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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 23 July 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 3, 6, 7 and 9 are amended.
Claims 15-20 are newly added. Applicant states that “New claims 15-20 are directed to the nonelected subject matter and are presented in dependent form to preserve their eligibility for rejoinder if the applicable elected claims are found allowable.” The Office refers Applicant to MPEP 806.04(h) and 821.04(a) for rejoinder in species restrictions where there is a generic claim. In the instant Application, the Office notes that no claims were found to be generic, as detailed in the Restriction Requirement mailed 3 March 2026. Further, the Office submits that are no generic claims in the claim set addressed herein.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending; however, Claims 1, 2 and 11-14 are withdrawn from consideration.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claims.
The outstanding rejection of Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 and Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 23 July 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 23 July 2026 with respect to the rejection of Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states: “
“The amended language expressly associates both the candidate core network satellite network element set and the hash algorithm and average allocation rule with the recited determination. Accordingly, claim 6 does not merely recite the names of two techniques in isolation. Rather, it ties those techniques to a particular determination performed by an identified network element, from an identified candidate set, to produce an identified resulting set.
…
The possibility that different implementations may fall within the scope of claim 6 reflects permissible breadth rather than indefiniteness because the claimed actor, source set, determination, techniques, and resulting set are expressly identified. See MPEP §§2173.02 and 2173.04.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. The claim language sets forth the determination of a core network satellite network element set corresponding to the terminal. The claim preamble language further sets forth that this determination is “based on the identifier of the access network satellite network element, the identifier of the terminal, and/or the location of the terminal.” However, the claim language and the specification lack any detail as to how the hash algorithm or average allocation rule are implemented, alone or in combination to accomplish the claimed determination. As the plain meaning of “algorithm” encompasses “a specific step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end” (refer to attached definition of “algorithm”), the claim language and specification lack any description of steps that would be involved in such a hash algorithm in order to perform the claimed determination, given the parameters upon which the determination is based. Similarly, given a plain meaning of “rule” as “an accepted method, custom, or habit” (refer to attached definition of “rule”), the claim language and specification lack any description of any components of the claimed “average allocation rule” that would be involved to perform the claimed determination, given the parameters upon which the determination is based.
Addressing Applicant’s statement that claim 6 reflects permissible breadth rather than indefiniteness, the Office turns to MPEP 2173.04 (emphasis added by the Office):
“But a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. For example, a genus claim that covers multiple species is broad, but is not indefinite because of its breadth, which is otherwise clear. But a genus claim that could be interpreted in such a way that it is not clear which species are covered would be indefinite (e.g., because there is more than one reasonable interpretation of what species are included in the claim).”
As established above, the broadly claimed “hash algorithm” or “average allocation rule” are indefinite because the boundaries of both claim elements are not delineated, either in the claim language or the specification, so as to apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the claim scope. Accordingly, the rejection of Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 23 July 2025, regarding the rejection of Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Citations to Applicant’s specification are taken from the instant application’s pre-grant publication (US 2025/0260480).
Applicant first states that the “satellite network topology” in Ciochina does not disclose “obtaining network topology information of a plurality of core network satellite network elements.” The Office respectfully disagrees. The claimed “network topology information” is not further defined in the claim language so as to require a specific interpretation of the content, format, or structure of the “information.” As such, Ciochina’s disclosure of beam topology, movement related information, and information related to the satellite network topology found paragraphs 0144-0148 reasonably reads on the claimed “network topology information” absent further definition in the claim language. Applicant’s specification, at paragraph 0011, describes a possible implementation of the “network topology information”:
“…network topology information includes at least one piece of the following information: a physical layer parameter of an interface between the plurality of core network satellite network elements, a protocol stack parameter of the interface between the plurality of core network satellite network elements, orchestration information of a satellite in which the plurality of core network satellite network elements are located, and load information of the plurality of core network satellite network elements.”
As can be seen from the above passage, the “network topology information” relates to parameters associated with the functioning of the satellite network topology. To this further end, As such, Ciochina’s disclosure of beam topology, movement related information, and information related to the satellite network topology found paragraphs 0144-0148 reasonably reads on the claimed “network topology information” given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification without unnecessarily importing limitations that do not appear in the claim language.
Applicant further states:
“The Office Action next relies on paragraphs [0128]-[0130] as allegedly disclosing "determining a candidate core network satellite network element set based on a location area in which the access network satellite network element is located," as claimed. Those paragraphs instead discuss beam reference points, distances between the user equipment and the beam reference points, and thresholds used to evaluate candidate beams. The relevant location is therefore the location of the user equipment relative to a beam footprint or reference point, not a location area in which the access network satellite network element is located.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. The Office first notes that the “location area in which the access network satellite network element is located” is not further described in the claim language so as to require a specific interpretation. As disclosed in paragraphs 0128-0130 of Ciochina, the UE receives assistance information assembled by the base station (as shown by paragraph 0122) that includes quality and/or distance thresholds related to satellites and satellite beams that cover the location of the user equipment; further, different thresholds can be set within a same beam, and the UE can pick which one to use depending on its location, for example the UE can use different thresholds when moving towards/away from the beam center or the reference point)determines. As the UE receives this information from the base station (located on a satellite as disclosed at paragraph 0088), the assistance information is therefore tied to a “location area in which the access network satellite network element is located”, absent further definition in the claim language.
Applicant further states:
“This beam-footprint- based selection of assistance information does not disclose the claimed determination of: (i) a candidate core network satellite network element set and (ii) a terminal-corresponding core network satellite network element set selected from that candidate set. Nor does Ciochina disclose that each element in the terminal-corresponding set corresponds to one core network function.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. The Office first notes that the claim language does not provide further detail as to the “core network function” or any correspondence between the elements in the set, the terminal, and the function. As such, the Office submits that a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as presently drafted, encompasses any manner by which the terminal may communicate with a satellite network element. Accordingly, the Office submits that Ciochina’s disclosure, whereby the UE selects a target beam based on assistance information provided by a base station (located on a satellite as disclosed in paragraph 0088) meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language (see also paragraphs 0155-0156 of Ciochina, where the assistance information is generated via dynamic negotiations made with other base stations and can be about the main base station or other base stations, and can be personalized to the satellite beam whose footprint covers the location of the user equipment). This disclosure shows a correspondence between the terminal’s location (as being within the footprint of the satellite) in order to allow communication via a selected beam (i.e., a correspondence).
Applicant lastly states:
“Ciochina at paragraph [0088] states that a base station may be physically located either within a satellite or at a terrestrial gateway. That disclosure concerns only the possible physical location of a base station. Even assuming, arguendo, that Ciochina's base station is located within a satellite, Ciochina still does not disclose a separate plurality of satellite-deployed core network satellite network elements corresponding to one or more core network functions.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. The claim language solely recites “wherein the access network satellite network element and the plurality of core network satellite network elements are deployed on satellites” without any further description as to whether the elements are on the same satellite or different satellites. As such, Ciochina’s disclosure at paragraph 0088 that the base stations can be located on the satellites reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as presently drafted.
For these reasons, the rejection of Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is maintained.
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 9 and 15-20 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.
Citations to Applicant’s specification are taken from the instant application’s pre-grant publication (US 2025/0260480).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, the claim language has been amended to recite “the first core network satellite network element and the second core network satellite network element are assigned to the different layers.” However, while Applicant’s disclosure, as originally filed, describes the core network satellite network elements “belong(ing)” to different layers (see, for example, paragraph 0036), the manner by which the elements come to “belong” to different layers is not described. Accordingly, the claim language directed to the assignment of the network elements to different layers finds no support in the disclosure, as originally filed. Therefore, this claim language constitutes new matter.
Regarding Claims 15-20, as acknowledged by Applicant in the remarks filed 23 July 2026, these claims “are directed to the nonelected subject matter” and depend from Claim 8, which is part of the claim set directed to the elected subject matter. Independent claim 3, upon which Claim 8 depends, recites “receiving, by an access network satellite network element, an access request from a terminal.” Claim 15, dependent upon Claim 8, recites “sending, by the terminal, a registration request to the second core network satellite network element”. As such, Claim 15 would require both the access request (via parent claim 3) and registration request in the claim scope. However, Applicant’s disclosure, as originally filed, describes the deployment method comprising an access request as a separate embodiment (as shown in Figure 2) to the deployment method comprising the registration request (as shown in Figure 7). There is no embodiment provided in Applicant’s disclosure that describes a deployment method comprising both the access request and registration request. Therefore, inclusion of both the access request and registration request in the scope of a single claim is not supported by Applicant’s disclosure, as originally filed. Accordingly, the subject matter of Claim 15 is found to be new matter. Claims 16-20, which depend on Claim 15 and similarly contain limitations specific to the registration request deployment method, are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claim 15 and for the same reasons as described above for Claim 15.
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 6 is 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. Regarding Claim 6, the claim language recites (emphasis added) “the determining of the core network satellite network element set corresponding to the terminal based on the identifier of the access network satellite network element, the identifier of the terminal, and/or the location of the terminal comprises: determining, by the access network satellite network element from the candidate core network satellite network element set and according to a hash algorithm and an average allocation rule, the core network satellite network element set corresponding to the terminal.” However, as the hash algorithm and average allocation rule refer back to the “identifier of the access network satellite network element, the identifier of the terminal, and/or the location of the terminal”, the claim is unclear as to how the hash algorithm and average allocation rule operate to allow for the claimed determination. Likewise, Applicant’s specification, aside from repeating the claim language, does not further detail steps or calculations (for example) that would comprise the hash algorithm and the average allocation rule. Further, there is no further detail as to how the hash algorithm and the average allocation rule would be used in combination (as claimed) to arrive at the claimed determination. Therefore, in light of the lack of detail provided in the claim language and the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of the claim. As such, Claim 6 is found to be indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 3-5, 7, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ciochina et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0370154), hereinafter Ciochina.
Regarding Claim 3, Ciochina discloses a satellite core network deployment method, comprising:
receiving, by an access network satellite network element, an access request from a terminal (paragraphs 0098 and 0106 – a user equipment performs a random access procedure via a access procedure request);
obtaining, by the access network satellite network element from an interface management function network element, network topology information of a plurality of core network satellite network elements, wherein the access network satellite network element and the plurality of core network satellite network elements are deployed on satellites, and wherein the plurality of core network satellite network elements correspond to one or more core network functions (paragraphs 0122-0123 – a base station sends assistance information to the UE to help the UE anticipate connection conditions within the satellite network (such as position of different reference points associated with one or several satellite beams or cells as described in paragraph 0128); paragraphs 0144-0148 – all base stations store information about the satellite network, including beam topology, movement related information, and information related to the satellite network topology; paragraph 0122 – the base station sends data of assistance information to the user equipment; paragraph 0088 – the base stations BS1 to BS4 shown in Figure 1 can be physically located within the satellite);
determining, by the access network satellite network element, a candidate core network satellite network element set based on a location area in which the access network satellite network element is located and the network topology information, wherein the candidate core network satellite network element set is a subset of the plurality of core network satellite network elements (paragraphs 0128-0130 – the assistance information, received by the UE from the base station, can include quality and/or distance thresholds related to satellites and satellite beams that cover the location of the user equipment; further, different thresholds can be set within a same beam, and the UE can pick which one to use depending on its location, for example the UE can use different thresholds when moving towards/away from the beam center or the reference point); and
determining, by the access network satellite network element from the candidate core network satellite network element set, a core network satellite network element set corresponding to the terminal based on an identifier of the access network satellite network element, an identifier of the terminal, and/or a location of the terminal, wherein each core network satellite network element in the core network satellite network element set corresponding to the terminal corresponds to one core network function (paragraphs 0155-0156 - data of assistance information can also come from the dynamic negotiations made with other base stations and can be about the main base station or other base stations, and can be personalized to the satellite beam whose footprint covers the location of the user equipment).
Regarding Claim 4, Ciochina discloses sending, by the access network satellite network element to the terminal, information about the core network satellite network element set corresponding to the terminal (paragraphs 0122-0123 – a base station sends assistance information to the UE to help the UE anticipate connection conditions within the satellite network; also refer to Figures 3 and 4 at step s13 and paragraphs 0155-0156 for contents of the assistance information).
Regarding Claim 5, Ciochina discloses wherein the network topology information comprises: a physical layer parameter of an interface between the plurality of core network satellite network elements, a protocol stack parameter of the interface between the plurality of core network satellite network elements (Note: this is claimed in the alternative), orchestration information of a satellite in which the plurality of core network satellite network elements are located, and/or load information of the plurality of core network satellite network elements (paragraphs 0122-0123 – a base station sends assistance information to the UE to help the UE anticipate connection conditions within the satellite network (such elements can directly correspond to the identity of said potential satellite beams, but they can also correspond to direction and speeds of beam footprints, satellite location, future positions or successive movements of satellite beams (and thus their beam footprints) on the Earth surface (i.e., orchestration) in the surface zone of said the current satellite beam, which includes the location of the user equipment. Indeed, in a low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellite system with fixed satellite beams, satellites, beams and thus beam footprints move regularly in a predictable way); paragraph 0127 – the assistance information to the UE (provided and obtained by the base station) includes cell load of a given cell; paragraph 0144 – the data obtained by the base station includes ephemeris of the satellite constellation which gives the satellite constellation dynamic (i.e., orchestration); the beam topology, that is, the distribution of beam footprints of satellite beams on the Earth surface; the successive movements and positions of the cells on the Earth surface; and/or any other information relative the satellite network topology; paragraph 0149 - base stations can also receive or compute information about each satellite beam in order to know and anticipate the transmission and physical characteristics of each satellite beams).
Regarding Claim 7, Ciochina discloses switching, by the access network satellite network element, the core network satellite network element set corresponding to the terminal to a target core network satellite network element set (paragraph 0141-0142 – the user equipment selects the beam via which to access the network based on the assistance information provided by the base station); and sending, by the access network satellite network element to the target core network satellite network element set, a context of the core network satellite network element set corresponding to the terminal (paragraph 0150 - negotiations are established by the different base stations through inter-base station interactions. Such negotiations between base stations aim at defining specific zones, thresholds for each satellite beam (or for cells) managed by each base station, such zones and thresholds helping base stations manage an access control to the different beams by user equipment).
Regarding Claim 8, Ciochina discloses wherein the core network satellite network element set corresponding to the terminal comprises a first core network satellite network element and a second core network satellite network element (Figures 1 and 2 – the topology comprises multiple satellites and base stations), the first core network satellite network element and the second core network satellite network element belong to different layers (paragraph 0088 – the base stations can be physically located within the satellite or as part of terrestrial gateways on the Earth surface (i.e., different layers than the respective satellites with different cell coverage), and the first core network satellite network element accompanies the access network satellite network element (Figures 1 and 2; paragraphs 0099-0100 – deployment scenario for a low-earth orbit satellite formation based on movements of the satellite and the user equipment).
Regarding Claim 10, Ciochina discloses wherein the first core network satellite network element and the access network satellite network element form a satellite formation (Figures 1 and 2; paragraphs 0099-0100 – deployment scenario for a low-earth orbit satellite formation based on movements of the satellite and the user equipment), and a spatial location relationship between the first core network satellite network element and the access network satellite network element remains unchanged (paragraph 0099 - the satellite constellation dynamic (and thus the successive movements and positions of the beam footprints) is predictable since satellites follow a deterministic orbit defined when the satellite network and/or the base stations are configured).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciochina in view of Buckley et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20170303133), hereinafter Buckley. Ciochina discloses the limitations of Claim 9, as described above. However, Ciochina does not disclose the first core network satellite network element and the second core network satellite network element are assigned to the different layers based on at least one of: a frequency of invoking a core network function corresponding to the first core network satellite network element or the second core network satellite network element; or a security level of a service associated with a core network function. In analogous art, Buckley discloses this. Specifically, at paragraph 0028, Buckley discloses a base station comprising a security application, that can instruct an electronic device to use a separate base station if the base station is determined to have a security risk. The Office notes that this meets the claimed alternative limitation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ciochina and Buckley. One would have been motivated to do so in order to prevent an imposter base station from maliciously attacking a network (either by unauthorized intercept of data or access by the electronic device (refer to paragraph 0007 of Buckley).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights