the RACH response message not being received during the specified first reference time. Doing so would "provide advantages such as reduced power consumption of the wireless device, reduced uplink interferences to other wireless devices, and/or reduce transmission latency of uplink data delivery" (Zhou, ¶0004). Additionally, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Zhou with those of Wu ‘905 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu ‘905 in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0026597 to Kim et al. (“Kim”).
As to claim 20, Wu ‘905 discloses the method of claim 16.
Wu ‘905 does not disclose: further comprising: retransmitting the RRC connection request signal to the satellite based on the RRC connection setup message not being received during a specified second reference time.
However, Kim discloses: further comprising: retransmitting the RRC connection request signal to the satellite based on the RRC connection setup message not being received during a specified second reference time (Kim, Fig. 6, steps 725, 730 'NO', and 715; ¶¶0104-0105; see also ¶0032).
Wu ‘905 and Kim are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communication systems; arrangements for managing radio resources, e.g. establishing or releasing a connection, random access, etc.; and/or transitions between radio resource control (RRC) states. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu ‘905 to incorporate the teachings of Kim to include: further comprising: retransmitting the RRC connection request signal to the satellite based on the RRC connection setup message not being received during a specified second reference time. Doing so would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it merely combines prior art elements according to known methods (i.e., timer T300 which is known by one of ordinary skill in the art to be used for retransmission of RRC connection request message (Kim, ¶0032)) to yield predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 7, 13, 14, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon various rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3 (and similarly applied to claim 13), Wu ‘905 discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to configure the inactive time, based on … the transmission delay time of the satellite (Wu ‘905, Figs. 5 and 6, items 130 and 150; ¶¶0043-0045; see also Claims 1 and 15); U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0236843 to Catovic et al. ("Catovic") discloses multiple operating modes of satellite(s), including bent-pipe and regenerative modes, that would have different signal propagation delays due to different amounts of signal processing (Catovic, Fig. 1 and ¶¶0093-0096), as well as the configuration of an inactive time based on factors such as satellite coverage gaps (Catovic, Figs. 1-4; ¶¶0097-0098); and Zhou also discloses multiple different satellite operating modes and their respective signal propagation delay(s) (Zhou, Figs. 25A-B; ¶¶0294-0296). However, none of Wu ‘905, Catovic, or Zhou, the other cited references, or a thorough search in the art disclose or suggest the specific combination of limitations as required by claim 3 (and similarly claim 13), specifically "…configure the inactive time based on the operation mode of the satellite" (emphasis added).
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and claim 14 depends from claim 13; thus, claims 4 and 14 are similarly objected to.
Regarding claim 7 (and similarly applied to claim 18), Wu ‘905 in view of Zhou discloses the electronic device of claim 6, wherein the at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to: control the electronic device to transmit, via the communication circuit, a radio resource control (RRC) connection request message to the satellite based on the RACH response message being received within the specified first reference time (Zhou, Fig. 13A, Msg 3 1313; ¶0174; see also ¶0165). However, none of Wu ‘905, or Zhou, the other cited references, or a thorough search in the art disclose or suggest the specific combination of limitations as required by claim 7 (and similarly claim 18), specifically "…switch the electronic device to an inactive state based on transmission of the RRC connection request signal; and switch the electronic device to an active state to identify reception of an RRC connection setup message based on the inactive time elapsing" (emphasis added).
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
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