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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments, filed on 7/12/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 in the remarks, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Arzelier et al., (US 2018/0220373), (hereinafter, Arzelier) in view of Wu et al., (US 2025/0254657), (hereinafter, Wu).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Arzelier discloses a user equipment (UE) (= device 102, see [0041]), comprising:
a terminal equipment (TE), for providing services to a user of the user equipment (UE); and a mobile termination (MT) (= an application 202 and a modem 204 at a device; and the modem 204 has knowledge of radio coverage condition for the device, see [0047-48]);
wherein the mobile termination (MT) is configured to send to the terminal equipment (TE) an information for indicating a coverage (= AT commands and responses enable sending information or instruction between application/TE and modem/MT through terminal adaptor/TA, see [0048]; and status/radio coverage condition from modem/MT to application/TE, see [0047 and 0049]).
Arzelier explicitly discloses the claimed limitations of: “a discontinuous satellite coverage” and “wherein the information indicates: whether an access-stratum of the user equipment (UE) is deactivated due to the discontinuous satellite coverage or is activated when the user equipment (UE) comes out of the discontinuous satellite coverage, or one or more parameters broadcasted in a SystemInformationBlockType32 (SIB32) or a SystemInformationBlockType32-NB (SIB32-NB)”.
However, Wu, which is an analogous art discloses a claimed limitations of: ““a discontinuous satellite coverage” and “wherein the information indicates: whether an access-stratum of the user equipment (UE) is deactivated due to the discontinuous satellite coverage or is activated when the user equipment (UE) comes out of the discontinuous satellite coverage, or one or more parameters broadcasted in a SystemInformationBlockType32 (SIB32) or a SystemInformationBlockType32-NB (SIB32-NB)”(see [0096 and 0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Wu with Arzelier for the benefit of achieving a communication system that provides an advance knowledge of network coverage information thereby allowing devices and network to prepare for upcoming unavailability network periods and subsequently improving various operations of device in the network.
Regarding claim 2 and 13, as mentioned in claims 1 and 12, Arzelier further discloses user equipment (UE)/method, wherein the information is sent from the mobile termination (MT) to the terminal equipment (TE) using an attention (AT) command (see, [0048]).
Regarding claim 3 and 14, as mentioned in claims 2 and 13, Arzelier further discloses user equipment (UE)/method, wherein the attention (AT) command includes a set command including <n>, and <n> is for controlling a presentation of one or more unsolicited result codes of the AT command (= code-points can be introduced in on AT command from modem to application, in order to notify the application of the radio coverage condition every time the radio coverage condition changes (i.e., unsolicited information), see [0055-56]).
Regarding claim 4 and 15, as mentioned in claims 3 and 14, Arzelier further discloses user equipment (UE)/method, wherein the attention (AT) command includes a read command for returning <n> and <indicator>, and <indicator> is for indicating current coverage status for the terminal equipment (TE) or the user equipment (UE) (= see, [0055-56 and 0058]); but explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of: “indicating current discontinuous coverage status for the terminal equipment (TE) or the user equipment.”
However, Wu, which is an analogous art discloses a claimed limitations of: “indicating current discontinuous coverage status for the terminal equipment (TE) or the user equipment.”(see, [0096 and 0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Wu with Arzelier for the benefit of achieving a communication system that provides an advance knowledge of network coverage information thereby allowing devices and network to prepare for upcoming unavailability network periods and subsequently improving various operations of device in the network.
Regarding claim 5 and 16, as mentioned in claims 3 and 14, Arzelier further discloses user equipment (UE)/method, wherein in <n>, “0” is used to disable presentation of the one or more unsolicited result codes of the AT command (see, [0055-56]).
Regarding claim 6 and 17, as mentioned in claims 3 and 14, Arzelier further discloses user equipment (UE)/method, , wherein in <n>, “1” is used to enable presentation of the one or more unsolicited result codes of the AT command (see, [0056]).
Regarding claim 7 and 18, as mentioned in claims 3 and 14, Arzelier explicitly fails to disclose the user equipment (UE)/method, wherein in <indicator>, “0” is used to indicate that the user equipment (UE) is in a satellite coverage.
However, Wu, which is an analogous art discloses disclose the user equipment (UE)/method, wherein in <indicator>, “0” is used to indicate that the user equipment (UE) is in a satellite coverage (see, [0096 and 0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Edge with Arzelier for the benefit of achieving a communication system that provides an advance knowledge of network coverage information thereby allowing devices and network to prepare for upcoming unavailability network periods and subsequently improving various operations of device in the network.
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned in claim 3, Arzelier explicitly fails to disclose the user equipment (UE)/method, wherein in <indicator>, “1” is used to indicate that the user equipment (UE) is currently out of satellite coverage or in the discontinuous satellite coverage.
However, Wu, which is an analogous art discloses disclose the user equipment (UE)/method wherein in <indicator>, “1” is used to indicate that the user equipment (UE) is currently out of satellite coverage or in the discontinuous satellite coverage (see, [0096 and 0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Wu with Arzelier for the benefit of achieving a communication system that provides an advance knowledge of network coverage information thereby allowing devices and network to prepare for upcoming unavailability network periods and subsequently improving various operations of device in the network.
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned in claim 3, Arzelier explicitly fails to disclose the user equipment (UE)/method, wherein the attention (AT) command includes a read command for returning at least one <n>, <indicator> for indicating current discontinuous coverage status for the user equipment (UE).
However, Wu, which is an analogous art discloses disclose the user equipment (UE)/method wherein the attention (AT) command includes a read command for returning at least one <n>, <indicator> for indicating current discontinuous coverage status for the user equipment (UE) (see, [0096 and 0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Wu with Arzelier for the benefit of achieving a communication system that provides an advance knowledge of network coverage information thereby allowing devices and network to prepare for upcoming unavailability network periods and subsequently improving various operations of device in the network.
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned in claim 9, Arzelier explicitly fails to disclose the user equipment (UE)/method, wherein the one or more parameters broadcasted in the SystemInformationBlockType32 (SIB32) or the SystemInformationBlockType32-NB (SIB32-NB) are a number of satellite IDs present in satellite assistance information, ephemeris parameters, a service start time (t-ServiceStart), an elevation right angle, an elevation left angle, a reference point longitude, a reference point latitude, or a radius.
However, Wu, which is an analogous art discloses disclose the user equipment (UE)/method wherein the one or more parameters broadcasted in the SystemInformationBlockType32 (SIB32) or the SystemInformationBlockType32-NB (SIB32-NB) are a number of satellite IDs present in satellite assistance information, ephemeris parameters, a service start time (t-ServiceStart), an elevation right angle, an elevation left angle, a reference point longitude, a reference point latitude, or a radius) (see, [0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Wu with Arzelier for the benefit of achieving a communication system that provides an advance knowledge of network coverage information thereby allowing devices and network to prepare for upcoming unavailability network periods and subsequently improving various operations of device in the network.
Regarding claim 11, as mentioned in claim 10, Arzelier explicitly fails to disclose the user equipment (UE)/method, wherein the ephemeris parameters are an inclination, an argument of perigee, a right ascension, a mean anomaly, an eccentricity, a b-star decimal, a b-star exponent, or an epoch star.
However, Wu, which is an analogous art discloses the user equipment (UE)/method wherein the ephemeris parameters are an inclination, an argument of perigee, a right ascension, a mean anomaly, an eccentricity, a b-star decimal, a b-star exponent, or an epoch star (see, [0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Wu with Arzelier for the benefit of achieving a communication system that provides an advance knowledge of network coverage information thereby allowing devices and network to prepare for upcoming unavailability network periods and subsequently improving various operations of device in the network.
Regarding claim 19, as mentioned in claim 12, Arzelier explicitly fails to disclose the user equipment (UE)/method, wherein the one or more parameters broadcasted in the SystemInformationBlockType32 (SIB32) or the SystemInformationBlockType32-NB (SIB32-NB) are a number of satellite IDs present in satellite assistance information, ephemeris parameters, a service start time (t-ServiceStart), an elevation right angle, an elevation left angle, a reference point longitude, a reference point latitude, or a radius.
However, Wu, which is an analogous art discloses the user equipment (UE)/method wherein wherein the one or more parameters broadcasted in the SystemInformationBlockType32 (SIB32) or the SystemInformationBlockType32-NB (SIB32-NB) are a number of satellite IDs present in satellite assistance information, ephemeris parameters, a service start time (t-ServiceStart), an elevation right angle, an elevation left angle, a reference point longitude, a reference point latitude, or a radius (see, [0080, 0096 and 0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Wu with Arzelier for the benefit of achieving a communication system that provides an advance knowledge of network coverage information thereby allowing devices and network to prepare for upcoming unavailability network periods and subsequently improving various operations of device in the network.
Regarding claim 20, as mentioned in claim 19, Arzelier explicitly fails to disclose the user equipment (UE)/method, wherein, the ephemeris parameters are an inclination, an argument of perigee, a right ascension, a mean anomaly, an eccentricity, a b-star decimal, a b-star exponent, or an epoch star.
However, Wu, which is an analogous art discloses the user equipment (UE)/method wherein, the ephemeris parameters are an inclination, an argument of perigee, a right ascension, a mean anomaly, an eccentricity, a b-star decimal, a b-star exponent, or an epoch star (see, [0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Wu with Arzelier for the benefit of achieving a communication system that provides an advance knowledge of network coverage information thereby allowing devices and network to prepare for upcoming unavailability network periods and subsequently improving various operations of device in the network.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of 33the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kwasi Karikari whose telephone number is
571-272-8566.The examiner can normally be reached on M-Sat (6am – 10pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8566.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Kwasi Karikari/
Primary Examiner: Art Unit 2641.
Prosecution Insights