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 statements (IDS) submitted on 10/10/24, 5/30/25 and 8/26/25. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 11 - 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US Publication 2024/0260052) disclosed in 63/270,420.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 13, Zhang teaches an apparatus and a measurement capability sending method, performed by user equipment (UE), the measurement capability sending method comprising:
sending measurement capability indication information to a network device, wherein the measurement capability indication information indicates a measurement capability of whether the UE supports simultaneous measurements on cells corresponding to N different satellites within a same measurement window when performing a neighbor cell measurement, and wherein N is an integer greater than 1. (i.e. a UE may report capability information to the network that indicates a maximum number of synchronization signal block (SSB)-based measurement timing configurations (SMTCs) simultaneously supported by the UE for measurement of reference signals from serving and neighboring cells in an NTN system and receives SMTCs based on the capability information and a real time estimate of timing differences among the cells; see paragraphs 60, 61, 64, 68 and claim 19)
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 14, Zhang teaches an apparatus and a measurement capability receiving method, performed by a network
device, the measurement capability receiving method comprising:
receiving measurement capability indication information from user equipment (UE), wherein the measurement capability indication information indicates a measurement capability of whether the UE supports simultaneous measurements on cells corresponding to N different satellites within a same measurement window when performing a neighbor cell measurement, and wherein N is an integer greater than 1. (i.e. a UE may report capability information to the network that indicates a maximum number of synchronization signal block (SSB)-based measurement timing configurations (SMTCs) simultaneously supported by the UE for measurement of reference signals from serving and neighboring cells in an NTN system and receives SMTCs based on the capability information and a real time estimate of timing differences among the cells; see paragraphs 60, 61, 64, 68 and claim 19)
NOTE: Li et al. (US Publication 2023/0344492) teaches a UE may generate a message that includes indication of a capability of the UE indicating whether the UE supports simultaneous measurement for at least two downlink (DL) beams. The UE may transmit the message to a base station as a report of the capability of the UE when accessing the base station. (See Fig.2 of Li) Li supports the prior in a 5G NR network wherein the base stations may comprise satellite stations. (see paragraphs 28, 175)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 19 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 3 objected to as being dependent upon a objected claim which would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 objected to as being dependent upon a objected claim which would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6, 22 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 7 objected to as being dependent upon a objected claim which would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 objected to as being dependent upon a objected claim which would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 15 objected to as being dependent upon a objected claim which would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 16 objected to as being dependent upon a objected claim which would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 17 objected to as being dependent upon a objected claim which would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 objected to as being dependent upon a objected claim which would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 objected to as being dependent upon a objected claim which would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 21 objected to as being dependent upon a objected claim which 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 ROBERT J LOPATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-7 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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. 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.
ROBERT J. LOPATA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2471
/ROBERT J LOPATA/
September 14, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights