CTNF 18/836,497 CTNF 86017 DETAILED ACTION Status of Application: Claims 1-16 and 18-21 are present for examination at this time. Claims 1-3,10,12-16 and 18-21are rejected. Please refer to Forms 892 of record in this application and/or submitted IDSes to resolve any possible discrepancies in the listed reference numbers, titles, and/or author or inventor names. Applicant is reminded that claim mapping is provided as a courtesy to the applicant, but applicant should consider a reference as a whole, as the entire reference gives context to mapped sections. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 8/7/2024 and 4/2/2025 has/have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 4-9 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. Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 10, 12-16, 18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by “User Equipment, Has Processor For Executing Artificial Intelligence/machine Learning Agent And Determining Whether To Initiate Handover According To Received Configuration Information For Machine Learning Handover Event” by Madadi et al., US2022/0286927 (“Madadi”) which claims priority to provisional application US63,158,166 which was filed prior to the instant application . 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. With respect to Claim 1, Madadi discloses a method for a distributed machine learning (ML) assisted conditional handover (CHO) procedure for a connected device, the method comprising: receiving, by the connected device, one or more measurement configurations from a source station (Madadi at ¶¶98-101 where the BS sends information about triggering conditions to the UE, which includes RSSP. Madadi at ¶93 states that RSSP can be a triggering condition. Also see ¶¶51-52 and 7) ; transmitting, by the connected device, one or more measurement reports to the source station (Madadi at ¶101 where the UE returns measurement reports); receiving and storing, by the connected device, one or more CHO commands from the source station, the one or more CHO commands having at least one triggering condition for CHO to one or more candidate target cells , wherein the one or more CHO commands are determined by inputting the one or more measurement reports into a distributed ML-generated reference model (Madadi at ¶¶98-101); and evaluating, by the connected device, whether the at least one triggering condition in any of the one or more CHO commands is fulfilled. With respect to Claim 2, Madadi discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising executing, by the connected device, a decision for handover based on the evaluation, wherein the connected device executes the handover if the one or more CHO commands is fulfilled and does not execute the handover if the one or more CHO commands is not fulfilled (Madadi at ¶¶107-111 where the ML/AI techniques can be used to enable or disable a handover approach. Also see ¶¶52,53, 63, and 93 where the ML evaluations are used to determine whether to perform handover). With respect to Claim 10, Madadi discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the collected data further include data collected by a collaborative machine learning method (Madadi at ¶98 where a federate learning ML/AI is used. Per Applicant’s specification at ¶4 federated learning is collaborative machine learning). With respect to Claim 12, Madadi discloses the method of claim 1, Madadi does not explicitly state that which is known in the art as taught by Tripathi. Tripathi discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the source station is a non-terrestrial network (NTN) (Madadi at ¶67 where the BS can be non-terrestrial) With respect to Claim 13, Madadi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more candidate target cells are terrestrial networks (TNs) (Madadi at ¶67). With respect to Claim 14, Madadi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the connected device is a user equipment (UE) (Madadi at ¶¶7, 102). With respect to Claim 15, Madadi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one or more CHO commands includes at least one of: a leaving condition, a target cell identity (ID), a life timer, a CHO command priority, and a CHO command ID (Madadi at ¶¶51, 62, and 93). With respect to Claim 16, Madadi discloses a connected device comprising: processing circuitry; and a memory, said memory containing instructions executable by said processing circuitry, whereby said connected device is operative to perform the method of claim 1 (Madadi at ¶72). With respect to Claim 18, Madadi 18. The connected device of claim 16, wherein the connected device is a user equipment (UE) (Madadi at ¶¶7, 102). With respect to Claim 20, Madadi discloses a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program comprising instructions for adapting an apparatus to perform the method of claim 1 (Madadi at ¶20). With respect to Claim 21 Madadi discloses the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program comprising instructions which, when executed on processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to carry out the method according to claim 1. (Madadi at ¶20). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. All obviousness rationales stated below are rationales that would have been obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date of the application. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madadi in view of “Radio Resource Management Configuration Device and Method” by Pateromichelakis et al., US2019/0223088A1 (“Pateromichelakis”) . With respect to Claim 3, while Madadi discloses the method of claim 1, Madadi does not explicitly state that which is known in the art as taught by Pateromichelakis discloses wherein the distributed ML-generated reference model is generated by: collecting data for a set of device and network node agents, wherein the collected data include attribute information for at least one connected device used for training, attribute information for at least one non-terrestrial network (NTN), and attribute information for at least one terrestrial network (TN); building, using the attribute information from the collected data, dependency graphs representing interaction relationships between the set of device and network node agents (304); constructing, using the dependency graphs, graph-based ML models representing profiles for the set of device and network node agents, wherein constructing the graph-based ML models includes generating connectivity between the set of device and network node agents; and training and validating the graph-based ML models using the generated connectivity for the set of device and network node agents (Pateromichelakis at ¶¶45,100 where the system uses graph-based algorithms to find the best RRM controllers based on the network nodes in play. This claim is essentially taking a specific AI technique and throwing it at the data in Claim 1.) Reasons to combine/modify : Madadi and Pateromichelakis are analogous to the claimed invention in that they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in that they are all concerned with using AI to improve handovers. One of the goal of handover is to optimize the network path. Using graph-based learning with Madadai allows for such an optimization by finding the best paths (Pateromichelakis at ¶18. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to combine Tripathi with Pateromichelakis for the advantageous reasons described above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madadi in view of “Signaling and Trigger Mechanisms for Handover” by Tripathi et al., US2022/0046490A1 (“Tripathi”). With respect to Claim 19, while Madadi discloses the connected device of any one of claim 16, Madadi does not explicitly state that which is known in the art as taught by Tripathi. Tripathi discloses wherein the connected device is any device selected from a group consisting of: a sensor, a ground vehicle, an aircraft, or a watercraft, wherein the selected device has connectivity capabilities to both terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks (Tripathi at ¶82). Reasons to combine/modify: Madadi and Tripathi are analogous to the claimed invention in that they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in that they are all concerned with using AI to improve handovers. Triapthi would combine with Madadi in order to introduce a non-terrestrial network to the system of Madadi. Tripathi at ¶44 states that a satellite network may be used as an alternative communication path when a cellular path is less desirable, “The communication satellite(s) 104 can communicate directly with the BSs 102 and 103 to provide network access, for example, in situations where the BSs 102 and 103 are remotely located or otherwise in need of facilitation for network access connections beyond or in addition to traditional fronthaul and/or backhaul connections.” Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to combine Tripathi with Madadi to have more connection options in the form of aircraft connected devices for the advantageous reasons described above. Documents Considered but not Relied Upon The documents below were considered. “Application of Machine Learning is Wireless Networks: Key Techniques and Open Issues” by Sun, Peng, Zhou, Huang, and Mao IEEE Communications, Surveys and Tutorials 2019. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7494. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10a-6p. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisory colleague, Alexander Sofocleous can be reached at 571-272-0635. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/836,497 Page 2 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/836,497 Page 3 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/836,497 Page 4 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/836,497 Page 5 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/836,497 Page 6 Art Unit: 4100
Prosecution Insights