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 statement submitted on 03/21/2025 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
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.
Claims 1-2,5,8-9,11-12,15,18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (CN 114785400, hereinafter Ding) in view of Qiao et al. (CN 113644949, hereinafter Qiao)
Regarding claim 1, Ding discloses a communication method comprising:
obtaining, by a first device, first information generated by a first protocol entity of the first device, wherein the first protocol entity of the first device corresponds to a first protocol entity of a second device (Par. 19; NAS signaling (first information) is provided by the NAS protocol (first protocol entity) layer and transported using NG-AP; Par. 28; The ground core network (first device) and service terminal (second device) include corresponding NAS-layer functionality for communicating NAS signaling used for mobility and session management; The NAS protocol functionality of the ground core network corresponds to the NAS protocol functionality of the UE);
and sending, by the first device, the first information to a first satellite (Par. 19; NAS signaling (first information) from the 5GC (first device) is carried by NG-AP over the NTN link to the on-board gNB; The first device sends the first information to the first satellite);
wherein the first satellite is included in a plurality of satellites (Par. 26: Lines 1-4; Two satellite-borne network nodes are provided for service of a terminal; The first satellite is included in a plurality of satellites);
and the first satellite provides network service for the second device (Par. 26: Line 4; The satellite-borne base station provides the access connection between the terminal (second device) and the network (first device); The first satellite provides network service for the second device).
Ding does not expressly disclose that the plurality of satellites correspond to one logical cell.
Qiao discloses wherein the plurality of satellites correspond to one logical cell (Par. 62; The satellite network is organized into common hyper-cell service areas; Par. 64: Lines 1-3; Multiple individual satellites are associated with the same hyper-cell; The plurality of satellites correspond to the same hyper-cell, which corresponds to the claimed logical cell).
Qiao further discloses that a satellite among the plurality provides service to the UE (Par. 65: Lines 6-7; The anchor satellite presently provides network communication service to the UE; Par.70: Lines 4-5; Additional satellites are associated with the same UE as cooperative satellites).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the satellite communication architecture of Ding to employ the hyper-cell and cooperative-satellite arrangement of Qiao, because both references address communication in networks in which satellites move relative to the user device. Organizing multiple serving satellites within a common logical service area would have allowed the network to maintain service continuity as individual satellites enter and leave favorable service positions, while reducing the need to repeatedly establish a completely new connection for each satellite transition. Such a modification would have predictably improved continuity of service and reduced satellite-switching delay while retaining the existing protocol architecture of Ding.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1, Ding further discloses wherein the first information is used for mobility management of the second device (Par. 28; The NAS signaling communicated between the ground core network and the UE is used to perform NAS-layer Mobility Management (MM) for the UE).
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 2, Ding in view of Qiao discloses the method of claim 2 (as detailed in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 above). Ding further discloses wherein the first protocol entity comprises a non-access stratum (NAS) entity (Par. 28; The ground core network communicates NAS signaling with the terminal for NAS-layer mobility and session management; The first protocol entity comprises a NAS entity).
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1, Ding discloses a communication method comprising obtaining, by a first device, first information generated by a first protocol entity of the first device, wherein the first protocol entity of the first device corresponds to a first protocol entity of a second device (Par. 29; The ground gNB-CU (first device) implements the PDCP/SDAP protocol (first protocol entity) functionality that processes and provides the PDCP PDU (first information) for transmission; Par. 31; The terminal includes corresponding PDCP/SDAP data-plane protocol functionality).
Ding further discloses sending, by the first device, the first information to a first satellite (Par. 29; The PDCP PDU is transmitted from the ground gNB-CU toward the satellite-borne gNB-DU through the NTN gateway).
Ding further discloses that the first satellite provides network service for the second device (Par. 26; The satellite-borne base station provides network access/service to the terminal).
Ding does not expressly disclose that the plurality of satellites correspond to one logical cell. Qiao, however, discloses a plurality of satellites corresponding to a common hyper-cell (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Ding further discloses wherein the first protocol entity comprises a service data adaptation protocol (SDAP) entity (Par. 29; The data-plane protocol functionality of the first device includes an SDAP protocol entity; Par. 31; Corresponding SDAP protocol functionality is likewise provided at the terminal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Qiao's hyper-cell arrangement in Ding's disclosed user-plane satellite architecture for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, thereby allowing the disclosed PDCP/SDAP protocol architecture to operate while multiple satellites correspond to a common logical service area.
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1, Ding in view of Qiao discloses a communication method comprising the limitations of claim 1 using Ding’s user-plane implementation, wherein the claimed first device corresponds to the ground gNB-CU, the claimed second device corresponds to the terminal/UE, the claimed first protocol entity comprises a PDCP entity, and the claimed first information corresponds to a PDCP PDU (Par. 29; The ground gNB-CU includes PDCP protocol functionality and processes the PDCP PDU; Par. 31; Corresponding PDCP protocol functionality is also implemented at the terminal side; The first protocol entity of the first device corresponds to PDCP protocol functionality of the second device and comprises a PDCP entity).
Ding further discloses sending, by the first device, the first information to a first satellite (Par. 29: The PDCP PDU (first information) is transmitted from the ground gNB-CU (first device) through the NTN gateway to the satellite-borne gNB-DU).
Ding further discloses that the first satellite provides network service to the second device (Par. 26: Line 4; The satellite-borne base station provides the terminal’s access to the network).
Ding does not expressly disclose that the plurality of satellites correspond to one logical cell.
Qiao, however, discloses a plurality of satellites associated with a common hyper-cell (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ding’s satellite communication architecture to employ Qiao’s hyper-cell arrangement so that multiple satellites correspond to a common logical service area, because such an arrangement would facilitate continued service as satellites move relative to the UE and reduce disruption associated with transitioning service between satellites.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 addressed the limitations presented in claim 11. Therefore, the limitations of claim 11 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim 11, the rejection of claim 2 addressed the limitations presented in claim 12. Therefore, the limitations of claim 12 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 15 as applied to claim 12, the rejection of claim 5 addressed the limitations presented in claim 15. Therefore, the limitations of claim 15 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 18 as applied to claim 11, the rejection of claim 8 addressed the limitations presented in claim 18. Therefore, the limitations of claim 18 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 19 as applied to claim 11, the rejection of claim 9 addressed the limitations presented in claim 19. Therefore, the limitations of claim 19 have been addressed.
Claims 3,13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (CN 114785400, hereinafter Ding) in view of Qiao et al. (CN 113644949, hereinafter Qiao) in further view of Noh et al. (US 20220272744, hereinafter Noh)
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claims 2, Ding in view of Qiao discloses the method of claim 2 (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 and claim 2 above), but does not expressly disclose wherein the first protocol entity comprises a radio resource control (RRC) entity.
Noh, however, discloses wherein the first protocol entity comprises an RRC entity (Par. 76; The RRC layer at the base station and UE generates and manages control signaling associated with UE mobility and handover; An RRC protocol entity is responsible for mobility-management signaling between a network device and UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mobility-management signaling of Ding in view of Qiao to utilize an RRC protocol entity, as taught by Noh, because RRC is a known protocol mechanism for generating and managing control signaling associated with UE mobility and handover. Such a modification would have predictably allowed the network to manage mobility of the UE using established RRC signaling while maintaining the satellite communication arrangement of Ding in view of Qiao.
Regarding claim 13 as applied to claim 12, the rejection of claim 3 addressed the limitations presented in claim 13. Therefore, the limitations of claim 13 have been addressed.
Claims 4,14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (CN 114785400, hereinafter Ding) in view of Qiao et al. (CN 113644949, hereinafter Qiao) in further view of Yi (WO 2023126008)
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1, Ding in view of Qiao discloses the method of claim 1 (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above), but does not expressly disclose wherein the first information comprises one or more of:
a synchronization signal and physical broadcast channel block (SSB)-based measurement timing configuration (SMTC) corresponding to each of the plurality of satellites, a time offset of the SMTC, ephemeris information of a satellite corresponding to a satellite providing a network service for the second device in a first time length, a first distance threshold for determining whether the second device performs registration area update, time at which the second device performs satellite reselection, time at which the second device performs satellite switching, a location at which the second device performs satellite reselection, a location at which the second device performs satellite switching, or paging configuration information of the second device in the cell corresponding to the plurality of satellites.
Yi, however, discloses wherein the first information comprises information indicating a time for satellite switching (Page 8: Lines 10-14: S201; The core network maintains time information identifying which satellites are capable of serving the UE at respective times; Page 8: Lines 45-49 and Page 9: Lines 1-3: S203; “the core network sends all TA aggregate satellite information and satellite service duration information to the terminal device” and “The duration of the service is the time at which the satellite starts serving each time to the end of the service due to movement”; The core network therefore sends the UE information identifying the respective time periods during which satellites provide service; Page 9: Lines 22-23; S204; The transmitted time and satellite-service information identifies when service of the UE changes from the current serving satellite to another satellite, thereby indicating a time for satellite switching).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first information of Ding in view of Qiao to include the satellite-switching time information taught by Yi, because providing the terminal with information identifying the times during which respective satellites provide service would allow the terminal to determine when service transitions from a current serving satellite to a subsequent satellite. Such a modification would have predictably facilitated continued communication as satellites move relative to the terminal while reducing unnecessary mobility signaling.
Regarding claim 14 as applied to claim 11, the rejection of claim 4 addressed the limitations presented in claim 14. Therefore, the limitations of claim 14 have been addressed.
Claims 6,16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (CN 114785400, hereinafter Ding) in view of Qiao et al. (CN 113644949, hereinafter Qiao) in further view of Jin et al. (WO 2022041932, hereinafter Jin)
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 5, Ding in view of Qiao discloses the method of claim 5 (as detailed in the rejection of claim 5 above), but does not expressly disclose wherein the first information comprises registration area update information indicating whether a registration area of the second device is successfully updated.
Jin, however, discloses wherein the first information comprises registration area update information indicating whether a registration area of the second device is successfully updated (Par. 346; The core network equipment, such as the AMF, sends a NAS Registration Accept or TAU Accept message to the terminal/UE; The terminal corresponds to the claimed second device, and the Registration Accept or TAU Accept message indicates acceptance of the registration/tracking-area update associated with that terminal, thereby indicating that the registration area of the second device was successfully updated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the NAS signaling of Ding in view of Qiao to include the registration-area-update result information taught by Jin, because informing the terminal whether its registration-area update was successfully accepted would allow the terminal and network to maintain consistent mobility-registration information and continue communication using the updated registration state.
Regarding claim 16 as applied to claim 15, the rejection of claim 6 addressed the limitations presented in claim 16. Therefore, the limitations of claim 16 have been addressed.
Claims 7,17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (CN 114785400, hereinafter Ding) in view of Qiao et al. (CN 113644949, hereinafter Qiao) in further view of Jeong et al. (WO 2022149895, hereinafter Jeong)
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 5, Ding in view of Qiao discloses the method of claim 5 (as detailed in the rejection of claim 5 above), but does not expressly disclose, before sending the first information, receiving, by the first device from the first satellite, second information indicating an update location of the second device, and processing the second information using the NAS entity.
Jeong, however, discloses second information indicating an update location of the second device and processing such information as part of a NAS registration/tracking-area-update operation (Abstract; The UE location is expressly included as information associated with a NAS registration or tracking-area-update procedure; The claimed second information corresponds to information identifying the location of the UE, which corresponds to the claimed second device; “A RRC message including the information for the UE location is generated. The RRC message encapsulates a NAS message”; The UE location information is conveyed in connection with a NAS message used for the registration/tracking-area-update procedure; “The transceiver is configured to transmit … the RRC message including the information for the UE location to the BS”; The UE therefore sends its location-update information to the base station as part of the NAS registration/tracking-area-update procedure).
Ding further discloses communication of NAS signaling between the satellite-borne gNB and the core network (Par. 19; The claimed first satellite corresponds to the on-board/satellite-borne gNB and the claimed first device corresponds to the 5GC, such that NAS signaling received by the satellite-borne gNB is transported between the gNB and the 5GC through NG-AP; Par. 28; The core network processes NAS signaling associated with UE mobility management).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the NAS mobility-management signaling of Ding in view of Qiao to include the UE-location information used in the NAS registration/tracking-area-update procedure of Jeong, such that the satellite-borne gNB receives the UE location information and forwards the NAS signaling to the core network for NAS-layer mobility processing. Such a modification would have predictably enabled the core network to use updated UE location information when performing registration and mobility management in the satellite network.
Regarding claim 17 as applied to claim 15, the rejection of claim 7 addressed the limitations presented in claim 17. Therefore, the limitations of claim 17 have been addressed.
Claims 10,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (CN 114785400, hereinafter Ding) in view of Qiao et al. (CN 113644949, hereinafter Qiao) in further view of Kilhamn et al. (WO 2022156896, hereinafter Kilhamn)
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 1, Ding in view of Qiao discloses a communication method comprising obtaining, by a first device, first information generated by a first protocol entity of the first device, and sending the first information to a first satellite (Ding: Par. 27; The satellite-borne base station processes the user data using, inter alia, its RLC protocol layer (firs protocol entity) to generate the SDU (first information) and forwards the generated information to a target satellite-borne base station, which then provides the information to the terminal).
Ding in view of Qiao further discloses that the first satellite is included in a plurality of satellites and provides network service for the second device, and that the plurality of satellites correspond to one logical cell (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Ding in view of Qiao does not expressly disclose that the RLC protocol entity of the first device corresponds to an RLC protocol entity of the second device.
Kilhamn, however, discloses corresponding RLC protocol functionality at a base station and UE (Page 1: Lines 27-28; The base station transmits an RLC PDU using its RLC protocol functionality to the UE, and corresponding RLC functionality at the UE receives and processes the RLC PDU and returns an RLC ACK/NACK; Page 1: Line 28 and Page 2: Line 1; The UE therefore implements corresponding RLC protocol functionality for processing RLC PDUs transmitted by the base station).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the RLC functionality of Ding using corresponding RLC protocol entities at the base station and UE, as taught by Kilhamn, because corresponding RLC entities provide acknowledged delivery and retransmission handling for data transmitted between the network and UE. Such a modification would have predictably improved reliability of data delivery in Ding’s satellite communication architecture while retaining Qiao’s multi-satellite logical-cell arrangement.
Regarding claim 20 as applied to claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 addressed the limitations presented in claim 20. Therefore, the limitations of claim 20 have been addressed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIAN BOTELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-4439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/FABIAN BOTELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights