CTNF 18/722,090 CTNF 86017 DETAILED ACTION Status of Application: Claims1-8, 10,12-20, 22 and 24 are present for examination at this time. Claims1-2, 5, 8, 10, 13-14, 17, 20, and 22 are rejected. Please refer to Forms 892 of record in this application and/or submitted IDSes to resolve any possible discrepancies in the listed reference numbers, titles, and/or author or inventor names. Applicant is reminded that claim mapping is provided as a courtesy to the applicant, but applicant should consider a reference as a whole, as the entire reference gives context to mapped sections. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority Applicant’s claim for foreign/domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119/120 is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 6/20/24 has/have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 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 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. All obviousness rationales stated below are rationales that would have been obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date of the application. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 5, 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Change Of Tracking Area Code For Wireless Networks” by Shrestha, Phuyal, Rico, and Wang US2021/0321357A1 (“Rico”) in view of “Selective Reporting Of Tracking Area Identity To Core Network In Non-Terrestrial Networks” by Rune and Määttänen US2024/0188026 A1 “Rune” which traces its effective filing back to provisional application 63/169,713 filed April 1, 2021 With respect to Claims 1 and 13 while Rico discloses a method performed by a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (and related WTRU),the method comprising: receiving information indicating a first tracking area code (TAC) (Rico at ¶¶113,114 where the system receives first and second tracking area indicators) registering with a network using the first TAC (Rico at ¶¶113,114 where the system receives first and second tracking area indicators, and monitors the first cell to which it is registered. Also see ¶51 where these are used for registering on a particular cell); receiving information indicating a second TAC and second TAC validity time information (Rico at ¶¶113,114 where the system receives first and second tracking area indicators along with validity time for the second Tracking Area Indicator); Rico does not explicitly state that which is known in the art as taught by Rune. Rune discloses [that there is] and first TAC validity time information; determining, based on the first TAC validity time information and the second TAC validity time information, a time period wherein both the first TAC and second TAC are valid; selecting a time within the time period; and transmitting, at the selected time, a connection request (Rune at ¶¶67 and 68 where the system reports a time that both the old and new Tracking Area Indicator are valid and ¶¶79,80 where that TAI information is used to select a given cell. Also see Rico at ¶¶113,114 where the validity time of the second TAI is used to pick between the first tracking area and second tracking area for a connection). Reasons to Combine/Modify : Both Rico and Rune are analogous to the claimed invention in that they are from the same field of endeavor, using Tracking Area Indicators to establish a connection when deciding from multiple tracking areas. Rune at ¶¶103,106 mentions using the TAI techniques therein to optimize the TAI list and Rune at ¶243 mentions using the techniques therein to improve the random access speed and/or reduce random access failures. Having multiple TAIs to choose from and choose the best effects this. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine Rico with Rune for the foregoing reasons to improve random access in Rico. Differences in Claim 13 : Claim 1 is drawn to a mobile unit (WTRU) that contains a transceiver and processor configured to carry out the steps of the method of claim 1. This concept is disclosed in Rico at ¶7 where it is stated that the apparatus for the steps described in ¶¶113, 114 inter alia is a user equipment with a processor coupled to a memory, wherein said memory contains instructions that cause the user equipment to carry out the method steps. With respect to Claims 2 and 14 Rico in view of Rune the method of claim 1 and apparatus of claim 13, wherein the selecting the time within the time period is randomized (Examiner notes this is an inherent feature of Rico and also Rune. When phones are being used in the mobile world they generally arrive at a given location at relatively random times. It is highly improbable that the same device is showing up at the same location during the exact same microsecond-millisecond window on a regular basis, let alone as part of a plan. There is a reason this process is called random access. With respect to Claims 5 and 17 Rico in view of Rune discloses the method of claim 1 and apparatus of claim 13, wherein the time period is scaled (Rico at ¶64 where the time intervals “may be expressed in multiples of a basic time unit.”) With respect to Claims 8 and 20 Rico in view of Rune discloses the method of claim 1 and apparatus of claim 13, wherein the information indicating the first TAC and the first TAC validity time information is received from a moving network node (Rico at ¶105 where the TAI validity time information comes from a moving satellite). With respect to Claims 10 and 22 Rico in view of Rune discloses the method of claim 1 and apparatus of claim 13, wherein the information indicating the second TAC and the second TAC validity time information is received from a moving network node (Rico at ¶105 where the TAI validity time information comes from a moving satellite). (Rico at ¶105 where the TAI validity time information comes from a moving satellite).. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7494. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10a-6p. 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 supervisory colleague, Alexander Sofocleous, can be reached at 571-272-0635. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/722,090 Page 2 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/722,090 Page 3 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/722,090 Page 4 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/722,090 Page 5 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/722,090 Page 6 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/722,090 Page 7 Art Unit: 4100
Prosecution Insights