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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/30/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 05/14/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed 09/08/2026 (Resp.) have been fully 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 Objections
Amended Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: "candidate core network device" should be "candidate core network device;". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-9, 11, 13-14, and 21, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrestha et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0038832 (hereinafter Shrestha), and further in view of Sedin et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No.2026/0230997 (hereinafter Sedin).
Regarding Claim 1, Shrestha teaches in Fig. 3 an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (“UE 104 includes various processors (e.g., 358, 364, 366, and 380), antennas 352a-r (collectively 352), transceivers 354a-r (collectively 354), which include modulators and demodulators, and other aspects, which enable wireless transmission of data (e.g., retrieved from data source 362) and wireless reception of data (e.g., provided to data sink 360). UE 104 includes controller/processor 380, which may be configured to implement various functions” – See [¶0058]), cause the apparatus to:
receive, from a non-terrestrial network device, information related to a set of candidate non-terrestrial network devices (“during service link availability, while the UE 104 is in a coverage area of one or more NTN entities (e.g., satellites 140a, 140b, and 140c)” – See [¶0094] and Fig. 6A for the “UE to perform satellite/cell selection and reselection” from, – See [¶0096] e.g., as shown in Fig. 7, “the UE 704 receive NTN information of one or more NTN entities . . . from the NTN entity 706” – See [¶0098] whereby “the NTN information is NTN information one or more neighboring NTN entities” – See [¶0100] and “the NTN information may be UE-specific, satellite specific, cell specific, QoS specific, uplink and downlink data specific, and/or logical channel specific” – See [¶0101]; whereby “the obtaining the information of the one or more NTN entities comprises obtaining a broadcast system information block (SIB),” – See [¶0128] as specified in 3GPP technical specifications as further explained in Sedin infra1),
wherein the information indicates:
an expected time when each candidate non-terrestrial network device in the set of candidate non-terrestrial network devices connects with a corresponding candidate core network device (“the UE 704 receives assistance information of neighboring satellites” including “a next feeder link availability of the neighboring satellites, and/or a next revisit time to a store and forward service area of the neighboring satellites (e.g., based on a fixed reference location on the Earth's surface” – See [¶0108] and a satellite’s “storage duration quota may be the duration that the NTN entity 706 waits to receive response downlink data message for the UE data from the ground station before the NTN entity 706 discards the data” – See [¶0103]; see also Sedin infra explaining information on when the satellite will provide coverage);
determine a total transmission delay2 between the apparatus and at least one candidate core network device based on when at least one of the candidate non-terrestrial network devices serves the apparatus and the expected time when the least one of the candidate non-terrestrial network devices connects with the candidate core network device (“the UE 704 may reselect to an NTN entity with a shortest feeder link availability time,” i.e., the earliest expected time of connecting with a core network for data offload starting at the current time, “a largest data storage duration,” i.e., the longest delay to offload starting when the data is uploaded by the UE, or “a largest data storage quota, etc.” – See [¶0109], whereby to make this determination, the UE may calculate the duration until a next feeder link availability of the neighboring satellite and subtract the time t-StartServiceTime when the UE enters the coverage of that NTN device as taught in Sedin infra, or add a satellite’s data storage duration, wherein the data storage duration is the same or longer than the difference between the a next revisit time to a store and forward service area of the neighboring satellite defined supra and its start of coverage time for the UE as defined in Sedin infra; in addition, if the UE expects DL data in response, the total delay time may be the difference between two consecutive times when the UE gets NTN device coverage); and
transmit data to a target non-terrestrial network device that is selected from the set of candidate non-terrestrial network devices based on the information (“the UE 704 selects an NTN entity to access and send uplink data to” and “the selection is based on the NTN information received” – See [¶0104]).
Although Shrestha does not teach the assistance information of neighboring satellites to the UE comprises when at least one of the candidate non-terrestrial network devices serves the apparatus, Sedin teaches this limitation.
Sedin, like Shrestha, teaches apparatus and/or systems for supporting store and
forward based procedures in a NTN deployment, specifically “a first entity in a non-terrestrial network (NTN), wherein the first entity is configured to operate in a Store and Forward (S&F) mode based on being included in a satellite providing discontinuous coverage” – See [¶0061]. Sedin further teaches several Core Network procedures that are restricted or delayed in “[s]ince only the eNB is in the satellite” – See [¶0156].
Sedin further teaches that the assistance information of neighboring satellites to the UE comprises when at least one of the candidate non-terrestrial network devices serves the apparatus (“the discontinuous coverage NTN provides/uses a SIB called SystemlnformationBlockType32. An excerpt of TS 36.331 [2] discloses: . . . servicelnfo-r17 . . . Information on when the satellite will provide coverage” including “t-ServiceStartTime information on when the incoming satellite is going to start serving the area for quasi-earth fixed satellite.” – See [¶¶0048-50] and Table 3; see also 3GPP TS 36.331 V17.5.0 (2023-06) “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Radio Resource Control (RRC); Protocol specification (Release 17)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 36.331), at page 530-531, specifying the SystemInformationBlockType32 RRC Information Element that “contains satellite assistance information for prediction of discontinuous coverage.”)
Thus, Shrestha and Sedin each discloses the store and forward NTN system architecture wherein a UE receives neighbor NTNs/satellites assistance information in a system information block. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the information regarding starting time of UE coverage in SystemInformationBlockType32 as taught by Sedin, could have been used/received by the UE in Shrestha in addition to other assistance information such as the next feeder link availability of the neighboring satellites because in both cases assistance information is received through broadcasted cell system information (SI). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the addition through techniques known in the art. Finally, the addition achieves the predictable result of aligning the teachings in Shrestha with the updates to 3GPP technical specifications in support of discontinuous satellite coverage, as taught by Sedin.
Therefore, Amended Claim 1 is obvious over Shrestha in view of Sedin.
Regarding Amended Claim 2, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Shrestha further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is caused to:
determine whether information associated with a candidate core network device with which a candidate non-terrestrial network device connects3 supports an identity selected by the apparatus (UE may “determine a physical layer cell identity group number and radio frame timing” – See [¶0081] “while the UE 104 is in a coverage area of one or more NTN entities (e.g., satellites 140a, 140b, and 140c)” – See [¶0094] and each “satellite 140 . . . serv[es] as the cellular Uu link between a UE 104 and . . . the [corresponding] 5G core network 190” – See [¶0088] and Fig. 5B, whereby “the NTN information may be broadcast to the UE 704 in a system information block (SIB), such as in a SIB1 or other SIB carrying serving satellite information” – See [¶0099] whereby SIB1 carries PLMN information regarding the core networks the NTN device connects to as specified by 3GPP TS 36.331, at page 44, whereby the PLMN contains the mobile country code, MCC and the mobile core network identifier MCN; in addition, UE cell selection based on PLMN the UE is registered or preconfigured with, e.g., in the USIM, is standardized in 3GPP – See, e.g., 3GPP TS 38.300 V17.5.0 (2023-06), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; NR and NG-RAN Overall Description; Stage 2 (Release 17)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.300), describing, at page 67, UE’s criteria for the determination as “suitable cell is one for which the measured cell attributes satisfy the cell selection criteria; the cell PLMN is the selected PLMN, registered or an equivalent PLMN; the cell is not barred or reserved and the cell is not part of a tracking area which is in the list of ‘forbidden tracking areas for roaming’”; therefore, because the information related to a set of candidate NTN devices is device and cell specific, as explained in Regarding Claim 1 supra, the UE may determine whether information associated with a core network device with which the NTN device connects indicated in the information supports an identity selected by the apparatus, i.e., one of the PLMN the UE is registered with4).
Sedin, like Shrestha, teaches the PLMN as part of the NTN device assistance information (“the information on the S&F mode at the first entity comprises one or more of: . . . a S&F registration area (RA) or a S&F public land mobile network (PLMN); . . . a list including one or more of allowed procedures, not allowed procedures, or restricted procedures on the first entity” – See [¶0077]). Sedin specifically teaches in the context of core network procedures whether a candidate core network supports an identity selected by the apparatus (“the second entity is a mobility management engine (MME) or Core Network (CN); and the controller is configured to transmit, to the first entity in response to the information, one or more UE contexts for respectively communicating with one or more UEs” – See [¶0082] whereby “the controller is configured to: perform UE context resume procedure with the first entity; and transmit downlink data to the first entity; and wherein the information indicates that the downlink data will be stored and forwarded when the first entity is communicably connected with the UE, and the information is received in the UE context resume procedure” – See [¶0083] and Fig. 5B, i.e., if the UE context is known top the CN it is also supported by the CN)
Therefore, Amended Claim 2 is obvious over Shrestha in view of Sedin.
Regarding Amended Claim 3, dependent from Amended Claim 2, Shrestha further teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the apparatus is caused to:
in accordance with a determination that an identity associated with the candidate core network device matches with the identity selected by the apparatus (“In the case of NTN wireless communications, the NTN entity 140 may be a serving cell for the UE 104 via a communication link 516 referred to as a service link” – See [¶0087] once the UE selects a suitable cell within the satellite coverage and the candidate core network recognizes the UE context as a registered UE for service, as explained in Regarding Amended Claim 2, supra),
determine the total transmission delay between the apparatus and the candidate core network device based on
when the candidate non-terrestrial network device serves the apparatus, i.e., the t-ServiceStartTime information in SystemInformationBlockType32 IE as explained in Regarding Amended Claim 1 supra, and
the expected time when the candidate non-terrestrial network device connects with the candidate core network device (i.e., the “next feeder link availability of the neighboring satellites, and/or a next revisit time to a store and forward service area of the neighboring satellites (e.g., based on a fixed reference location on the Earth's surface” – See [¶0108] expressed as TimeOffsetUTC like t-ServiceStartTime or “the UE 704 checks the data storage duration information of the NTN entity” – See [¶0106] whereby “the storage duration quota may be the duration that the NTN entity 706 waits to receive response downlink data message for the UE data from the ground station before the NTN entity 706 discards the data” and “correspond to a time duration that the UE 704 waits for the response downlink data before reattempting the UL data transmission,” – See [¶0103] i.e., the transmission delay between when the NTN device serves the apparatus in the UL and the expected time when the NTN connects with the core network device5; to this delay may be added very small quantities such as the “[u]plink signals from the UEs experience a round trip delay (RTD) that is generally a sum of the delay on the service link plus the delay on the feeder link. The maximum RTD is typically around 541.46 ms for GEO satellites, 25.77 ms for LEO satellites at 600 km altitude, and 41.77 ms for LEO satellites at 1200 km altitude. UE speed can typically be ignored in comparison with speed of LEO satellite,” i.e., the RTD for NTN with transparent payload6 – See [¶0089] and Fig. 5A, i.e., the UE may determine the total transmission delay between the apparatus and the core network device by adding the NTN quota duration in store-and-forward mode with the RTD with transparent payload, for a more precise calculation); and
determine whether the total transmission delay is larger than a delay threshold (the UE determines “[i]f the uplink data of the UE 704 is not delay sensitive and the data storage duration of the NTN entity 706 is sufficient” – See [¶0106]; or “[i]f the uplink data of the UE 704 is delay sensitive and the data storage duration of the NTN entity 706 is insufficient, the UE 704 may leave the cell and try to find another suitable cell,”– See [¶0089] e.g., “the UE 704 may reselect to an NTN entity with a shortest feeder link availability time, a largest data storage duration” – See [¶0109] using application specific delay thresholds for in/sufficiency determination, e.g., “delivery of delay-tolerant applications, such as NB-IoT, are a major mMTC use case and benefit from architectures based on the use of regenerative payloads in the satellite and support for store and forward operation where satellite access can remain operational even at times when the satellite is not connected to a ground station” – See [¶0092]).
Sedin teaches the same delay in Fig. 5B whereby “the UE context Resume procedures are delayed until the eNB reaches a/the ground gateway and is connected to the MME” – See [¶0202].
Therefore, Amended Claim 3 is obvious over Shrestha in view of Sedin.
Regarding Amended Claim 4, dependent from Amended Claim 3, Shrestha further teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the apparatus is caused to:
in accordance with a determination that the total transmission delay is not larger than the delay threshold (“the obtaining the information of the one or more NTN entities comprises obtaining dedicated signaling indicating the one or more of: the amount of UE data the NTN entity is configured to store or the duration the NTN entity is configured to store the UE data” – See [¶0129]),
determine the candidate non-terrestrial network device to be the target non-terrestrial network device (as shown in Fig. 8, the UE “then proceeds to step 810 with selecting one of the one or more NTN entities based on the information,” – See [¶0131] e.g., “initiating random access with an NTN entity of the one or more NTN entities” – See [¶0132]); and
transmit the data to the non-terrestrial network device (“then proceeds to step 815 with outputting uplink data to the NTN entity” – See [¶0137] and “monitoring a response to the uplink data for the duration the NTN entity is configured to store the UE data” – See [¶0140]).
Therefore, Amended Claim 4 is obvious over Shrestha in view of Sedin.
Regarding Claim 5, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Shrestha further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is caused to:
determine a subset of candidate non-terrestrial network devices from the set of candidate non-terrestrial network devices (e.g., when “the barring information is received together with the NTN information” – See [¶0110] and “barring information may indicate satellites or cells that the UE 704 is barred from accessing” then “[t]he UEs may follow the barring information when performing satellite/cell selection” – See [¶0111]),
wherein each one in the subset of candidate non-terrestrial network devices connects to a target core network device that is associated with information supporting an identity selected by the apparatus (the “UE to perform satellite/cell selection and reselection and logical channel prioritization based on the information about the satellites” – See [¶0096] whereby “the obtaining the information of the one or more NTN entities comprises obtaining a broadcast system information block (SIB),” – See [¶0128] e.g., as specified in 3GPP TS 36.331, at page 448-450, SIB1 includes both cell barring information, indicating whether the UE is allowed to access the NTN entity, and associated PLMN-IdentityList information, so the UE may select the subset of serving cells/satellites served by a target CN identified with a PLMN the UE is either allowed or instructed to access7, as explained in Regarding Claim 1 supra, at least because “the network decides whether the UE 704 will track and monitor the same NTN entity or a different NTN for the response downlink data, and indicates to the UE 704 . . . based on the UE’s subscription” and “whether multiple satellites [registered with the network] . . are available” – See [¶0118]; see also § 8.2, 3GPP TS 38.300, at page 64-65, describing identifying a specific network entity within the “NR Cell Global Identifier (NCGI): used to identify NR cells globally” wherein “[t]he PLMN ID included in the NCGI should be the first PLMN ID within the set of PLMN IDs associated to the NR Cell Identity in SIB1,” §16.14.1, at page 177, stating: “For NTN, the following applies in addition to Network Identities as described in clause 8.2: A Tracking Area corresponds to a fixed geographical area. Any respective mapping is configured in the RAN;” and “A Mapped Cell ID as specified in clause 16.14.5,” §16.14.3 stating, at page 180 “[t]he network may broadcast multiple Tracking Area Codes (TACs) per PLMN in an NR NTN cell” and § 16.14.5, at page 182, indicating that “The mapping between Mapped Cell IDs and geographical areas is configured in the RAN and Core Network” and “NOTE 3: As described in TS 23.501 [3], the User Location Information may enable the AMF to determine whether the UE is allowed to operate at its present location. Special Mapped Cell IDs or TACs may be used to indicate areas outside the serving PLMN's country” and further that the “gNB reports the broadcasted TAC(s) of the selected PLMN to the AMF,” i.e., the NTN device knows which PLMN/network identity the UE selects and reports it to its CN; see also Footnote 7, supra; see also Sedin Fig. 5B showing that UL data is offloaded only after the target core network recognizes the requested UE context)
determine total transmission delays for each candidate non-terrestrial network device in the subset of candidate non-terrestrial network devices (“the UE 704 may use the cell only for a registration update procedure” – See [¶0106] e.g., for “obtaining assistance information from a serving NTN entity indicating information of one or more neighboring NTN entities, wherein the information includes a frequency, a cell identifier (ID), an amount of UE data the NTN entity is configured to store, a duration the NTN entity is configured to store the UE data, a next feeder link availability time, a time of a next visit to store and forward service area, of the one or more neighboring NTN entities, or a combination thereof” – See [¶0149], whereby, e.g., “the storage duration quota may . . .correspond to a time duration that the UE 704 waits for the response downlink data before reattempting the UL data transmission,” – See [¶0103] i.e., the UE may calculate for each candidate NTN device the total delay using this information and the t-ServiceStartTime SIB parameter as explained in Regarding Amended Claim 1 supra) and
select a candidate non-terrestrial network device with a shortest total transmission delay in the subset of candidate non-terrestrial network devices to be the target non-terrestrial network device (“the UE 704 uses the assistance information of the neighboring cells to perform cell reselection. For example, the UE 704 may reselect to an NTN entity with a shortest feeder link availability time,” – See [¶0109] i.e., download MO data to the CN, based on information about “next feeder link availability of [each] neighboring satellites” – See [¶0108]).
Therefore, Claim 5 is obvious over Shrestha in view of Sedin.
Regarding Amended Claim 6, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Shrestha further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the set of candidate non-terrestrial network devices also includes a further candidate non-terrestrial network device, and
the information further indicates at least one of:
a further expected time when the further candidate non-terrestrial network device connects with a further candidate core network device and information associated with the further core network device (“the UE 704 receives assistance information of neighboring satellites” too, e.g., “cell ID of the neighboring satellites, a data storage quota of the neighboring satellites, a data storage duration of the neighboring satellites, a next feeder link availability of the neighboring satellites, and/or a next revisit time to a store and forward service area of the neighboring satellites ( e.g., based on a fixed reference location on the Earth's surface)” – See [¶0108], i.e., the UE receives expected next feeder link time for other/further NTN devices from the serving cell/NTN device, and also cell ID of the neighboring satellites pointing to the serving AMF/CN; alternatively each further NTN broadcasts its own SIBs including such information).
Therefore, Amended Claim 6 is obvious over Shrestha in view of Sedin.
Regarding Amended Claim 7, dependent from Amended Claim 6, Shrestha further teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the apparatus is caused to:
determine whether the information associated with the further candidate core network device supports the identity selected by the apparatus (because “UE 704 may receive the downlink response data from a different NTN entity than the NTN entity 706 to which the UE 704 uploaded the uplink data,” – See [¶0116] e.g., the further candidate non-terrestrial network device, but “the network decides whether the UE 704 will track and monitor the same NTN entity or a different NTN for the response downlink data, . . .based on the UE's subscription” – See [¶0118], i.e., the further candidate core network device corresponding to the further candidate non-terrestrial network device must be one that supports the UE’s subscription, if the further candidate core network is different from the current core network; otherwise said, the further core network must recognize the UE’s subscription to service from the selected PLMN; see also Footnote 7 for an example of how an AMF performs this operation as a regulatory requirement).
Therefore, Claim 7 is obvious over Shrestha in view of Sedin.
Regarding Amended Claim 8, dependent from Amended Claim 7, Shrestha further teaches the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the apparatus is caused to:
in accordance with a determination that a further identity associated with the further candidate core network device indicated in the information matches with the identity selected by the apparatus (e.g., verifying that the UE selected PLMN is allowed to operate in the current UE location while served by the further candidate CN, while the further candidate CN may be the same as the current CN/AMF or not, as explained in Regarding Amended Claim 7 and Footnote 7 supra)
determine a further total transmission delay between the apparatus and the further candidate core network device based on when the further candidate non-terrestrial network device serves the apparatus, i.e., the further candidate NTN t-ServiceStartTime, and the further expected time when the further candidate non-terrestrial network device connects with the further candidate core network device (“assistance information from a serving NTN entity indicating information of one or more neighboring NTN entities . . . includes a duration the NTN entity is configured to store the UE data, a next feeder link availability time, a time of a next visit to store and forward service area” – See [¶0149]) so the UE may calculate the total transmission delay for a further NTN entity as explained in Regarding Amended Claim 1 supra; and
determine whether the further total transmission delay is larger than the delay threshold (“selecting an NTN entity to initiate random access with based on the duration the NTN entity is configured to store the UE data” – See [¶0219] e.g., “an NTN entity with a longer data storage duration when the UE has delay sensitive uplink data” – See [¶0221] i.e., determining the further total transmission delay is larger than the delay threshold of the delay sensitive uplink data).
Therefore, Amended Claim 8 is obvious over Shrestha in view of Sedin.
Regarding Amended Claim 9, dependent from Amended Claim 8, Shrestha further teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the apparatus is caused to:
in accordance with a determination that the total transmission delay is larger than the delay threshold and the further candidate total transmission delay is not larger than the delay threshold (“obtaining the information of the one or more NTN entities comprises obtaining . . . the duration the NTN entity is configured to store the UE data” – See [¶0208] including “the duration the NTN entity is configured to store the downlink UE data and . . . the duration the NTN entity is configured to store the uplink UE data” – See [¶0208])
determine the further candidate non-terrestrial network device as the target non-terrestrial network device (“selecting an NTN entity with a shorter data storage duration when the UE had uplink data with a delay target” – See [¶0220]; and
transmit the data to the further candidate non-terrestrial network device (“initiate random access with based on the duration the NTN entity is configured to store the UE data” – See [¶0219] and “outputting uplink data to one of the one or more NTN entities” – See [¶0227]).
Therefore, Amended Claim 9 is obvious over Shrestha in view of Sedin.
Regarding Amended Claim 11, dependent from Amended Claim 9, Shrestha further teaches the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the apparatus is caused to:
in accordance with a determination to transmit the data to the candidate non-terrestrial network device or the further candidate non-terrestrial network device,
transmit the data and the delay threshold to the selected non-terrestrial network device; or
transmit the delay threshold to the selected non-terrestrial network device (“If the uplink data of the UE 704 is delay sensitive and the data storage duration of the NTN entity 706 is insufficient . . . the UE 704 may use the cell only for a registration update procedure and request a large data storage duration for the NTN entity 706,” – See [¶0106] i.e., send only the delay threshold to the selected non-terrestrial network device).
Therefore, Amended Claim 11 is obvious over Shrestha in view of Sedin.
Regarding Claim 13, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Shrestha further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the information comprises one of:
an absolute timing of the expected time (e.g., “the UE 704 may be configured with the next visit satellite visit time or a wake up time to monitor the response downlink data” – See [¶0117]),
a relative timing of the expected time (e.g., “the NTN information is a storage duration quota of the NTN entity 706” which is “the duration that the NTN entity 706 waits to receive response downlink data message for the UE data from the ground station before the NTN entity 706 discards the data” – See [¶0102]), or
a location information to determine the expected time.
Therefore, Claim 13 is obvious over Shrestha in view of Sedin.
Regarding Amended Claim 14, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Shrestha further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is a terminal device (“the NTN entity 140 may be a serving cell for the UE 104 via a communication link 516 referred to as a service link” and with a terrestrial gateway (e.g., a satellite dish) via a feeder link” – See [¶0087]), and
wherein the candidate non-terrestrial network device has a discontinuous connection with the apparatus and its corresponding core network device (“When a satellite 140 moves and the UE 104 is outside of the coverage area 110b of the satellite 140 is referred to as discontinuous coverage. Further, when a satellite 140 may not have a feeder link connectivity to a ground station is referred to as intermittent coverage” – See [¶0090]).
In addition, Sedin specifically teaches that the store and forward NTNs are a solution for discontinuous coverage with the core network(“the first entity configured to operate in a Store and Forward (S&F) mode based on being included in a satellite providing discontinuous coverage, wherein the method comprises: signalling, to a second entity, information on the S&F mode at the first entity” – See [¶0085] whereby “the second entity is a mobility management engine (MME) or Core Network (CN)” – See [¶0082]).
Therefore, Amended Claim 14 is obvious over Shrestha in view of Sedin.
Regarding Amended Claim 21, Shrestha in view of Sedin teaches a method, e.g., in Fig. 8 of Shrestha and Fig. 5B of Sedin, comprising the steps performed by the apparatus in Amended Claim 1, recited with the same language. Because Amended Claim 1 is obvious over Shrestha in view of Sedin, Amended Claim 21 is obvious over Shrestha in view of Sedin.
In sum, Claims 1-9, 11, 13-14, and 21, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 as obvious over Shrestha in view of Sedin.
Amended Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Shrestha in view of Sedin, as applied to Amended Claim 8 and 11 above, and further in view of Luo et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0345338 (hereinafter Luo).
Regarding Amended Claim 10, dependent from Amended Claim 8, Shrestha in view of Sedin further teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the apparatus is caused to:
in accordance with a determination that both the total transmission delay and the further total transmission delay are not larger than the delay threshold,
select the candidate non-terrestrial network device or the further candidate non-terrestrial network device for transmitting the data based on at least one of:
memory usage information of the candidate non-terrestrial network device and the further candidate non-terrestrial network device (“the outputting the information of the one or more NTN entities comprises outputting the amount of UE data the NTN entity is configured to store” – See [¶0170] and “selecting a different NTN entity when the amount of uplink data at the UE is larger than the amount of UE data the NTN entity is configured to store” – See Shrestha:[¶0133] and/or “requesting a larger amount of uplink data the NTN entity when the amount of uplink data at the UE is larger than the amount of UE data the NTN entity is configured to store” – See Shrestha:[¶0134]), or
link budget information of the candidate non-terrestrial network device and the further candidate non-terrestrial network device (“the obtaining the information of the one or more NTN entities comprises obtaining the duration the NTN entity is configured to store the UE data” – See Shrestha:[¶0138] and “selecting an NTN entity with a shorter data storage duration” – See Shrestha:[¶0143]).
While Shrestha in view of Sedin teaches the determination of the total transmission delay and the further total transmission delay as explained in Regarding Amended Claim 8 supra, Shrestha in view of Sedin does not explicitly teach a determination that both the total transmission delay and the further total transmission delay are not larger than the delay threshold.
Lou teaches “cell selection method and apparatus, to resolve problems of excessive power consumption and large overheads caused by frequent satellite beam handover performed by UE” – See [¶0004] whereby “[a] terminal device performs measurement based on measurement configuration information of N cells, and determines M candidate cells based on a measurement result” – See [¶0005] and “[t]he metric value of the candidate cell indicates time in which the network device corresponding to the candidate cell serves the terminal device” – See [¶0007] or “a weighted sum of the remaining coverage duration of the candidate cell and the remaining coverage duration of the network device corresponding to the candidate cell” – See [¶0008].
Luo, like Shrestha in view of Sedin, teaches that the UE may receive relevant information about satellite cells through SIBs and performs measurements based on 3GPP technical specifications – See, e.g., [¶0101] (SIB1 and TS 38.304 in the 3GPP protocol8), to access an NTN device in a “regenerative architecture” wherein “the NTN device may be used as a base station to establish an N2 interface connection or an Ng interface connection to an access and mobility management function (AMF) entity in a core network, to provide a radio access service for a terminal device” – See [¶0124] and Fig. 4, and “[d]ifferent network devices may be connected to a same core network device, or may be connected to different core network devices” –See [¶0179] and Fig. 10. The UE in Leo “may determine the start time at which the network device covers the first geographical region as an earliest time point in start time at which all the cells cover the first geographical region, and may determine the end time at which the network device covers the first geographical region as a latest time point in end time at which all the cells cover the first geographical region,” i.e., “the coverage time information of all the cells of the network device” – See [¶0156]. Lou further teaches the “terminal device selects a target cell from the M candidate cells based on the first information” –See [¶0197] whereby here, “the terminal device may [] obtain the first information . . . based on ephemeris information of a network device corresponding to a cell, movement information of the network device, a coverage parameter of each cell of the network device, a coverage parameter of the network device, and the like,” – See [¶0199] i.e., may determine a metric related to the “remaining coverage duration of the network device” – See [¶0215].
Luo further teaches a determination that both the total transmission delay and the further total transmission delay are not larger than the delay threshold (“the terminal device may select a candidate cell with a metric value less than a threshold as the target cell” and “if metric values of a plurality of candidate cells are less than a threshold, the terminal device may select a candidate cell with a smallest metric value therefrom as the target cell” or “the terminal device may select any candidate cell with a metric value less than a threshold as the target cell”– See [¶0220] including cases wherein “the network device corresponding to the candidate cell and a network device corresponding to a serving cell of the terminal device are on a same orbital plane” or “on different orbital planes” by using a different “metric value of the candidate cell” – See [¶0242] i.e., a case of a serving NTN device and a further candidate NTN device like in Shrestha in view of Sedin).
Thus, Shrestha in view of Sedin and Luo each teaches a UE’s selection (of a candidate cell) between two NTN devices based on metric values related to candidate NTN device satellite parameters informed to the UE. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the metric used for NTN device selection in Luo by determining whether the metric is not larger than a threshold for both devices, could have been substituted in for the total transmission delay taught in Shrestha in view of Sedin because both are metrics related to satellite service time to the UE. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution through techniques known in the art. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of allowing the UE to same power by making fewer reselections when considering more detailed coverage parameters, as taught in Luo.
Therefore, Amended Claim 10 is obvious over Shrestha in view of Sedin and further in view of Luo.
Regarding Amended Claim 12, dependent from Amended Claim 11, Shrestha in view of Sedin further teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the apparatus is caused to:
in accordance with a determination of both the total transmission delay and the further total transmission delay (determining the total transmission delay for the serving NTN and the further NTN as explained in Regarding Amended Claim 8, supra, “when the UE had uplink data with a delay target” – See Shrestha:[¶0143]). However, Shrestha in view of Sedin does not teach that both total transmission delays are larger than the delay threshold.
Luo teaches that “if metric values of the M candidate cells are all greater than a threshold, the terminal device may select a candidate cell with a smallest metric value therefrom as the target cell” – See [¶0220]; accord with Shrestha:[¶0143] (“selecting an NTN entity with a shorter data storage duration when the UE had uplink data with a delay target”). Because the metric in Luo can be substituted in for total transmission delay in Shrestha in view of Sedin through techniques available to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present application, as explained, e.g., in Regarding Claim 10 supra, the combination of Shrestha in view of Sedin and Luo further teaches select the non-terrestrial network device or the further non-terrestrial network device for transmitting the data based on the total transmission delay and the further total transmission delay. In addition, Luo, by referencing 3GPP TS 38.304, also teaches provide, to an application layer of the apparatus an indication, to select the non-terrestrial network device or the further non-terrestrial network device for transmitting the data – See 3GPP TS 38.304, at page 17, describing the manual selection of a PLMN, as explained in Footnote 8 supra.
Therefore, Amended Claim 12 is obvious over Shrestha in view of Sedin and further in view of Luo.
In sum, Amended Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 as obvious over Shrestha in view of Sedin and further in view of Luo.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rune et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0308980 discloses obtaining, by the wireless device, information that includes an expected time for the wireless device in the connected mode to be served in at least one cell;
Shrestha et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0164339 teaches a UE may be configured to operate in an idle state, an inactive state, or a power-saving state for a time interval which is based on the satellite visit time and wake up and monitor SIBs following an end of the time interval which is based on the satellite visit time;
Qiao et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0260480 discloses method and apparatus for wireless communications wherein candidate core network satellite network element set is a subset of the plurality of core network satellite network elements, and determines, from the candidate core network satellite network element set, a core network satellite network element set corresponding to the terminal based on an identifier of the access network satellite network element, an identifier of the terminal, and/or a location of the terminal;
Ou, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0038834 discloses methods, systems, and apparatuses are provided for handling Non-Terrestrial Network (NTN) store and forward (S&F) configurations in a wireless communication system;
Rune et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0300700 teaches a method performed by a wireless device for cell selection in a Non-Terrestrial Network (NTN) includes obtaining information indicating an expected time for the wireless device to be served in at least one cell and determining whether to perform a cell selection or reselection procedure based at least in part on the information;
Li et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0122557 discloses terminal devices having NTN capabilities, and the NTN capabilities of the first-type terminal device and the second-type terminal device are not completely the same, facilitating the improvement of the possibility of successful communication of terminal devices;
Hu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0113800 discloses satellite successfully receives mobile-originated (MO) data sent by the terminal device, wherein the MO data is transmitted by using a storage and forwarding mode of the first satellite; and the terminal device caching the MO data;
Yin et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0151126 discloses systems and methods for timing enhancement in store and forward mode;
Qaise et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0330236 discloses a terminal device attaches successfully to the non-terrestrial cellular data communication network via one of the one or more base-stations, estimating terminal location data based on arrival times of at least three reference timing signals received at the terminal device from different positions taken by the one or more airborne or spaceborne base stations;
Mao et al, WIPO Patent Application Publication No. WO2025010573 discloses instructing an authorized terminal to use a storage and forwarding function, and the storage and forwarding function is used for transmitting data of the terminal in a storage and forwarding manner during NTN access;
Li et al., EPO Patent Application Publication No. EP 4429343 discloses a method and apparatus for interaction between a terminal and a core network, applicable to an internet of things (IoT) non-terrestrial network (NTN) discontinuous coverage scenario;
PONNIAH et al., WIPO Patent Application Publication No. WO 2023/094268 (same Assignee) discloses deriving visibility parameter of the at least one non-terrestrial network cell, based on the collected ephemeris information using an analytics engine;
3GPP TS 23.501 V18.2.2 (2023-07), “Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; System architecture for the 5G System (5GS); Stage 2 (Release 18)”;
3GPP TS 22.261 V19.3.0 (2023-06), “Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Service requirements for the 5G system; Stage 1 (Release 19) (as per the IDS);
3GPP TS 38.300 V17.5.0 (2023-06), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; NR and NG-RAN Overall Description; Stage 2 (Release 17)”;
3GPP TS 38.331 v17.5.0 (2023-06), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol specification (Release 17)” (as per the IDS);
3GPP TR 38.821 V16.2.0 (2023-03), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Solutions for NR to support non-terrestrial networks (NTN) (Release 16)”;
3GPP TS 38.304 V17.5.0 (2023-06)., “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; User Equipment (UE) procedures in Idle mode and RRC Inactive state (Release 17)”;
3GPP RAN Rel-19 Workshop, RWS-230178, Title: “NR and IoT NTN,” Source: Qualcomm Incorporated, June 2023;
ITU-R, Report ITU-R M.2514-0, Title: “Vision, requirements and evaluation guidelines for satellite radio interface(s) of IMT-2020,” September 2022;
3GPP TS 36.331 V17.5.0 (2023-06) “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Radio Resource Control (RRC); Protocol specification (Release 17)”;
Report of 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 meeting #122, May 2023, R2-2307001 for the Tdoc contributions in Action Items 6.4, 7.7 and 8.1 received before the filing date of the present Application;
Kellermann et al., “Novel Architecture for Cellular IoT in Future Non-Terrestrial Networks: Store and Forward Adaptations for Enabling Discontinuous Feeder Link Operation,” in IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 68922-68936, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3184720.
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 LUCIA GHEORGHE GRADINARIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Joseph AVELLINO can be reached at (571)272-3905. 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.
/L.G.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
1 See, e.g., 3GPP TS 38.331 v17.5.0 (2023-06), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol specification (Release 17)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.331), describing, at page 486-487, the system information block SIB19 that “contains satellite assistance information for NTN access” including ntn-Config that “Provides parameters needed for the UE to access NR via NTN access such as Ephemeris data, common TA parameters, k_offset, validity duration for UL sync information and epoch” and ntn-NeighCellConfigList and ntn-NeighCellConfigListExt providing neighbours ntn-Config parameters.
2 For the definition of “total delay” the Specification explains: “In other words, the total transmission delay includes a delay where the terminal device waits for the NTN device and a delay where the NTN device waits for connection with the core network.” – See [¶0058].
3 The Specification only discloses that “the set of candidate non-terrestrial network devices connects with a corresponding candidate core network device” – See [¶0003] without further and independently defining a “candidate core network.” Therefore, under the BRI standard, it is assumed that a candidate core network is the core network corresponding to the feeder link of the candidate NTN device.
4 See Specification [¶0056] describing the required determination as “the terminal device 110 may determine whether an operator of the CN device that the satellite will connect with is the one selected by the terminal device 110 which is identified by the PLMN of the terminal device 110” but the identity may be NPN or AMF – See, e.g., Spec.:[¶0054]. The Specification does not disclose the purpose of this identity, why the match is important.
5 In accord with examples found in Specification:[¶0063] (“The total delay” is the difference between “the terminal device 110 sends MO data” and when “the MO data is forwarded to CN” based on “information to the terminal device 110 via SIB or dedicated RRC”)
6 See, e.g., § 16.14.2.1, 3GPP TS 38.300, at page 178-179, describing specific timing offsets to accommodate the propagation delay in NTNs, including Service link RTT, Feeder link RTT and the RTT between “the uplink synchronization reference point (RP)” and the NTN payload (Common TA).
7 See, e.g., 3GPP TS 23.501 V18.2.2 (2023-07), “Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects;
System architecture for the 5G System (5GS); Stage 2 (Release 18)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.501) describes in § 5.4.11 integration of NT satellite access in 5GC, specifying, at page 129, that “to ensure that the regulatory requirements are met, the network may be configured to enforce that the selected PLMN is allowed to operate in the current UE location by verifying the UE location during Mobility Management and Session Management procedures. In this case, when the AMF receives a NGAP message containing User Location Information for a UE using NR satellite access, the AMF may decide to verify the UE location. If the AMF determines based on the Selected PLMN ID and ULI (including Cell ID) received from the gNB that it is not allowed to operate at the present UE location the AMF should reject any NAS request with a suitable cause value.”; see also 3GPP TS 22.261 V19.3.0 (2023-06), “Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Service requirements for the 5G system; Stage 1 (Release 19)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 22.261), at page 22, stating “UEs supporting satellite access shall support optimized network selection and reselection to PLMNs with satellite access, based on home operator policy,” at page 36, “[a]n IoT device which is able to access a 5G PLMN in direct network connection mode using a 3GPP RAT shall have a 3GPP subscription,” and §6.22, at page 41-42, describing the unified access control framework applicable to inbound roamers to a PLMN.
8 3GPP TS 38.304 V17.5.0 (2023-06)., “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; User Equipment (UE) procedures in Idle mode and RRC Inactive state (Release 17)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.304), describing, at page 16, the PLMN selection by a UE as “based on the list of PLMN identities in priority order, the particular PLMN may be selected either automatically or manually. Each PLMN in the list of PLMN identities is identified by a 'PLMN identity'. In the system information on the broadcast channel, the UE can receive one or multiple 'PLMN identity' in a given cell. The result of the PLMN selection performed by NAS (see TS 23.122 [9]) is an identifier of the selected PLMN,” and, at page 17, that “the UE shall search for the strongest cell and read its system information, in order to find out which PLMN(s) the cell belongs to and any associated CAG(s)” and “each found PLMN (see the PLMN reading in TS 38.331 [3]) shall be reported to the NAS” which is a higher layer at the UE, and “[o]nce the UE has selected a PLMN, the cell selection procedure shall be performed in order to select a suitable cell of that PLMN to camp on”; in addition, it is possible to “support manual CAG selection” whereby “the UE shall upon request by NAS report available CAG-ID(s) together with their manual CAG selection allowed indicator . . . and PLMN(s) to the NAS. If NAS has selected a CAG and provided this selection to AS, the UE shall search for an acceptable or suitable cell belonging to the selected CAG to camp on” and a CAG is an identified for a closed access group inside a PLMN.
