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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) was/were submitted on 9/4/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “terminal the” in line 7 to “terminal through the”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 6 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “the second” in line 4 to “the second NTN”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 7 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “the second” in line 3 to “the second NTN”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “terminal the” in line 8 to “terminal through the”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “the second” in lines 5 and 9 to “the second NTN”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 6-9, 14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the data to be transmitted to the terminal” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 7-9 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 6 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear what “the data transmitted through the second NTN link” in lines 6-7 is referring to since claim 1 recites “transmitting data” “through a second NTN link” and “data transmitted to the terminal through the second NTN link” and claim 7 recites “data transmitted through the second link”.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear what “the data transmitted through the second NTN link” in lines 3 and 5-6 are referring to since claim 1 recites “transmitting data” “through a second NTN link” and “data transmitted to the terminal through the second NTN link”. Claim 9 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 8 and is thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the retransmission data corresponding to the data transmitted through the second NTN link" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites “a retransmission corresponding to the data transmitted through the second NTN link”.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear what “the data transmitted through the second NTN link” in lines 2-4 are referring to since claim 1 recites “transmitting data” “through a second NTN link” and “data transmitted to the terminal through the second NTN link”.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear what “the data received through the second NTN link” in lines 4-6 are referring to since claim 10 recites “receiving data through the second NTN link” and claim 14 recites “data received through the second NTN link”
Regarding claim(s) 17, the boundaries of “data transmitted to the terminal through the second NTN link” is/are unclear because the claim(s) does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function(s). The recited function(s) does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., at least one processor, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the base station in a certain manner. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim(s). See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. Claims 18-20 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 17 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim(s) 18, the boundaries of “transmitting the first HARQ feedback information” and “transmitting the second HARQ feedback information” is/are unclear because the claim(s) does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function(s). The recited function(s) does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., at least one processor, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the base station in a certain manner. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim(s). See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. It is suggested to change “transmitting” to “receiving”.
Regarding claim(s) 19, the boundaries of “transmitting at least part of the second HARQ feedback information” is/are unclear because the claim(s) does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function(s). The recited function(s) does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., at least one processor, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the base station in a certain manner. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim(s). See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the data to be transmitted to the terminal” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim(s) 20, the boundaries of “data transmitted through the first NTN link” and “data transmitted through the second link” is/are unclear because the claim(s) does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function(s). The recited function(s) does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., the at least one processor, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the base station in a certain manner. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim(s). See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Regarding claim 20, it is unclear what “the data transmitted through the second NTN link” in lines 12-13 is referring to since claim 17 recites “data transmitted to the terminal through the second NTN link” and claim 20 recites “data transmitted through the second link”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-13, and 15-16 is/are allowed.
Claims 6-9, 14, and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art that teaches claim 1 is R2-1911298 which discloses “transmitting data to a terminal through a first non-terrestrial network (NTN) link with a first satellite connected to a first base station and through a second NTN link with a second satellite connected to a second base station, the terminal being in a dual connectivity (DC)”. However, R2-1911298, in single or combination, does not teach, suggest or provide rationale for, in view of other limitations within the same claim, “receiving at least one uplink channel including first hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback information corresponding to the data transmitted to the terminal the first NTN link and second HARQ feedback information corresponding to data transmitted to the terminal through the second NTN link”. Similar reasoning applies to claim 17. The closest prior art that teaches claim 10 is R2-1911298 which discloses “establishing dual connectivity (DC) with a second non-terrestrial network (NTN) link of a second satellite connected to a second base station while being connected to a first NTN link of a first satellite connected to a first base station” and “receiving data through the first NTN link; receiving data through the second NTN link”. However, R2-1911298, in single or combination, does not teach, suggest or provide rationale for, in view of other limitations within the same claim, “…based on a control message received through the first NTN link” and “generating first hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback information corresponding to the data received through the first NTN link; generating second HARQ feedback information corresponding to the data received through the second NTN link; and transmitting the first HARQ feedback information and the second HARQ feedback information through at least one uplink channel of the first NTN link, wherein a difference between a latency of the second NTN link and a latency of the first NTN link is equal to or greater than a preset value”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20250007666 discloses multi-connectivity between two NTN-based NG-RANs;
US 20230269732 discloses dual connectivity between NTNs and communication between terminal device 410 and base station 440 may be relayed through satellite 420 and satellite 430; and
US 20210119861 discloses dual connectivity across NTNs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER P CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7152. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 A.M - 6 P.M. ET M-F.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/PETER P CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights