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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) filed on 7/14/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2026/0040212 (Gupta et al.) in view of US 2023/0362704 (Edge et al.) in view of US 2022/0159481 (Gao et al.).
As to claims 1 and 11, Gupta teaches a user equipment (UE) (1300, fig 13) in a wireless communication system, the UE comprising: a transceiver (1308, fig 13); and a controller (1304, fig 13) coupled to the transceiver; the controller configured to:
receive satellite coverage availability information (see paragraphs 85 and 115, UE receivers satellite almanac and ephemeris information) from an external server via at least one of a protocol data unit (PDU) session or a short message service (SMS) (see paragraphs 52 and 135, PDU sessions used for communication between AMF and UE),
identify, based on the satellite coverage availability information, a coverage for a satellite communication at a location and a time is available or not (see paragraphs 85 and 94, almanac and ephemeris information used by UE to determine satellite availability),
identify, information on at least one or more public land mobile networks (PLMNs) at a present location of the UE (see paragraph 115, UE has information on PLMNs it may attempt to connect to), and
perform a communication based on the information on the at least one or more PLMNs (see paragraphs 115-117, UE uses PLMN information and almanac and ephemeris information to connect to a PLMN).
What is lacking from Gupta is receive satellite coverage availability information from an external server via at least one of a protocol data unit (PDU) session or a short message service (SMS).
In analogous art, Edge teaches a UE receiving satellite coverage availability information from an external server via SMS (see Edge, paragraphs 270, 316, 487 and 512).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Gupta, so as to reduce resource load on the wireless communication network.
What is further lacking from Gupta is identify, based on the satellite coverage availability information, information on at least one or more public land mobile networks (PLMNs) allowed at a present location of the UE.
In analogous art, Gao teaches the UE receiving configuration information comprising satellite coverage information which includes PLMNs allowed at that location (see Gao, paragraphs 55 and 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Gupta, so as to ensure that the UE only attempts to access PLMNs it is permitted to access.
As to claims 4 and 14, what is lacking from Gupta is wherein the satellite coverage availability information includes a subset area information including at least one of allowed PLMN identifiers (IDs) or not allowed PLMN IDs at the present location of the UE.
In analogous art, Gao teaches the UE receiving configuration information comprising satellite coverage information which includes PLMNs allowed at that location (see Gao, paragraphs 55 and 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Gupta, so as to ensure that the UE only attempts to access PLMNs it is permitted to access.
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 MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 pm.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights