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 Status
This office action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 12/05/2024.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently presenting for examination.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
This action has been made NON-FINAL.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,133,189 (hereinafter referred to as Patent '89). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims merely rephrase and omit limitations from the patented claims, where both claim sets have overlapping scope.
Regarding claim 1, Patent '89 teaches a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising: a transceiver and a processor, wherein the transceiver and the processor are configured to (Patent '89 claim 1, line(s) 1-3): receive information for a serving cell in a non terrestrial network (Patent '89 claim 1, line(s) 4-5), wherein the received information indicates coordinate information delimiting a first area of the serving cell (Patent '89 claim 1, line(s) 5-7), wherein the first area is defined by an edge that corresponds to a threshold distance from a reference location (Patent '89 claim 1, line(s) 7-9), and on a condition that measured serving cell quality criteria are met: on a condition that a determined location of the WTRU is less than the threshold distance from the reference location, not perform neighboring cell measurements (Patent '89 claim 1, line(s) 13-18); and on a condition that the determined location of the WTRU is greater than or equal to the threshold distance from the reference location, measure a signal quality of at least one neighboring cell (Patent '89 claim , line(s) 19-24).
Regarding claim 2, Patent '89 teaches the WTRU of claim 1, wherein the measurement of the signal quality of the at least one neighboring cell includes determining, for a received signal from the at least one neighboring cell, one of the following: signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR), reference signal received quality (RSRQ), or reference signal received power (RSRP) (Patent '89 claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, Patent '89 teaches the WTRU of claim 1, wherein the transceiver and the processor are further configured to: report to a network node the measured signal quality of the at least one neighboring cell (Patent '89 claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, Patent '89 teaches the WTRU of claim 1, wherein the transceiver and the processor are further configured to: receive a broadcast message including configuration information indicating at least one measurement threshold, wherein the measured serving cell quality criteria is based on the at least one measurement threshold (Patent '89 claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, Patent '89 teaches the WTRU of claim 1, further comprising a global positioning system (GPS) chipset, wherein the transceiver and the processor are further configured to receive, from the GPS chipset, information indicating the location of the WTRU (Patent '89 claim 8).
Regarding claim 7, Patent '89 teaches the WTRU of claim 1, wherein the transceiver and the processor are further configured to receive, from a base station, information indicating the location of the WTRU (Patent '89 claim 9).
Regarding claim 8, Patent '89 teaches the WTRU of claim 1, wherein the information for the serving cell is received in a system information block (SIB) (Patent '89 claim 10).
Regarding claim 9, Patent '89 teaches the WTRU of claim 1, wherein the measured serving cell quality criteria are based on a measurement of reference signal received power (RSRP) (Patent '89 claim 11).
Regarding claim 10, Patent '89 teaches the WTRU of claim 1, wherein the received information further includes measurement configuration information for channel state information reference signals (CSI-RSs) of the neighboring cells (Patent '89 claim 12).
Regarding claim 11, Patent '89 teaches a method performed by a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising (Patent '89 claim 13, line(s) 1-2): receiving information for a serving cell (Patent '89 claim 13, line(s) 3-4), wherein the received information indicates coordinate information delimiting a first area of the serving cell (Patent '89 claim 13, line(s) 4-6), wherein the first area is defined by an edge that corresponds to a threshold distance from a reference location (Patent '89 claim 13, line(s) 6-8); on a condition that measured serving cell quality criteria are met: on a condition that a determined location of the WTRU is less than the threshold distance from the reference location, not performing neighboring cell measurements (Patent '89 claim 13, line(s) 12-17); and on a condition that the determined location of the WTRU is greater than or equal to the threshold distance from the reference location, measuring a signal quality of at least one neighboring cell; and on a condition that the measured serving cell quality criteria are not met, measuring the signal quality of the at least one neighboring cell (Patent '89 claim 13, line(s) 18-23).
Regarding claim 12, Patent '89 teaches the method of claim 11, wherein measuring the signal quality of the at least one neighboring cell includes determining, for a received signal from the at least one neighboring cell, one of the following: signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR), reference signal received quality (RSRQ), or reference signal received power (RSRP) (Patent '89 claim 14).
Regarding claim 13, Patent '89 teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising: reporting to a network node the measured signal quality of the at least one neighboring cell (Patent '89 claim 15).
Regarding claim 14, Patent '89 teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising: receiving a broadcast message including configuration information indicating at least one measurement threshold, wherein the measured serving cell quality criteria is based on the at least one measurement threshold (Patent '89 claim 17).
Regarding claim 16, Patent '89 teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the WTRU comprises a global positioning system (GPS) chipset, and the location of the WTRU is determined based on information generated by the GPS chipset (Patent '89 claim 20).
Regarding claim 17, Patent '89 teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising receiving, from a base station, information indicating the location of the WTRU (Patent '89 claim 21).
Regarding claim 18, Patent '89 teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the information for the serving cell is received in a system information block (SIB) (Patent '89 claim 22).
Regarding claim 19, Patent '89 teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the measured serving cell quality criteria are based on a measurement of reference signal received power (RSRP) (Patent '89 claim 23).
Regarding claim 20, Patent '89 teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the received information further includes measurement configuration information for channel state information reference signals (CSI-RSs) of the neighboring cells (Patent '89 claim 24).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,133,189 (hereinafter referred to as Patent '89) in view of US_20210112473_A1_Martin.
Regarding claim 5, Patent '89 teaches the WTRU of claim 4, but does not teach wherein the configuration information indicates two measurement thresholds, and wherein the measured serving cell quality criteria is based on the two measurement thresholds.
Martin teaches wherein the configuration information indicates two measurement thresholds, and wherein the measured serving cell quality criteria is based on the two measurement thresholds (Martin figures 8B, 8C, paragraphs 77-78, paragraph 85, “…the thresholds may be specified as being relative to a threshold which is transmitted in broadcast signalling by the serving cell…”. The thresholds, which include Thresh_1, Q_Thresh_1, can be broadcasted to the UE for performing measurement on the serving cell).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Martin into Patent '89, since Patent '89 suggest a technique for a measured serving cell quality criteria is based on the measurement thresholds, and Martin suggests the beneficial way of the thresholds, which include Thresh_1, Q_Thresh_1, can be broadcasted to the UE for performing measurement on the serving cell so that/thus the UE performs measurements according to the configuration from serving cell (Martin paragraph 85) in the analogous art of communication.
Regarding claim 15, Patent '89 teaches the method of claim 14, but does not teach wherein the configuration information indicates two measurement thresholds, and wherein the measured serving cell quality criteria is based on the two measurement thresholds.
Martin teaches wherein the configuration information indicates two measurement thresholds, and wherein the measured serving cell quality criteria is based on the two measurement thresholds (Martin figures 8B, 8C, paragraphs 77-78, paragraph 85, “…the thresholds may be specified as being relative to a threshold which is transmitted in broadcast signalling by the serving cell…”. The thresholds, which include Thresh_1, Q_Thresh_1, can be broadcasted to the UE for performing measurement on the serving cell).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Martin into Patent '89, since Patent '89 suggest a technique for a measured serving cell quality criteria is based on the measurement thresholds, and Martin suggests the beneficial way of the thresholds, which include Thresh_1, Q_Thresh_1, can be broadcasted to the UE for performing measurement on the serving cell so that/thus the UE performs measurements according to the configuration from serving cell (Martin paragraph 85) in the analogous art of communication.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-13, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20220086713_A1_Maattanen in view US_20200145981_A1_Harada.
Regarding claim 1, Maattanen teaches a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising: a transceiver and a processor, wherein the transceiver and the processor are configured to (Maattanen paragraph 87): receive information for a serving cell (Maattanen, paragraph 52, “…reference location information may be transmitted to a UE terminal via a service/access link of an NTN…”), wherein the received information indicates coordinate information delimiting a first area of the serving cell (Maattanen paragraph 52, “…the reference location information comprises data pertaining to a plurality of reference locations within one or more coverage areas of the NTN communications environment, each coverage area including a corresponding plurality of spot beam cells…”, paragraph 61, “…earth-bound reference locations may be provided as absolute locations or relative locations, which may be represented in a number of ways, e.g., pairs of latitude and longitude data in reference to a suitable coordinate grid, earth-centered, earth-fixed (ECEF) geographic points represented as {x,y,z} coordinates, and the like. Where reference locations may involve an altitude component…”), wherein the first area is defined by an edge that corresponds to a threshold distance from a reference location (Maattanen paragraphs 34, 70, 79, 82, the radius is corresponding to the claimed “threshold distance”),
Maattanen does not teach on a condition that measured serving cell quality criteria are met: on a condition that a determined location of the WTRU is less than the threshold distance from the reference location, not perform neighboring cell measurements; and on a condition that the determined location of the WTRU is greater than or equal to the threshold distance from the reference location, measure a signal quality of at least one neighboring cell.
Harada from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: on a condition that measured serving cell quality criteria are met: on a condition that a determined location of the WTRU is less than the threshold distance from the reference location, not perform neighboring cell measurements (Harada figure 7, and paragraphs 130-131, UE #1 is located near the center of the serving cell, UE #1 is not configured with the CSI-RS configuration for the nearby cell, and will not report the measurement results of nearby cells, therefore UE #1 will not perform measurement for nearby cell); and on a condition that the determined location of the WTRU is greater than or equal to the threshold distance from the reference location, measure a signal quality of at least one neighboring cell (Harada figure 7, and paragraphs 130-131, UE #0 is located near the boundaries of the serving cell, and cells X and Y, UE #0 will measure and report the measurement results of cells X and Y).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Harada into Maattanen, since Maattanen suggests a technique for UE perform measurements on neighboring cells (Maattanen paragraph 84), and Harada suggests the beneficial way of whether to measure and report the measurement results of neighboring cells thus reducing the overhead of setup and/or reporting (Harada paragraph 48, 132) in the analogous art of communication.
Regarding claim 2, Maattanen and Harada teach the WTRU of claim 1, and Harada further teach wherein the measurement of the signal quality of the at least one neighboring cell includes determining, for a received signal from the at least one neighboring cell, one of the following: signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR), reference signal received quality (RSRQ), or reference signal received power (RSRP) (Harada paragraph 181).
Regarding claim 3, Maattanen and Harada teach the WTRU of claim 1, and Harada further teach wherein the transceiver and the processor are further configured to: report to a network node the measured signal quality of the at least one neighboring cell (Harada paragraph 130, “…Since UE #0 is located near the boundaries of the serving cell, cell X and cell Y, UE #0 reports the measurement results of cells X and Y…”, paragraph 32, “The network may find out the TRP with the highest received quality of signals in the UE, based on the measurement results reported from the UE…”).
Regarding claim 6, Maattanen and Harada teach the WTRU of claim 1, and Maattanen further teach further comprising a global positioning system (GPS) chipset, wherein the transceiver and the processor are further configured to receive, from the GPS chipset, information indicating the location of the WTRU (Maattanen figure 12, element 1214, and paragraphs 50, 53).
Regarding claim 8, Maattanen and Harada teach the WTRU of claim 1, and Maattanen further teach wherein the information for the serving cell is received in a system information block (SIB) (Maattanen paragraph 59, “…the network node may be configured to transmit the reference locations via broadcasting as noted above, for example by configuring a new System Information Block (SIB) or extending one or more existing SIB(s) in NR.…”).
Regarding claim 9, Maattanen and Harada teach the WTRU of claim 1, and Harada further teach wherein the measured serving cell quality criteria are based on a measurement of reference signal received power (RSRP) (Harada paragraph 181, “For example, the measurement section 305 may perform RRM (Radio Resource Management) measurements, CSI (Channel State Information) measurements and so on, based on the received signals. The measurement section 305 may measure the received power (for example, RSRP (Reference Signal Received Power))…”).
Regarding claim 10, Maattanen and Harada teach the WTRU of claim 1, and Harada further wherein the received information further includes measurement configuration information for channel state information reference signals (CSI-RSs) of the neighboring cells (Harada paragraph 130, “By this means, CSI-RS configurations for cells X and Y as nearby cells are configured in UE #0 by using individual RRC signaling”).
Regarding claim 11, Maattanen and Harada teach the limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Maattanen and Harada teach the limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, Maattanen and Harada teach the limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, Maattanen and Harada teach the limitations as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, Maattanen and Harada teach the limitations as set forth in claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, Maattanen and Harada teach the limitations as set forth in claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, Maattanen and Harada teach the limitations as set forth in claim 10.
Claim(s) 4-5, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20220086713_A1_Maattanen in view US_20200145981_A1_Harada and US_20210112473_A1_Martin.
Regarding claim 4, Maattanen and Harada teach the WTRU of claim 1, but do not teach wherein the transceiver and the processor are further configured to: receive a broadcast message including configuration information indicating at least one measurement threshold, wherein the measured serving cell quality criteria is based on the at least one measurement threshold.
Martin from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the transceiver and the processor are further configured to: receive a broadcast message including configuration information indicating at least one measurement threshold, wherein the measured serving cell quality criteria is based on the at least one measurement threshold (Martin figure 3, and paragraphs 84-85, “…the thresholds may be specified as being relative to a threshold which is transmitted in broadcast signalling by the serving cell…”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Martin into Maattanen and Harada, since Maattanen and Harada suggest a technique for a reporting criterion based a distance threshold from a network node (Maattanen paragraph 71), and Martin suggests the beneficial way of a threshold which is transmitted in broadcast signalling by the serving cell so that/thus the UE performs measurements according to the configuration from serving cell (Martin paragraph 85) in the analogous art of communication.
Regarding claim 5, Maattanen, Harada, and Martin teach the WTRU of claim 4, and Martin further teach wherein the configuration information indicates two measurement thresholds, and wherein the measured serving cell quality criteria is based on the two measurement thresholds (Martin figures 8B, 8C, paragraphs 77-78, paragraph 85, “…the thresholds may be specified as being relative to a threshold which is transmitted in broadcast signalling by the serving cell…”. The thresholds, which include Thresh_1, Q_Thresh_1, can be broadcasted to the UE for performing measurement on the serving cell).
Regarding claim 14, Maattanen, Harada and Martin teach the limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, Maattanen, Harada and Martin teach the limitations as set forth in claim 5.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20220086713_A1_Maattanen in view US_20200145981_A1_Harada and US_20180077529_A1_Ryu.
Regarding claim 7, Maattanen and Harada teach the WTRU of claim 1, but do not teach wherein the transceiver and the processor are further configured to receive, from a base station, information indicating the location of the WTRU.
Ryu from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the transceiver and the processor are further configured to receive, from a base station, information indicating the location of the WTRU (Ryu paragraph 294, “In addition, in step 2909, the UE may determine whether position information of the UE is received from the serving eNB. In other words, if the position information of the UE delivered by the serving eNB is received, proceeding to step 2911, the UE may finally confirm the position of the UE”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Ryu into Maattanen and Harada, since Maattanen and Harada suggest a technique for the UE receives configuration form the serving cell, and Ryu suggests the beneficial way of receiving position information of the UE from the serving eNB so that/thus may finally confirm the position of the UE (Ryu paragraph 294) in the analogous art of communication.
Regarding claim 17, Maattanen, Harada and Ryu teach the limitations as set forth in claim 7.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior art US_20200120563_A1_Takacs discloses the UAV is to record and report, to a source cell, to which the UAV is currently connected, radio measurement information describing signals from the first set of cells that are detected by the UAV (Takacs paragraph 77).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEIBIN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
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, 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.
/W.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights