DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the pending claims, 1-20, received 09 October 2025. Claims 2-5, 8-10, 14-15 and 20 have been withdrawn. Accordingly, the detailed action of claims 1, 6-7, 11-13, 16-19 is as follows:
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 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, 6, 13, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (US 20250254552 A1, hereafter referred to as Li).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a method performed by a terminal for a cell reselection between a TN (terrestrial network) cell and a NTN (non-terrestrial network) cell, the method comprising:
receiving, from a first base station of a serving cell with a first type, system information (Li [0045-0047] teaches a terminal receiving configuration information, wherein the configuration information is received from a network device belonging to one type of network) including reference location information associated with at least one neighboring cell with a second type (Li [0053-0054] teaches the configuration information including each piece of reference information belongs to a different type of network containing the neighboring cell [0055]), and distance information associated with the at least one neighboring cell (Li [0029 and 0047-0048]);
measuring a neighboring cell (Li [0049]) if a distance from based a terminal location to a reference location of the neighboring cell with the second type is smaller than the distance information based on the system information (Li [0059] teaches performing the measurement of the neighboring cell if a distance between the terminal’s position and a position indicated by the reference information is less than the distance threshold indicated associated with the reference information and configured by the configuration information).
Although Li teaches performing neighbor cell measurement to improve the efficiency of the terminal in performing measurement and reselection of a neighbor cell, Li does not explicitly teach the action or behavior of reselecting the neighbor cell, such that Li does not explicitly teach determining to perform a cell reselection based on a result of the measurement.
Tao, in an analogous art, teaches determining to perform a cell reselection based on a result of the measurement (Tao [0084] teaches conducting measurement on the TN cell and evaluating the cell reselection criteria, wherein when the reselection criteria a fulfilled for the TN cell the UE reselects the TN cell [0075]).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Li in view of Tao in order to configure the result of the neighbor cell measurement, as taught by Li, to be used as input to determine whether to perform cell reselection, as taught by Tao.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to improve the efficiency of the terminal in reselecting the neighboring cell (Li [0181]) and enable the terminal to save power and time (Tao [0065, 0068]).
Regarding claim 6, Li-Tao teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Li-Tao teaches the method wherein the serving cell with the first type is the NTN cell, and the at least one neighboring cell with the second type is the TN cell (Tao [0072] teaches a UE camped on a NTN cell, such that the NTN cell is the serving cell [0074] and the cell the UE is close to is a TN cell [0072]).
Regarding claim 13, the claim is directed to the device for executing the method of claim 1. As set forth above, LI-Tao teaches the limitations of claim 1, wherein Li-Tao are combined according to the reasons set forth above regarding claim 1. Additionally, Li-Tao teaches the terminal comprising a transceiver (Li [Fig 5]. Likewise, Tao [0052]); at least one processor (Li [Fig 5]. Likewise, Tao [0052]). The additional limitations of claim 13 do not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 1.
Therefore, the additional limitations of claim 13 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 6.
Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 6.
Claims 7, 11-12, 17-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20250254552 A1, hereafter referred to as Li) in view of Tao et al (WO 2024155459 A2, hereafter referred to as Tao) as applied above regarding claim 1, further in view of Park et al (US 20230224791 A1, hereafter referred to as Park) in view of Li et al (US 20250047368 A1, hereafter referred to as Hu).
Regarding claim 7, Li-Tao teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
However, Li-Tao does not explicitly teach the method further comprising: in case that the serving cell with the first type is the TN cell, and the at least one neighboring cell with the second type is the NTN cell, receiving system information for the cell reselection including at least one RSRP threshold and at least one RSRQ threshold; and identifying whether at least one RSRP or RSRQ of the serving cell is greater than the at least one RSRP threshold or the at least one RSRQ threshold.
Park, in an analogous art, teaches in case that the serving cell with the first type as a TN cell and the at least one neighboring cell with the second type is a NTN cell (Park [0286]), receiving system information for the cell reselection (Park [0283] teaches evaluating the signal of the neighbor cell through discovery, measurement and evaluation and receiving system information [0305-0309] including a threshold value for signal strength [0306-0310]).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Li-Tao in view of Park in order to configure a case that the serving cell with the first type is the TN cell, and the at least one neighboring cell with the second type is the NTN cell, receiving system information for the cell reselection, as taught by Park.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to reduce the battery consumption of the terminal, effectively perform cell search and provide efficient mobility support (Park [0011]).
However, Li-Tao-Park does not explicitly teach system information for the cell reselection including at least one RSRP threshold and at least one RSRQ threshold, and identify whether at least one RSRP or RSRQ of the serving cell is greater than the at least one RSRP threshold or the at least one RSRQ threshold.
Hu, in an analogous art, teaches receiving system information for the cell reselection including at least one RSRP threshold and at least one RSRQ threshold (Hu [0099] teaches a signal quality includes RSRP and RSRQ), and identify whether at least one RSRP or RSRQ of the serving cell is greater than the at least one RSRP threshold or the at least one RSRQ threshold (Hu [0099] teaches determining the signal quality of the serving cell is greater than or equal to a threshold).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Li-Tao-Park in view of Hu in order to configure the system information or signal, as taught by Li-Tao-Park, include at least one RSRP threshold and at least one RSRQ threshold and identify whether at least one RSRP or RSRQ of the serving cell is greater than the at least one RSRP threshold or the at least one RSRQ threshold, as taught by Hu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to enable a terminal device to target cell for cell reselection or handover as soon as possible and improve the communication reliability (Hu [0106]).
Regarding claim 11, Li-Tao-Park- Hu teaches the limitations of claim 7, as rejected above.
Additionally, Li-Tao-Park- Hu teaches the method in case that the at least one RSRP or RSRQ of the serving cell is not greater than the at least one RSRP threshold or the at least one RSRQ threshold, measure the at least one neighboring cell (Hu [0105] teaches the RSRP and RSRQ measurement result of the serving cell is less than the corresponding threshold, performing measurement on the neighboring cell).
Regarding claim 12, Li-Tao-Park-Hu teaches the limitations of claim 7, as rejected above.
Additionally, Li-Tao-Park-Hu teaches the method in case that the at least one RSRP or RSRQ of the serving cell is greater than the at least one RSRP threshold or the at least one RSRQ threshold, measure the at least one neighboring cell (Hu [0099] teaches the RSRP and RSRQ measurement result of the serving cell is greater than the corresponding threshold the terminal does not perform the process of starting or performing the measurement on the neighboring cell).
Regarding claims 17-19, they do not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 7, 11-12.
Therefore claims 17-19 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 7 and 11-12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6-7, 11-13, 16-19 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.
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 SHEAN TOKUTA whose telephone number is (571)272-5145. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 630-430.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 5712727952. 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.
SHEAN TOKUTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2446
/SHEAN TOKUTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights