Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. 2019/0053175 to Kubota and U.S. Pub. 2020/0413317 to Gao and U.S. 2017/0223584 to Deng and U.S. Patent Pub. 2011/0075621 to Sung.
Regarding claims 1 and 29, Kubota teaches a method for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
receiving, from the first cell, the first set of system information for the first cell (see step 805 in Fig. 8 as described in section [0109], which teaches that the UE 115-g receives a system information block SIB, which includes information for the current (first) cell 105-1) and a list of frequencies for neighboring cells);
identifying that the UE is operating in the first operation mode that is indicative that the first set of system information is applicable for the plurality of cells, the plurality of cells based at least in part on the indication of the plurality of cells received in the configuration message (see steps 810 and 815 as described in sections [0109] to [0110], which teach that the UE determines the capabilities of the cells in the list and the UE’s desired type of service/connection, which is the “operation mode”);
receiving a first signal indicating that the UE is in a second cell of a second network entity (see step 820 as described on section [0111], which teaches that the UE receives another “first” SIB/signal from a second base station); and
communicating in the second cell according to the first set of system information based at least in part on the identified first operation mode and the second cell being one of the plurality of cells (see step 825 as described in section [0112], which teaches that the UE selects or reselects a second cell based on the signal strength and/or type of service supported/offered by the second base station and/or what service is currently requested by the UE).
Therefore, although the feature of “identifying an operation mode indicating that the first set of system information is applicable for a plurality of cells” could be interpreted to be taught by Kubota (for example, section [0110] teaches UE in a “dual connectivity (operation) mode”, which allows two connections to the neighbor cells in the list), Gao is added to more explicitly show “identifying a mode of operation which indicates that a list of cell frequencies in an SIB is applicable to a plurality of cells”.
In an analogous art, Gao teaches a wireless system which provides cell frequencies in a SIB. See sections [0092] and [0098] to [0099]. See also section [0106], which teaches that the list of high-speed cell frequencies is received by the UE and updates to the cell searching processes are used so that these high-speed cell frequencies are searched before (prioritized) regular non-high-speed cells. Therefore, Gao teaches that the “identification of high-speed operation mode indicates using the high-speed cell frequencies list received in the SIB”, as recited.
Therefore, as Kubota teaches provision lists of neighbor cell frequencies and network services/capabilities for each of the plurality of cells in a SIB, and as Gao teaches providing lists of frequencies for high speed cells, it would have been obvious to modify Kubota to use a determination of mode of operation of the UE to determine from the SIB, which cell frequencies are to be scanned, as both Kubota and Gao teach the reasons for selecting cells based on the type of mode (“dual connectivity” or “high-speed”), as the type of UE mode is desired to be compatible with the cell.
Regarding the feature of claim 1 reciting “identifying an operation mode indicating that the first set of system information is shared between a plurality of cells”, although Kubota/Gao teach modes “applicable” between cells, Deng is added.
In an analogous art, Deng teaches a wireless system which provides indications of services shared between cells in an SIB. See for example, section [0069] which teaches that a ProSe service (defined as a proximity-based service) is indicated in the SIB as being available in other cells and is available using other (shared) PLMNs. See also section [0076], which teaches that the UE is handed over from the eNB to another cell so that the “identified mode of ProSe service” may be continued on the second cell. See also sections [0002] and [0025], which define the “mode of ProSe service”.
Therefore, as Kubota and Gao teach indicating modes of network services and/or capabilities for each of the plurality of cells in a SIB, and as Deng teaches providing a ProSe mode of operation shared between cells, it would have been obvious to modify Kubota/Gao to indicate service modes shared between cells for the reasons set forth in Deng, which are that loading on cells may be avoided as the mode of service may be off loaded to another cell.
Regarding the feature reciting “refraining from decoding at least a portion of system information received in the first signal at least based on part on the first set of system information being shared between the first cell and the second cell”, although the SIB broadcasted in each cell of Kubota is shared ([0109] and [0114]), as Kubota does not teach “refraining from decoding a portion of the SIB…”, Sung is added.
In an analogous art, Sung teaches a wireless system which provides shared system information to UEs. As described in section [0088], Sung teaches that in order to save battery life, when parts or portions of the system information is unchanged and/or not needed, these parts/portions are not decoded (which reads on the recited language of “refraining from decoding at least a portion…”. See for example, sections [0065] to [0067], [0084] to [0088], [0104], [0109] and [0112] to [0118], where section [0109] explicitly teaches “the UE does not decode dynamic system information and scheduling system information transmitted through a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH).”
Therefore, as Kubota teaches providing shared SIBs in each of a plurality of cells, and as Sung teaches that when a UE enters a cell it determines if there is needed updated dynamic system information, which when there is no updated/changed information needed, the UE refrains from decoding at least a portion of the system information, it would have been obvious to modify Kubota to use this “refrained decoding” of Sung, for the reason in section [0088] of Sung, which is that previously received system information (which is still valid) does not need to be redundantly received and decoded again, thereby saving battery power.
Regarding the feature which recites “based at least in part on the first set of system information being shared between the first cell and the second cell”, as discussed above, Deng teaches receiving proximity-based services indicated in the SIB as being available in other cells, and then communicating in the second cell with that information (which is therefore “shared between the cells”, as recited).
Regarding the feature which recites “receiving a configuration message that indicates a plurality of physical cell identifiers corresponding to a plurality of cells including a first cell of a first network entity, wherein a first set of system information is shared between the plurality of cells when the UE is operating in a first operation mode”; see sections [0019] to [0022] and [0024] of Kubota, which explicitly teaches “messages” sent from the base station network node that include information relating to both a first and second cell (such as RF frequencies used to access these cells), which is “shared”. See also sections [0109] to [0112], and see section [0046] for PCID as now recited.
Also, regarding the term “message” per se, as described above, Sung teaches a wireless system which receives SIBs and system information, and see for example, sections [0107] to [0114], which teach “system information messages”, which indicates that the information in an SIB and/or any system information message, may be interpreted as a “message” and/or a “configuration message”.
Regarding the feature “and wherein the first set of system information is shared between the plurality of cells based at least in part on the plurality of cells operating in a first frequency range usable by the UE, wherein the first set of system information is not shared between cells associated with a second frequency range usable by the UE”, it is noted that this is a passive wherein clause (not an active step).
In a method claim, only actively performed steps are given patentable weight. For example, in claim 1, the first actively performed step recites “receiving a configuration message that indicates a plurality of cells including a first cell of a first network entity”.
The wherein clause which immediately follows this step is “wherein the first set of system information is shared between the plurality of cells when the UE is operating in a first operation mode”. It is noted that the “first set of system information” is not defined as being included in the first receiving step”, and additionally as worded, is not an actively performed method step. Therefore, while this feature has been addressed for compact prosecution purposes, it may not carry patentable weight.
This wherein clause, also is not an actively performed step and therefore does not carry much patentable weight. However, for compact prosecution purposes, the newly added feature would be shown in the prior art as described below.
For example, the language sets fort that the “first information” is shared when using a first frequency range and not shared when using a second frequency range. As described above, Gao teaches that high-speed-train (HST) frequencies (within a first range) are applicable to (be shared) between the HST cells. See sections [0101] and [0105], which also teach that when not in the HST mode, the other regular cells use other frequencies, which are not shared with the other cells. Similarly, Deng teaches that the first system information (which is the ProSe service) uses a frequency that is shared between cells, where the first set of system information (ProSe service frequencies) is not shared when using another mode of connection between the cells. Therefore, the combination of references would teach and/or render obvious this recited feature given its limited patentable weight (as not being actively performed).
Regarding the amendments which now recite “a plurality of physical cell identifiers” (in four separate occurrences), as described above, both Kubota and Sung have been applied to the features relating to the “receiving the configuration message”, “receiving a first signal indicating that the UE is in a second cell…” and “refraining from decoding a portion…” where this phrase has been added (in these four occurrences). Regarding the Kubota and Sung references, see section [0048] of Kubota, which teaches that each cell has “an associated physical cell identifier (PCID)” and see sections [0066], [0084] and [0112]-[0113] of Sung, which teach that each cell has a “unique cell identifier” which is broadcasted by each cell so the UE is aware of its location and/or which cell it is currently attached to (as in sections [0112]-[0113], the UE moves in an out of coverage (i.e. the UE re-enters a specific cell from which it already has received the SIB)).
Therefore, as the references taught the previously recited features (which related to physical cells) and both Kubota and Sung teach that each cell has a unique physical cell identifier, the combination of references would teach and/or render obvious this feature.
Regarding claim 4, which recites “wherein the first set of system information is received in a system information block”, see section [0109] of Kubota which teaches using the SIB, as recited.
Claims 2-3 and 31are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2022/0015020 to Määttänen.
Regarding claims 2 and 31, which recite “wherein the first set of system information is received in a master information block”, as Kubota and Gao teach SIBs and not MIBs, Määttänen is added to show receiving system information in an MIB.
In an analogous art, Määttänen teaches a wireless system which provides system information to both UEs and NR IAB (base station nodes). The system information is transmitted in SIBs, PBCHs and MIBs. See for example, sections [0008]-[0009] and [0020], which teach that UEs need/use certain types of information and IAB nodes need/use different types of information (included in the MIBs). See also, section [0014], which teaches all the conventional signals (listed in claim 3 below).
Therefore, as Kubota teaches provision lists of neighbor cell frequencies and network services/capabilities for each of the plurality of cells in a SIB, and as Määttänen teaches providing additional cell information in an MIB, it would have been obvious to modify Kubota to use the MIB of Määttänen, as both MIBs and SIBs are used to provide system information which is useful to the UE for selecting cells based on type of mode.
Regarding claim 3, which recites “wherein the first set of system information that is shared between the plurality of cells comprises subcarrier spacing, a subcarrier offset, a demodulation reference signal position, a system information block location, a cell barred state, an intra-frequency selection state, or a combination thereof, indicated via the master information block, and wherein communicating in the second cell according to the first set of system information comprises applying, to the second cell, one or more of the subcarrier spacing, the subcarrier offset, the demodulation reference signal position, the system information block location, the cell barred state, or the intra-frequency selection state”, see for example, section [0014] of Määttänen, which teaches all these conventional signals. Regarding the “applying to the second cell”, as Kubota and Gao teach using SIBs in more than one cell, it would have been obvious to use “apply” the information in the SIB of Määttänen in the second cell of Kubota and/or Gao, as this enhances handovers, as the UE does not need to read an SIB in order to handover directly to the next high-speed cell.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2019/0313232 to Lee.
Regarding claim 5, which recites “wherein the first set of system information that is shared between the plurality of cells comprises cell selection information, cell access information, connection establishment information, system information scheduling information, serving cell configuration information, emergency support information, timer information, barring information, extension information, or a combination thereof, indicated via the system information block, and wherein communicating in the second cell according to the first set of system information comprises applying, to the second cell, one or more of the cell selection information, the cell access information, the connection establishment information, the system information scheduling information, the serving cell configuration information, the emergency support information, the timer information, the barring information, or the extension information”, as Kubota and Gao do not explicitly teach SIBs with this information, Lee is added.
In an analogous art, Lee teaches a wireless system which provides SIBs. See for example, Tables 8 and 9, which start after section [0420], which teach all of the conventional signals listed in claim 5.
Therefore, as Kubota teaches provision lists of neighbor cell frequencies and network services/capabilities for each of the plurality of cells in a SIB, and as Lee teaches providing the conventionally listed information in an SIB, it would have been obvious to modify Kubota to use the SIB of Lee, as these are conventionally used parameters and would also be obvious to use in the second cell, as recited, as both Kubota and Gao use the SIB information received from a first cell in a second cell.
Claims 6-9, 12, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2018/0176710 to Jang.
Regarding claim 6, which recites “wherein receiving the configuration message comprises: receiving, from the first network entity, the configuration message indicating the first operation mode, wherein the first operation mode is identified based at least in part on the received configuration message”, although claim 22 of Gao teaches that the UE receives indications of high-speed cells from the base station in an SIB (which indicates “high-speed” mode cells), as this information indicates the cell and not the UE per se, Jang is added.
In an analogous art, Jang teaches a wireless system which provides high-speed mode cell information and messages in a SIB. See for example, Figs. 1D and 1E, sections [0103] to [0107], and claims 5-6 of Jang, which teach that the base station sends an SIB message to the UE which indicates high-speed mode and/or cell measurements to make based on high-speed mode. Therefore, the high-speed mode is based in part on this received message, as recited.
Therefore, as Kubota/Gao teach lists of neighbor cell frequencies and network services/capabilities for each of the plurality of cells in a SIB, and as Jang teaches providing high-speed information message in an SIB to the terminal, it would have been obvious to modify Kubota/Gao to receive the high-speed message from the base station (as taught in Jang), for the reasons as taught in these references, which is that if the UE is moving at high-speed only high-speed cells should be selected, as the type of UE mode is desired to be compatible with the type of cell.
Regarding claim 7, which recites “further comprising: identifying the plurality of cells based at least in part on the configuration message”, as described above, both Gao and Jang teach using/identifying the high-speed cells from SIB configuration messages, as recited.
Regarding claim 8, which recites “wherein receiving the configuration message comprises: identifying the configuration message in a radio resource control message, a medium access control message, a physical downlink shared channel, or in a system information block”, as described above, both Gao and Jang teach receiving a SIB message (a SIB configuration message), in a “system information block”, as recited.
Regarding claim 9, which recites “further comprising: determining whether a master information block or one or more system information blocks of the first set of system information is shared between the plurality of cells based at least in part on the configuration message”, as the SIBs of Gao and Jang teach identifying a plurality of high-speed cells, this system information is therefore “determined as shared” between the identified high-speed cells, as recited.
Regarding claim 12, which recites “wherein the configuration message includes a table identifying the plurality of cells”, see for example, section [0092] of Gao, which teaches that the SIB message includes a list of high-speed train (HST) cells, as recited.
Regarding claim 14, which recites “further comprising: receiving, from one of the first network entity and the second network entity, a second set of system information that is applicable to the plurality of cells based at least in part on the UE being in the first operation mode”, as described above, as the combination of the teachings of the SIBs of Gao and Jang identify a plurality of high-speed cells, and they may be received a “second time from the second high-speed cell”, this recited system information is therefore “applicable to the plurality of high-speed cells” when the UE is in high-speed mode, as recited.
Regarding claim 17, which recites “wherein communicating in the second cell comprises: identifying that the UE is in an inactive state or an idle state; and performing a radio resource management procedure, a cell reselection procedure, or both, in the second cell using the first set of system information based at least in part on identifying that the UE is in the inactive state or the idle state”, see for example, Fig. 1F and sections [0122] to [0128] of Jang, which teach a cell reselection procedure while the UE is in an idle state, where the SIB information has identified high-speed cells, and section [0107] of Gao also teaches idle cell reselection in the high-speed cells, as recited.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2015/0208414 to Ji.
Regarding claim 11, which recites “wherein the first frequency range is associated with frequencies lower than the second frequency range usable by the UE, as Kubota and Gao do not explicitly teach this feature, Ji is added.
In an analogous art, Ji teaches a wireless system which provides cell information in a both MIBs and SIBs. See for example, sections [0011] to [0012], [0023] to [0024] and [0129], which teach that the MIB includes frequency ranges which indicate shared cells and/or frequencies not allowed for shared cells. Therefore, when a frequency range is for shared cells, the master information block is determined as “shared” between those shared cells, as recited.
Therefore, as Kubota/Gao teach lists of neighbor cell frequencies for each of the plurality of cells in a SIB, and as Ji teaches providing frequency ranges for shared cells in a SIB/MIB, it would have been obvious to modify Kubota/Gao to receive the MIB and determine if it is shared based on frequency range (as taught in Ji), for the reasons as taught in these references, which is that if the UE is moving at high-speed and handover to another compatible shared high-speed cell, the information in the MIB is valid for any shared high-speed cell and the UE dos not need to obtain the information again.
Therefore, as Ji teaches that certain frequencies are for shared cells and some are not shared, it renders obvious using higher or lower frequencies for the first/second ranges, as this is a design choice and/or there are only two possible scenarios, higher or lower. Therefore, the combination of references would teach and/or render obvious this feature and it is also noted that these frequencies are not recited as being actively used, which limits the patentable weight.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2020/0236605 to Yiu.
Regarding claim 13, which recites “further comprising: identifying an area code in the first signal; determining that the second cell is one of the plurality of cells based at least in part on the area code included in the first set of system information matching the area code included in the first signal; and receiving the a configuration message identifying that the first set of system information is shared between the plurality of cells based at least in part on the area code being shared between the plurality of cells”, as Kubota teaches identifying the second cell (from it’s “first system information broadcasted”) and determining that the second cell is one of the plurality of shared cells (and Gao also teaches determining a second high-speed cell), as these references do not explicitly teach an “area code” associated with the second cell, Yiu is added.
In an analogous art, Yiu teaches a wireless system which provides a high-speed train (HST) network of cells. See for example, Fig. 6 and sections [0077] to [0082], which teach that the network base stations (eNB, gNB) provide a list of cell IDs which identify the HST cells in the SIB.
Therefore, as Kubota/Gao teach providing shared SIBs and determining high-speed mode/cells, and as Yiu teaches proving a list of “shared HST cell area codes” in the SIB, it would have been obvious to modify Kubota/Gao to receive the cell area codes of Yiu in the SIB (as in Yiu), in order to quickly and efficiently signal shared high-speed cell information, as when the UE moves at high speeds, the cells are quickly changed, as this is conventional and desired for handover purposes.
Claim 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2016/0165638 to Ozturk.
Regarding claim 15, which recites “further comprising: receiving, from one of the first network entity and the second network entity, a paging signal when the UE is in an inactive or idle state; and transmitting, to the one of the first network entity and the second network entity, a random access request, wherein the second set of system information is received in response to the random access request”, although Jang teaches paging and RACH access, as it is not explicitly during an idle state ,Ozturk is added.
In an analogous art, Ozturk teaches a wireless system which provides SIB information for each cell and paging information. See for example, Figs. 9-11 and section [0076], which teaches that when the UE is in idle mode, it receives a paging signal and then performs a RACH access to that “second cell”. Therefore, after accessing the second cell, the UE may receive a second SIB, as recited.
Therefore, as Kubota/Gao/Jang teach paging, RACH access and SIBs for each cell, and as Ozturk teaches performing RACH access after receiving a page in an idle state, it would have been obvious to modify Kubota/Gao to receive another second SIB from the new second base station, as this is conventional and desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9-16-25 have been considered but are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (Kubota and Sung references). Applicants argue that Gao does not include the feature of physical cell IDs, however, as described above, this feature is in Kubota and Sung. Regarding Applicant’s argument that Sung does not teach the feature of “refraining from decoding…”, Applicant’s cite sections [0065]-[0066] and [0109] of Sung, however, section [0088] more explicitly teaches the feature of “refraining from decoding…”.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, as the combination of the concepts and teachings within these references appears to teach and/or render obvious the claim language as currently recited.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN SHAUN KELLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5652. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays to Fridays.
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, Matt Anderson can be reached on (571)272-4177. 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.
/STEVEN S KELLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646