CTNF 18/786,994 CTNF 83654 DETAILED ACTION 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. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims, “means for” in claim 35, in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non- structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 16, 27, 28, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wigard et al. (US 20220061004) in view of KIM et al. (WO 2020149650) . Regarding claims 16, 28, and 35, Wigard teaches to determine at least one first candidate satellite currently available for a neighbor cell measurement ([0067] handover is to be performed from the first satellite to the second satellite and correspondingly idle terminal devices are to reselect the cell provided by the second satellite) ; determine at least one target satellite to be measured in the neighbor cell measurement at least based on the number of the at least one first candidate satellite; and perform the neighbor cell measurement on the at least one target satellite ([0067] the gNB comprised in the second satellite and providing the target cell transmits SSB more often than when normal SSB periodicity is used. The period 356 when neighbour cell measurements should be performed by the terminal devices may be indicated to the terminal devices for example by the gNB comprised in the first satellite) . However, Wigard does not teach determine at least one target satellite to be measured in the neighbor cell measurement at least based on respective priorities of: the at least one first candidate satellite, or at least one second candidate satellite that is becoming available within a first time interval . KIM teaches Fig. 11, in step S1113, the UE may perform the candidate cell measurement according to the handover condition and the waiting condition, Fig. 13, page 34 [211] The cell priority can help the UE to decide more reliable target cell considering satellite's moving patterns if one or more satellites as the candidate cells have similar signal quality . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with KIM in order to manage a mobility of the wireless device, and the wireless device should perform a mobility to another cell according to the mobility management. The mobility may comprise a handover (BACKGROUND-ART [5], KIM). Regarding claim 27, Wigard does not teach, KIM teaches wherein the respective priorities are indicated via an signaling or an order of at least one candidate satellite listed in a configuration (page 34, [211] the network may be serving a UE which requests to the network to use NTN service and may know the candidate satellite's moving pattern (e.g., orbit via network interface such as S1 or X2 interface). When the network decides that the UE need to handover to other cell to provide NTN service, the network may provide candidate cell list and cell priority for conditional handover) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with KIM in order to manage a mobility of the wireless device, and the wireless device should perform a mobility to another cell according to the mobility management. The mobility may comprise a handover (BACKGROUND-ART [5], KIM) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 17-26 and 29-34 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 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PARK et al. (US 20230224748) discloses [0156] The set of measurement gaps may be applicable for neighbor or target cell measurements from a satellite different from the satellite (e.g., a serving satellite) associated with the serving cell, and [0159] The preferred set of measurement gaps may be only applicable for neighbor/target cell measurements from a different satellite than the serving satellite . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNSOOK CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-1822. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 5712723940. 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. /EUNSOOK CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 Application/Control Number: 18/786,994 Page 2 Art Unit: 2467 Application/Control Number: 18/786,994 Page 3 Art Unit: 2467 Application/Control Number: 18/786,994 Page 4 Art Unit: 2467 Application/Control Number: 18/786,994 Page 5 Art Unit: 2467 Application/Control Number: 18/786,994 Page 6 Art Unit: 2467 Application/Control Number: 18/786,994 Page 7 Art Unit: 2467
Prosecution Insights