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
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 15-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 24-26 and 28-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,960. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 24-26 and 28-30 of Patent No. 12,425,960 contain every elements of claims 15-21 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shrestha et al (US 2024/0107472, “Shrestha”).
Re claims 1 and 8, Shrestha discloses receiving, by a user equipment connected using a current cell served by a first satellite to a base station, information from the base station comprising assistance information for a cell switch from the current cell to a cell served by a second satellite, wherein the information is received before a stop time indicating when the current cell will stop serving the user equipment (figure 6a, step 610); and performing, by the user equipment, the cell switch from the current cell to the cell served by the second satellite using at least the assistance information to find one or more cell synchronization blocks for the served by the second satellite (figure 6a, steps 620 and 630).
Re claims 2 and 9, Shrestha discloses the assistance information comprises one or more time offsets relative to existing cell timing for the current cell; and performing the cell switch uses at least the one or more time offsets to find the one or more cell synchronization blocks for the cell served by the second satellite (paragraph [0082]).
Re claims 5 and 12, Shrestha discloses the assistance information comprises a different set of locations in time and frequency for the one or more cell synchronization blocks that is provided corresponding to the cell served by the second satellite, wherein the different set of locations is different from a set of locations in time and frequency for one or more cell synchronization blocks corresponding to the current cell; and performing the cell switch uses at least the different set of locations to find the one or more cell synchronization blocks for the cell served by the second satellite (paragraph [0084]).
Re claims 6 and 13, Shrestha discloses the assistance information comprises a time interval for the user equipment to perform a search for a re-synchronization attempt to the cell served by the second satellite; and performing the cell switch uses at least the time interval to find the one or more cell synchronization blocks for the cell served by the second satellite (paragraph [0082]).
Re claims 7 and 14, Shrestha discloses the assistance information comprises ephemeris information corresponding to the second satellite to apply when attempting a re-synchronization to the cell served by the second satellite; and performing the cell switch uses at least the ephemeris information to find the one or more cell synchronization blocks for the cell served by the second satellite (paragraph [0083]).
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 of this title, 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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrestha in view of Kim et al (US 2023/0403661, “Kim”)
Re claims 3 and 10, Shrestha discloses all of the limitations of the base claim, but fails to disclose the assistance information comprises a frequency offset of one or more cell synchronization blocks to use for detection, measurement, and evaluation of the one or more cell synchronization blocks of the cell served by the second satellite; and performing the cell switch uses at least the frequency offset to find the one or more cell synchronization blocks for the cell served by the second satellite. However, Kim discloses detecting SSB by utilizing frequency offsets (paragraph [0249]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shrestha with Kim for the benefit of providing cell switching by reducing power consumption of the UE for SSB detection based on frequency offsets.
Claims 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrestha in view of Myhre et al (US 11,218,960, “Myhre”).
Re claim 15, Shrestha discloses sending, by a base station to a user equipment connected using a current cell served by a first satellite to the base station, information from the base station comprising assistance information for a cell switch from the current cell to a cell served by a second satellite (figure 6a, step 610); but fails to disclose shutting down, by the base station, the current cell at a current location at a stop time. However, Myhre discloses a base station shutting down the current cell at a current location at a stop time (figure 13, step 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shrestha with Myhre for the benefit of energy saving by shutting down the current cell at a current location at a stop time.
Re claim 16, the modified system of Shrestha discloses before the shutting down, sending one or more cell synchronization blocks in the cell served by a second satellite according to the assistance information for the cell switch (paragraph [0088] of Shrestha).
Re claim 17, the modified system of Shrestha implicitly discloses before the shutting down, communicating with other base station so the other base station sends one or more cell synchronization blocks according to the assistance information for the cell switch (paragraph [0088] of Shrestha).
Re claim 18, Shrestha discloses the cell switch uses one of a change in physical cell identification between the current cell and the cell served by the second satellite, or a same physical cell identification for both the current cell and the cell served by the second satellite (paragraph [0084]).
Re claim 19, Shrestha discloses the one or more cell synchronization blocks comprise corresponding one or more synchronization signal blocks comprising both search signals and physical broadcast channels (paragraph [0083]).
Re claim 20, Shrestha discloses both the current cell and the cell served by the second satellite cover a same geographical area (figure 5).
Re claim 21, Shrestha discloses the cell switch comprises a soft cell switch where there is overlapping satellite coverage at least at a switching time (paragraph [0023]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 11 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hong Cho whose telephone number is 571-272-3087. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri during 8 am to 4 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 571-272-3940. 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).
/HONG S CHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights