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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the application filed on 06/28/2024.
Claims 1-14 and 21 are pending in this application, with claims 1,11 and 21 being independent.
Attorney Information Request
For efficient and faster prosecution of the current application, please provide direct phone number and email address of an attorney filing a response to this office action.
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.
Claims 1,4-7,9-11,14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2021/0250816 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Xu”) in view of ASTROM et al. (US 2023/0396330 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Astrom”).
Regarding claims 1,11 and 21, Xu discloses a method for performing communication, performed by a User Equipment (UE) (Xu Fig.6 Para[0134] A UE in a communication system), comprising: transmitting, to a serving base station, capability of the UE (Xu Fig.6 Para[0134] The UE send capability information to the network entity); wherein the capability includes information that an antenna of the UE is a directional antenna (Xu Fig.6 Para[0149] The UE capability information includes steering type (i.e. directional antenna) information).
Xu does not explicitly disclose receiving, from the serving base station, information on location of a specific base station; determining N candidate beams, based on the location of the specific base station; performing beam sweeping on the N candidate beams.
However, Astrom from the same field of invention discloses receiving, from the serving base station, information on location of a specific base station (Astrom Para[0079-80] The UE receives ephemeris data about the position of the satellite (i.e. specific base station) from the network via control or system information); determining N candidate beams, based on the location of the specific base station (Astrom Para[0079-80,0090,0100] The UE determines new RX beam using ephemeris data); performing beam sweeping on the N candidate beams (Astrom Para[0079-80,0085-90] The UE determines and rotates the beamforming matrix to second satellite).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Xu to have the feature of “receiving, from the serving base station, information on location of a specific base station; determining N candidate beams, based on the location of the specific base station; performing beam sweeping on the N candidate beams” as taught by Astrom. The motivation would have been to improving beam direction determination (Astrom Para[0039]).
Specifically for claims 11 and 21, Xu discloses the UE that includes a transceiver (Xu Fig.4 A Transmitter), a processor (Xu Fig.4 A processor) and memory (Xu Fig.4 A memory).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Xu in view of Astrom discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Astrom further discloses wherein the specific base station is a satellite for NTN (Non-Terrestrial Networks) communication (Astrom Para[0080] The second satellite (i.e. specific base station)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Xu to have the feature of “wherein the specific base station is a satellite for NTN (Non-Terrestrial Networks) communication” as taught by Astrom. The motivation would have been to improving beam direction determination (Astrom Para[0039]).
Regarding claim 5, Xu in view of Astrom discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Xu further discloses receiving, from the serving base station, a handover command to the specific base station; performing measurement for the specific base station, based on the beam sweeping; performing handover to the specific base station, based on a result of the measurement (Xu Para[0036,0154-156] The UE receives HO command, performs measurements and handover to another satellite).
Regarding claim 6, Xu in view of Astrom discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Xu further discloses wherein the UE is a UE for ATG (Air to Ground) communication, wherein the specific base station is a ground base station (Xu Para[0033] The UE is a NTN (i.e. ATG) UE and ground gateway (i.e. specific base station)).
Regarding claim 7, Xu in view of Astrom discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Xu further discloses receiving, from the serving base station, a handover command to the specific base station; performing measurement for the specific base station, based on the beam sweeping; performing handover to the specific base station, based on a result of the measurement (Xu Para[0036,0154-156] The UE receives HO command, performs measurements and handover to another satellite).
Regarding claim 9, Xu in view of Astrom discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Xu further discloses wherein the antenna of the UE is configured array antenna, wherein the capability includes information that the antenna of the UE is configured array antenna (Xu Para[0080,0082] The UE with antenna array).
Regarding claim 10, Xu in view of Astrom discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Xu further discloses wherein the capability includes information that the UE is able to perform electronic steering by adjusting phase of the antenna (Xu Para[0102,01630033] The electronic steering for the UE antennas).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Astrom and further in view of LI et al. (US 2025/0330855 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Li”).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Xu in view of Astrom discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Xu in view of Astrom does not explicitly disclose wherein the N is 3.
However, Li from the same field of invention discloses wherein the N is 3 (Li Para[0114] The UE only uses 3 candidate beams to perform beam sweeping).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Xu and Astrom to have the feature of “wherein the N is 3” as taught by Li. The motivation would have been to beam management with improving latency and throughput (Li Para[0037]).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Astrom and further in view of ARUR et al. (US 2019/0230568 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Arur”).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Xu in view of Astrom discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Xu in view of Astrom does not explicitly disclose performing measurement for the specific base station, based on the beam sweeping.
However, Arur from the same field of invention discloses performing measurement for the specific base station, based on the beam sweeping (Arur para[0021,0053] The UE performs measurements for current serving and candidate satellites).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Xu and Astrom to have the feature of “performing measurement for the specific base station, based on the beam sweeping” as taught by Arur. The motivation would have been to provide efficient and accurate handover predictions (Arur Para[0005]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Astrom and further in view of ROY et al. (US 2023/0102334 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Roy”) and further in view of Li.
Regarding claim 8, Xu in view of Astrom discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Xu in view of Astrom does not explicitly disclose performing cell measurement of the specific base station for cell reselection, based on the beam sweeping, wherein the UE is in IDLE or INACTIVE mode, wherein the cell measurement is performed, based on the N, wherein the N is 3.
However, Roy from the same field of invention discloses performing cell measurement of the specific base station for cell reselection, based on the beam sweeping, wherein the UE is in IDLE or INACTIVE mode, wherein the cell measurement is performed, based on the N (Roy Para[0026,0036] The UE is provided with a satellite ephemeris data for cell reselection during RRC Idle mode and the UE performs measurements over candidate cells based on the information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Xu and Astrom to have the feature of “performing cell measurement of the specific base station for cell reselection, based on the beam sweeping, wherein the UE is in IDLE or INACTIVE mode, wherein the cell measurement is performed, based on the N, wherein the N is 3” as taught by Roy. The motivation would have been for improved cell search process to avoid loss of coverage (Roy Para[0006]).
Xu in view of Astrom and Roy does not explicitly disclose wherein the N is 3.
However, Li from the same field of invention discloses wherein the N is 3 (Li Para[0114] The UE only uses 3 candidate beams to perform beam sweeping).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Xu, Astrom and Roy to have the feature of “wherein the N is 3” as taught by Li. The motivation would have been to beam management with improving latency and throughput (Li Para[0037]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
Additional References
The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0320712 to Goettle (Paragraphs:34,45)
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/defau1Vfiles/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM 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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights