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 .
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 11, 15, 17-19, 24, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nuggehalli et al (2025/0274837).
Regarding claims 1 and 28, Nuggehalli discloses a method and a network node (see Target gNB in figure 9A) for wireless communication, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors (see figure 4), coupled to the memory, configured to: attempt to obtain capability information relating to a mobility operation of a user equipment (UE) transferring between a non-terrestrial network (NTN) and a terrestrial network (TN) (see In 918, mobility control information may be provided by the AMF 910 in paragraph 0106 and figure 9A; the wireless device providing capability information for the wireless device. Such capability information may include information relating to any of a variety of types of wireless device capabilities in paragraph 0086; terrestrial networks as well as non-terrestrial networks (NTNs) such as 3GPP satellite networks in paragraphs 0003, 0017); and perform at least part of the mobility operation (handover operation) based at least in part on the capability information or attempting to obtain the capability information (see handover from source gNB to target gNB in paragraph 0107; a UE 106 may be capable of communicating using multiple wireless communication standards in paragraph 0054).
Regarding claims 2 and 29, Nuggehalli discloses wherein the capability information indicates whether the UE supports transferring from an NTN to a TN radio access technology associated with at least one of an evolved packet core (EPC), a 5G core, or an Evolved Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) Terrestrial Radio Access technology (see UE capability and handover between different radio access technologies in paragraphs 0052, 0054).
Regarding claim 3, Nuggehalli discloses wherein the capability information indicates whether the UE supports a same set of capabilities, for performing mobility operations, for an NTN radio access technology and a TN radio access technology (see paragraphs 0052, 0054, 0068).
Regarding claims 4 and 30, Nuggehalli discloses wherein the one or more processors, to attempt to obtain the capability information, are configured to request the capability information from a core network entity (see the exchange of mobility control information between Target gNB and AMF in step 918 and paragraph 0106. Note that the mobility control information provided by AMF upon request).
Regarding claim 8, Nuggehalli discloses wherein requesting the capability information from the core network entity is based at least in part on the mobility operation being from the NTN to the TN (see establishing a non-terrestrial network (NTN) based wireless link with a cellular base station (NT) in paragraphs 0122, 0003).
Regarding claim 11, Nuggehalli discloses wherein the one or more processors, to attempt to obtain the capability information, are configured to receive the capability information from a core network entity (AFM in figure 9A) (see figure 9A and mobility control information may be provided by the AMF 910 in paragraph 0106).
Regarding claim 15, Nuggehalli discloses a network node (see Source gNB in figure 9A) for wireless communication, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to: trigger a mobility operation associated with transferring a user equipment (UE) between a non-terrestrial network (NTN) and a terrestrial network (TN) based at least in part on at least one of: capability information associated with the UE and relating to the mobility operation, or whether the capability information is available to the network node: and output a message for the UE based at least in part on the capability information (see handover communication between a UE, Source gNB, Target gNB, and AMF in figures 9A and 9B and paragraphs 0106-0107).
Regarding claim 17, Nuggehalli discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to obtain, from a target network node of the mobility operation, an indication to release the UE to an idle mode based at least in part on the capability information indicating that the UE cannot transfer from the NTN to the TN (see handover failures in paragraph 0075; the RRC connection may also be released (e.g., after a certain period of inactivity with respect to data communication), in which case the wireless device may operate in a RRC idle state or a RRC inactive state in paragraph 0085; a UE 106 may be capable of communicating using multiple wireless communication standards in paragraph 0054. Note that some standards, the UE may not be capable of resulting handover failure).
Regarding claim 18, Nuggehalli discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to request the capability information from a core network entity based at least in part on the capability information not being available to the network node (see figures 9A and 9B and paragraphs 0106-0107. Note that the network node requests information from the core network only when that information is not available at the network node).
Regarding claim 19, Nuggehalli discloses wherein the one or more processors, to trigger the mobility operation, are configured to output a handover required message to a core network entity (see handover and In 918, mobility control information may be provided by the AMF (core network) in paragraph 0106).
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 claims a UE that is in communication with the network node claimed in 15 where the process is reversed. Claim 24 is, therefore, subject to the same rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 12-14, 20, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuggehalli in view of Chai (2024/0323769).
Regarding claims 12-13 and 20, Nuggehalli discloses RRC connection release (see paragraphs 0085) but doesn't specifically disclose a redirection of the UE. However, Chai discloses this feature (see RRC connection release information, a redirection message, a handover command, a handover start instruction in paragraph 0107; Initiate redirection in paragraphs 0829; handover failure in paragraph 0861). The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding claims 14, Nuggehalli discloses all the claimed subject matter as described in previous paragraphs except for priority. Chai discloses the use of priority (see priority meets a first preset requirement in paragraphs 0028).
Regarding claims 25 and 27, claims 25 and 27 claim a UE that is in communication with the network node claimed in 20 where abort is equivalent to release and reestablishment is equivalent to redirection. Claims 25 and 27 are, therefore, subject to the same rejection.
Claims 10, 21-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuggehalli in view of Da Silva et al (2022/0361275).
Regarding claims 10 and 22, Nuggehalli discloses all the claim subject matter as described in previous paragraphs except for release the UE to an idle mode. Da Silva discloses this feature (see the UE may receive an RRCRelease without suspend configuration moving the UE to RRC_IDLE in paragraph 0124). The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding claim 21, Nuggehalli discloses all the claim subject matter as described in previous paragraphs except for a radio resource control (RRC) setup complete message. However, Da Silva discloses this feature (see an RRC Setup Complete like message in paragraph 0286). The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding claim 23, Nuggehalli in view of Da Silva discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to request the capability information from a core network entity, wherein the capability information is not received from the core network entity, and wherein performing at least part of the mobility operation wherein the one or more processors are further configured to request that the core network entity release the UE to an idle mode (Nuggehalli discloses UE capability and handover failure and Da Silva discloses an RRCRelease and move the UE to RRC-IDLE in paragraph 0124).
Regarding claim 26, Da Silva discloses a tracking area update procedure (see a Tracking Area Update in paragraph 0285).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 9, and 16 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3084. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at 571-270-3770. 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.
/BRIAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights