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 statement (IDS) submitted on 2/15/2025 was filed 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 § 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 3, 19, and 22 recite the conditional limitation "if." The use of the conditional term "if" introduces ambiguity regarding the boundaries of the claimed invention. It creates a choice between alternative steps or structural configurations without clearly defining which path is required for infringement. Under MPEP 2111.04, conditional limitations are treated as "contingent limitations."
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10, 13, 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0119861 A1 by Tripathi et al. (hereafter referred to as Tripathi).
Regarding claim 1, Tripathi teaches A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (see at least Fig. 3), comprising:
a transceiver (see at least Fig. 3 (310)); and
at least one memory (see at least Fig. 3 (360)); and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (see at least Fig. 3 (340, 360)) and configured to cause the UE to:
receive a first signaling indicating a cell movement type associated with a wireless cell (see at least ¶ [0058] and [0061]; “Examples of operations that can benefits from the NTN type include transmission and acquisition of system information, cell selection and network selection, handover, random access, DRX, data transfer, and paging.”); and
take, based at least in part on the cell movement type being quasi-Earth- fixed, one or more actions to account for the cell movement type being quasi-Earth-fixed (see at least ¶ [0059], [0061], and [0070]; “quasi-Earth-fixed beam”).
Regarding claim 5, Tripathi teaches the UE of claim 1. In addition, Tripathi teaches wherein the first signaling indicates a quasi-collocation relationship of a type "quasi-fixed" or "quasi-Earth- fixed" (see at least ¶ [0059]; “The NTN type can also differentiate among different types of beams such as Earth-fixed beams, quasi-Earth-fixed beams, and Earth-moving beams.”).
Regarding claim 10, Tripathi teaches A base station for wireless communication (see at least Fig. 2), comprising:
at least one memory (see at least Fig. 2 (230)); and
at least one processor coupled, with the at least one memory (see at least Fig. 2 (225, 230)) and configured to cause the base station to:
transmit, to a user equipment (UE), a first signaling indicating a cell movement type associated with a wireless cell is quasi-Earth-fixed (see at least ¶ [0058] and [0061]; “Examples of operations that can benefits from the NTN type include transmission and acquisition of system information, cell selection and network selection, handover, random access, DRX, data transfer, and paging.”); and
take one or more actions to account for the cell movement type being quasi- Earth-fixed (see at least ¶ [0059], [0061], and [0070]; “quasi-Earth-fixed beam”).
Regarding claim 13, Tripathi teaches the base station of claim 10. In addition, Tripathi teaches wherein the first signaling indicates a quasi-collocation relationship of a type "quasi-fixed" or "quasi- Earth-fixed" (see at least ¶ [0059]; “The NTN type can also differentiate among different types of beams such as Earth-fixed beams, quasi-Earth-fixed beams, and Earth-moving beams.”).
Regarding claim 18, Tripathi teaches A method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising:
receiving a first signaling indicating a cell movement type associated with a wireless cell (see at least ¶ [0058] and [0061]; “Examples of operations that can benefits from the NTN type include transmission and acquisition of system information, cell selection and network selection, handover, random access, DRX, data transfer, and paging.”); and
taking, based at least in part on the cell movement type being quasi-Earth-fixed, one or more actions to account for the cell movement type being quasi-Earth-fixed (see at least ¶ [0059], [0061], and [0070]; “quasi-Earth-fixed beam”).
Regarding claim 21, Tripathi teaches A processor for wireless communication (see at least Figs. 2 and 3), comprising:
at least one controller coupled with at least one memory and configured to cause the processor to:
receive a first signaling indicating a cell movement type associated with a wireless cell (see at least ¶ [0058] and [0061]; “Examples of operations that can benefits from the NTN type include transmission and acquisition of system information, cell selection and network selection, handover, random access, DRX, data transfer, and paging.”); and
take, based at least in part on the cell movement type being quasi-Earth- fixed, one or more actions to account for the cell movement type being quasi-Earth- fixed (see at least ¶ [0059], [0061], and [0070]; “quasi-Earth-fixed beam”).
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 (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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tripathi as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, in view of LG ELECTRONICS INC: "Cell reselection based on time and location condition", 3GPP DRAFT; R2-2105786, 3RD GENERATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT (3GPP), (provided by applicant, hereafter referred to as LG).
Regarding claim 2, Tripathi teaches the UE of claim 1.
Tripathi does not appear to specifically teach wherein, to take the one or more actions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to neglect an increase or a decrease of a quality of a signal of the wireless cell within a threshold quality value.
In the same field of endeavor, LG teaches wherein, to take the one or more actions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to neglect an increase or a decrease of a quality of a signal of the wireless cell within a threshold quality value (see at least 2.1 timing information for earth-fixed beam: the earth-fixed beam fixes … even if the measured cell quality is good enough, it is not desirable .. to another cell again; existing cell reselection … how much the cell quality is good may not be really important because of the near-far-effect).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tripathi with LG in order to aid in cell selection.
Regarding claim 11, Tripathi teaches the base station of claim 10.
Tripathi does not appear to specifically disclose wherein, to take the one or more actions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to transmit, to the UE, a second signaling indicating a beam fixing duration for the wireless cell.
In the same field of endeavor, LG teaches wherein, to take the one or more actions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to transmit, to the UE, a second signaling indicating a beam fixing duration for the wireless cell (see at least 2.1 timing information for earth-fixed beam: Thus, if service time period of each earth-fixed beam is provided).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tripathi with LG in order to aid in cell selection.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tripathi as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, in view of ZTE CORPORATION ET AL: "Report of [AT115-e][108][NTN] idle mode aspects (ZTE)", 3GPP DRAFT; R2-2108889, 3RD GENERATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT (3GPP),(provided by applicant, hereafter referred to as ZTE).
Regarding claim 12, Tripathi teaches the base station of claim 10.
Tripathi does not appear to specifically disclose wherein, to take the one or more actions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to transmit, to the UE, a second signaling indicating a time instant at which a beam switching occurs.
In the same field of endeavor, ZTE teaches wherein, to take the one or more actions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to transmit, to the UE, a second signaling indicating a time instant at which a beam switching occurs (see at least 3.2 Timing Info for earth moving cell: “the feeder link switch timing can be broadcasted by network, the all UEs will perform neighbor cell measurement at the feeder link switch timing”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tripathi with LG in order to assist measurements and cell reselection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6-8, 14-16, 19, and 20 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 NATASHA W COSME whose telephone number is (571)270-7225. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4.
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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at 571-270-0422. 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.
/NATASHA W COSME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights