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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 3-10 in the reply filed on 9 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Claims 1-2 at least partially read on the Figure 2 embodiment because Claim 1 recites “receiving, by a terminal from an access network satellite network element, information about a core network satellite network element set corresponding to the terminal”. This is not found persuasive because Claims 1 and 2 are specifically directed to the deployment method involving registration of the terminal in Figure 7, not the access request of Figure 2. The restriction clearly set forth that separate fields of search (e.g., different search strategies and queries) would be needed to encompass two separate deployment methods. Further, the specification clearly shows that Figures 2 and 7 are different satellite core network deployment methods, where Figure 2 does not require a registration request as in Figure 7 and Figure 7 does not require an access request as in Figure 2.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Accordingly, while Claims 1-14 remain pending, Claims 1, 2 and 11-14 are withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 22 January 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 7, 9, and 10 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.
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 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.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim language recites (emphasis added) “wherein the core network satellite network element set corresponding to the terminal one-to-one corresponds to the target core network satellite network element set.” However, it is not clear what is meant by the emphasized language. While the same phrase appears in the specification, no further detail is provided so as to ascertain the scope of the claim language encompassing the correspondence. Therefore, Claim 7 is found to be indefinite.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim language recites (emphasis added) “importance of the core network function.” The term “importance” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “importance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While paragraph 0084 of the specification refers to importance of network functions being high or low, the specification does not further describe a basis on which to ascertain how a network function could be a particular level. Further, the claim recites (emphasis added) “wherein the layer is classified…”. However, Claim 8, on which Claim 9 depends, recites “different layers”. Therefore, it is not clear which of the “different layers” is referenced by the language in Claim 9. As such, Claim 9 is found to be indefinite.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim language recites (emphasis added) “and a spatial location relationship between the first core network satellite network element and the access network satellite network element remains unchanged”. However, as there is no previous recitation of a spatial location relationship (or any corresponding detail relating to the relationship), it is not clear as how such a relationship would remain unchanged. While the specification recites similar language in multiple paragraphs, such as related to Figure 6, no further detail is provided so as to ascertain how the “spatial location relationship…remains unchanged.” Therefore, Claim 10 is found to be indefinite.
In light of the issues highlighted in the rejections above, the claim language will be examined and searched as best understood by the Office.
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)(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 3-5 and 7-10 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 corresponding 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);
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 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, wherein the core network satellite network element set corresponding to the terminal one-to-one corresponds to the 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 9, Ciochina discloses wherein the layer is classified based on a frequency of invoking a core network function (Note: this is claimed in the alternative), a security level of a service (Note: this is claimed in the alternative), and/or importance of the core network function (paragraph 0141-0142 – the user equipment selects the beam (and thereby the corresponding satellite) via which to access the network based on the assistance information provided by the base station).
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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciochina in view of Chen et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0373363), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding Claim 6, Ciochina discloses the limitations of Claim 3, as described above. While Ciochina discloses determining, by the access network satellite network element from the candidate core network satellite network element set, the core network satellite network element set corresponding to the terminal in accordance with an average allocation rule (paragraph 0055 – user equipment with a high degree of priority will select a satellite beam through which an immediate access to the satellite network is possible even if said beam does not have the best (present and/or future) connection conditions (for example, the load of the beam is already high), and such choice is possible based on the assistance information; paragraph 0058 – data of assistance information include information about access capacity levels due to satellite beam loads of the satellite beams, and the user equipment compares access capacity levels of the respective satellite beams; 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), Ciochina does not disclose doing so according to a hash algorithm. In an analogous art, Chen discloses this. Specifically, Chen discloses utilizing a hashed UE ID in order to determining communications parameters for a UE in an NTN network (paragraph 0107). 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 Chen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow UEs to monitor paging opportunities during periods where the UE is out of coverage (refer to paragraphs 0027-0028 of Chen). However, the aforementioned references do not disclose an average allocation rule. In an analogous art, Kumar discloses this.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kumar et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0068504) discloses load balancing in an NTN (paragraph 0114).
Edge (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0046578) discloses 5G satellite access for the UE (paragraph 0117). Also refer to Edge (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0144669) for similar disclosure.
Qaise et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0297147) discloses access procedures for a UE in NTN (Figure 13).
Ferrus et al (“Towards SDN/NFV-enabled satellite ground segment systems: End-to-End Traffic Engineering Use Case”) is directed to path computation in a multi-path satellite-terrestrial traffic optimization scenario.
Jou et al (“Architecture Options for Satellite Integration into 5G Networks”) is directed to integrated satellite/terrestrial network management and orchestration.
Ryu et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0037496) discloses messaging between core network elements in NTN (refer to paragraphs 0178-0180).
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