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 .
Clarity of the Record – Contingent Limitations
The claims have been given consideration for contingent limitations and specifically the difference in handling and patentable weight for method claims as compared to system claims as per MPEP 2111.04(II) and 2143.03. In line with the MPEP guidance, failure to consider all contingencies in a scenario can limit the patentable weight of the contingencies claimed. Addressing these limitations through prior art is done in an effort to provide compact prosecution but consideration must be given in efforts to determine allowability if the limitation is contingent.
Clarity of the Record – Alternative Limitations
The claims have been reviewed with consideration for alternative limitations, and the plain meaning of claim language per MPEP 2111.01, 2173.01 and 2173.05(h). In the event a series of alternative limitations is not concluded with ‘and’ or ‘or’ or ‘and/or’ the interpretation is that of a ‘or’ relationship in line with the disclosure (see at least claim 10). In the event that ‘and’ is used along with ‘at least one of’ it is no longer clear in light of the disclose if the limitations are intended to remain in the alternative or to be given their plain meaning and require at least one A, at least one of B etc. This language creates an indefinite scope of the claim and is addressed below (see at least claims 13 and 14)
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 in the final line recites ‘SIBS’ which appears to be a typographical error.
In claim 14, please define ‘TA’ and ‘USIM’.
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.
Claims 12-14 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.
Re claims 12, 13 and 14, each claim recites ‘at least one of’ and then provides a list of alternative limitations that are grouped with an ‘and’ between them. Thus, it is no longer clear considering the disclosure if the limitations are intended to remain in the alternative or to be given their plain meaning and require at least one A and at least one of B and at least one of C etc. This language creates an unclear and indefinite scope of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 4, 7-8, 10-16, 18-19, 34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tao (EP 3937543, see IDS).
Re claims 1 and 34, Tao discloses a method by a user equipment (UE) (Fig 22 s200) and the associated user equipment (UE) (Fig 22 s200) for determining whether System Information (SI) message accumulation is prohibited or allowed (Fig 22 S201), the method comprising:
obtaining information about SI message accumulation (Fig 22 S201; Par 160-162, 171, 178 – accumulation indicator in MIB signal) and;
based on the information (Fig 22 S201 to S202/S210; Par 160-162, 179-180, 184), determining whether SI message accumulation is prohibited (Fig 22 S201 to S202; Par 160-162, 179-180 - ‘no’ at S201) or allowed (Fig 22 S201 to S210; Par 160-162, 179, 184 - ‘yes’ and S201) in a Non-Terrestrial Network (NTN) cell (Par 69, 74-77, 96, 191-192).
Re claims 18 and 36, Tao discloses a method by a network node (Fig 9 base station) and the associated network node (Fig 9 base station) for determining whether System Information (SI) message accumulation is prohibited or allowed, the method comprising: transmitting information about SI message accumulation (Fig 22 S201; Par 160-162, 171, 178 – accumulation indicator in MIB signal) to a User Equipment (UE) for determination by the UE (Fig 22 S201 to S202/S210; Par 160-162, 179-180, 184) of whether SI message accumulation is prohibited (Fig 22 S201 to S202; Par 160-162, 179-180 - ‘no’ at S201) or allowed (Fig 22 S201 to S210; Par 160-162, 179, 184 - ‘yes’ and S201) in a Non-Terrestrial Network (NTN) cell (Par 69, 74-77, 96, 191-192).
Re claim 2, Tao discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the information about SI message accumulation (Fig 22 S201; Par 160-162, 171, 178 – accumulation indicator in MIB signal) indicates that SI message accumulation is allowed (Fig 22 S201 to S210; Par 160-162, 179, 184 - ‘yes’ and S201) or that SI message accumulation is prohibited (Fig 22 S201 to S202; Par 160-162, 179-180 - ‘no’ at S201).
Re claim 19, Tao discloses the method of claim 18, and further discloses wherein the information about SI message accumulation (Fig 22 S201; Par 160-162, 171, 178 – accumulation indicator in MIB signal) indicates that SI message accumulation is allowed (Fig 22 S201 to S210; Par 160-162, 179, 184 - ‘yes’ and S201) or that SI message accumulation is prohibited (Fig 22 S201 to S202; Par 160-162, 179-180 - ‘no’ at S201).
Re claim 4, Tao discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the information indicates a maximum frequency for updating NTN SI (Par 58-60 – modification period upper/lower value determinations), and the method further comprises: determining a frequency at which NTN SI is updated for the NTN cell (Par 58-60 – modification period value determinations); and
if the frequency at which the NTN SI is updated for the NTN cell is greater than the maximum frequency, determining that SI message accumulation is prohibited, or if the frequency at which the NTN SI is updated for the NTN cell is less than the maximum frequency, determining that SI message accumulation is allowed (the above two scenarios are rejected in light of contingency based on the previously applied grounds of Tao. There is a scenario wherein the frequencies are equal, that is unaccounted for, thereby rendering scenarios claimed to have no patentable weight as they are contingent method limitations; Par 58-60 – modification period cycle determination).
Re claim 7, Tao discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein obtaining the information comprises receiving the information from a network node (Par 169, 171, 174).
Re claim 8, Tao discloses the method of claim 7, and further discloses wherein the information is received in System Information (SI) (Fig 22 el S201/202/210; Par 171, 179 – MIB/SIB1).
Re Claim 10, Tao discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein: the information is associated with a SI window configuration (Par 58-60), the UE determines whether the SI message (Fig 22 S201; Par 160-162, 171, 178) accumulation is allowed (Fig 22 S201 to S210; Par 160-162, 179, 184 - ‘yes’ and S201) or prohibited (Fig 22 S201 to S202; Par 160-162, 179-180 - ‘no’ at S201) based on the information associated with the SI window configuration (Par 58-60), and the information associated with the SI window configuration (Par 58-60) comprises at least one of: an SI update frequency (Par 58-60), a SI window length (Par 58-60), a SI periodicity (Par 58-60), a SI repetition pattern (Par 58-60).
Re Claim 11, Tao discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein:
the information comprises at least one rule or at least one condition for determining whether SI message accumulation is allowed (Fig 22 S201, Par 177-178, 184) or prohibited (Fig 22 S201, Par 177-178, 184);
the at least one condition (Fig 22 S201, Par 177-178, 184) and/or the at least one rule (Fig 22 S201, Par 177-178, 184) indicates that SI message accumulation is prohibited (Fig 22 S201 to S202; Par 160-162, 179-180 - ‘no’ at S201) for at least one of: a UE category (Fig 22 S201, Par 177-178, 184), a coverage enhancement class, a type of NTN satellite; and
the UE determines whether SI message accumulation is allowed (Fig 22 S201 to S210; Par 160-162, 179, 184 - ‘yes’ and S201) or prohibited (Fig 22 S201 to S202; Par 160-162, 179-180 - ‘no’ at S201) based on the at least one rule or whether the at least one condition is fulfilled (Fig 22 S201, Par 177-178, 184).
Re claim 12, Tao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the UE determines that SI message accumulation is prohibited when at least one of: a signal quality in the NTN cell is greater than or equal to a first threshold, a number of configured repetitions within a SI window is greater than or equal to a second threshold, a SI periodicity is greater than or equal to a NTN SIB broadcast periodicity, and a number of repetitions configured for SIBS is greater than or equal to a third threshold (claim 12 is rejected in view of Tao as cited in claim 1, claim 12 recites a contingent claim limitation wherein the determination that accumulation is allowed would remove the patentable weight for claim limitations limiting wherein accumulation is prohibited as they would not be required to complete the method of determining that accumulation is allowed) (Fig 22 S201 to S202/S210; Par 160-162, 179-180, 184).
Re claim 13, Tao discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the UE determines that SI message accumulation is allowed, and wherein the method comprises: determining at least one of:
a number of SI windows across which NTN SI messages are to be accumulated (Fig 22 S210; Par 58-60, 184), a number of SI windows over which NTN SI messages are expected to be unchanged (Fig 22 S210; Par 58-60, 62), and a number of repeated SI transmissions over which NTN SI messages are to be accumulated (Fig 22 S210; Par 58-60); and
accumulating NTN SI messages in the number of SI windows (Fig 22 S210; Par 58-60) and/or number of repeated SI transmissions.
Re claim 14, Tao discloses the method of claim 13, and further discloses wherein the number of SI windows (Par 58-60) and/or the number of repeated SI transmissions is determined based on at least one of: a trial-and-error basis; an orbit prediction algorithm; an uplink synchronization validity timer value; satellite ephemeris information; a TA parameter; a specification (Par 58-60); a USIM; SIB1 (Par 58-60); and a SI window length that is determined from a set of SI window lengths (Par 58-60).
Re claim 15, Tao discloses the method of claim 13, and further discloses further comprising receiving, from a network node, the number of SI windows (Par 58-60) and/or the number of repeated SI transmissions.
Re claim 16, Tao discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses comprising: determining a first set of SI windows (Par 58-60) and/or a first set of repeated SI transmissions that is associated with the information about SIB accumulation (Fig 22 S210; Par 58-60, 184), wherein the UE determines whether SI message accumulation is prohibited (Fig 22 S201 to S202; Par 160-162, 179-180 - ‘no’ at S201) or allowed (Fig 22 S201 to S210; Par 160-162, 179, 184 - ‘yes’ and S201) in the NTN cell for the first set of SI windows (Fig 22 S210; Par 58-60, 184) and/or the first set of repeated SI transmissions; and
receiving a SI message in the first set of SI windows (Fig 22 S201 to S210; Par 58-60, 160-162, 179-180, 184) and/or the first set of repeated SI transmissions, wherein the SI message that is received in the first set of SI windows and/or the first set of repeated SI transmissions is identical (Par 58-60, 160-162, 179-180, 184).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-6 and 9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the above cited claims. Re claim 3, the prior art fails to explicitly disclose wherein the SI accumulation indication is determined based on the type of a satellite associated with the NTN cell. Re claim 5, the prior art fails to explicitly disclose wherein the SI accumulation indication is determined based on the validity timer for the uplink synchronization. Re claim 9, the prior art fails to explicitly disclose wherein the SI accumulation indication is determined based on the at least one SI-RNTI.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art is relevant to the scope of the current invention but fails to anticipate or render obvious all of the claimed details.
Vogedes (US 20240063894)
This art discloses the SIB/MIB communication of NTN platform or satellite types, but fails to link this indication of type to an accumulation decision.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/MICHAEL R NEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights