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 INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-12, 15-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tseng et al (US 2023/0047987 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tseng discloses a method of wireless communication (Fig. 5) performed by a first network node (Fig. 1, UE 106), comprising:
receiving information that indicates an expected unavailability (73rd and 276th paragraphs and Fig. 5, Service Available Period or SAP may be configured to a UE to indicate a stop/pause moment of the service or to indicate when the service may not be available to the UE) of a second network node (Fig. 1, satellite 104) or a network interface (Fig. 6, transceiver 620) between the first network node and the second network node (Fig. 1, UE 106 and satellite 104);
determining, in accordance with the received information, that a state of the second network node or the network interface between the first network node and the second network node is an unavailable state (76th paragraph, after receiving the SAP, UE may calculate, estimate, or monitor available time period which may include the indicated stop time of the associated RAN. Fig. 2 illustrates the determined service unavailable period 208 according to the received SAP); and
maintaining an application layer configuration associated with the second network node or the network interface while the state of the second network node or the network interface is the unavailable state (Fig. 5 and 277th paragraph, UE may maintain Access Stratum layer configuration of the UE while the UE is out of a coverage area of the serving RAN. The AS layer configuration may include UE inactive AS context).
Regarding claim 2, Tseng discloses that wherein the received information indicates a change to the expected unavailability of the second network node or the network interface over time (73rd and 276th paragraphs and Fig. 5, Service Available Period or SAP may be configured to a UE to indicate a stop/pause moment of the service or to indicate when the service may not be available to the UE) in accordance with a movement of a satellite associated with the first network node or the second network node (Fig. 1, satellite 104 is moving out of coverage area of UE 106 or UE 106 is moving out of coverage area of satellite 104).
Regarding claim 3, Tseng discloses that wherein the information that indicates the expected unavailability of the second network node or the network interface is received from an information node periodically (276th paragraph, receiving, from a serving cell, satellite information regarding a coverage area of a serving RAN) or in response to a request from the first network node (alternative).
Regarding claim 5, Tseng discloses prohibiting one or more procedures while the state of the second network node or the network interface between the first network node and the second network node is the unavailable state (79th paragraph, UE stops uplink transmission service and/or downlink reception service when service is not available).
Regarding claim 6, Tseng discloses triggering one or more procedures related to managing the network interface between the first network node and the second network node while the state of the second network node or the network interface between the first network node and the second network node is the unavailable state (83rd paragraph, UE may determine to implement an Idle mode during the service unavailable period 208. In idle mode, UE turns off its transceiver for most of the time to conserve battery power).
Regarding claim 7, Tseng discloses that wherein the received information indicates the state of the second network node or the network interface and a duration associated with the state, a location associated with the state, or a time of a next change to the state (73rd paragraph, SAP may indicate a stop/pause moment of the service, when the service may not be available. SAP may indicate time span in which the service is available).
Regarding claim 8, Tseng discloses that wherein the information that indicates the expected unavailability of the second network node or the network interface (73rd and 276th paragraphs and Fig. 5, Service Available Period or SAP may be configured to a UE to indicate a stop/pause moment of the service or to indicate when the service may not be available to the UE) is associated with a trigger related to one or more of a movement of a satellite associated with the first network node or the second network node, a configured timing, a location associated with a satellite (Fig. 1, location and movement of satellite 104 triggered service available/unavailable periods), or a periodic timer expiring.
Regarding claim 11, Tseng discloses that wherein the information that indicates the expected unavailability of the second network node or the network interface between the first network node and the second network node (Fig. 5, block 502) is associated with a setup message for the network interface or a configuration update message (83rd paragraph, based on service cycle configuration, UE may expect SAPs to appear continuously and/or periodically. Herein, SAP includes service unavailable period).
Regarding claim 12, Tseng discloses determining, in accordance with the received information, that the state of the network interface has changed from the unavailable state to an available state; and communicating with the second network node over the network interface in accordance with the application layer configuration responsive to the state of the second network node or the network interface changing to the available state (Fig. 2, UE transmits uplink data or receive downlink data in service available period 206 in each TP2).
Regarding claim 15, Tseng discloses that wherein communication with the second network node over the network interface is associated with an identifier or a name associated with the second network node (106th paragraph, satellite ID).
Regarding claim 16, Tseng discloses that wherein communication with the second network node over the network interface is associated with a key parameter associated with the second network node (106th paragraph, UE may obtain ephemeris information of satellite).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Tseng discloses an apparatus for wireless communication (Fig. 6), comprising:
one or more memories (Fig. 6, memory 628); and
one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories (Fig. 6, processor 626 coupled to memory 628), the one or more processors individually or collectively configured to:
receive information that indicates an expected unavailability (73rd and 276th paragraphs and Fig. 5, Service Available Period or SAP may be configured to a UE to indicate a stop/pause moment of the service or to indicate when the service may not be available to the UE) of a second network node (Fig. 1, satellite 104) or a network interface (Fig. 6, transceiver 620) between the first network node and the second network node (Fig. 1, UE 106 and satellite 104);
determine, in accordance with the received information, that a state of the second network node or the network interface between the first network node and the second network node is an unavailable state (76th paragraph, after receiving the SAP, UE may calculate, estimate, or monitor available time period which may include the indicated stop time of the associated RAN. Fig. 2 illustrates the determined service unavailable period 208 according to the received SAP); and
maintain an application layer configuration associated with the second network node or the network interface while the state of the second network node or the network interface is the unavailable state (Fig. 5 and 277th paragraph, UE may maintain Access Stratum layer configuration of the UE while the UE is out of a coverage area of the serving RAN. The AS layer configuration may include UE inactive AS context).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng in view of Chen et al (US 2025/0105913 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Tseng discloses indicating service available/unavailable periods to UE for out of coverage area (Figs. 1 and 5). Tseng does not disclose transmitting, to the second network node, a message indicating the state of the second network node or the network interface between the first network node and the second network node. Chen discloses that the UE transmitting to satellite 1008 a message indicating the status of UE operating mode (Fig. 10, block 1060, switching from S&F to normal mode). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include transmitting UE’s switching mode in Tseng’s system, as suggested by Chen, to indicate the operating status of the UE.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng in view of Serravalle, Francesca (WO 2009/022750 A2).
Regarding claim 13, Tseng discloses that UE communicating with satellite (Fig. 1). Tseng does not disclose that wherein communication with the second network node over the network interface is associated with a transport network layer (TNL) identifier associated with the second network node. Serravalle discloses transport network layer identifier of a node (page 18, line 10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include TNL identifier for a node in Tseng’s system, as suggested by Serravalle, to identify a specific application of a node enabling process to process communication.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, 14, 17 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Edge et al (US 2023/0362704 A1), same assignee, discloses reporting generalized unavailability period for access to a wireless network (Figs. 8-9).
Wu et al (US 2024/0187090 A1), same assignee, discloses handling interruption in satellite based communications (Figs. 8-15).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH VU H LY whose telephone number is (571)272-3175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Nick Jensen can be reached at 571-270-5443. 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.
ANH VU H. LY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/ANH VU H LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472