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 .
Priority
The applicant’s claim for priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/183,143, filed May 3, 2021, is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/02/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 32, 33, 35, 46, and 47 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 32, “wherein the first and second segment area identifiers” should read “wherein the first segment area identifier and the second segment area identifier” for clarity.
in claim 32, “received from the first and second cells” should read “received from the first cell and the second cell” for clarity.
in claim 33, “the first and second segment area identifiers” should read “the first segment area identifier and the second segment area identifier” for clarity.
in claim 35, “segments of the SIB transmitted in the first cell” should read “segments of the SIB transmitted in at least the first cell” for consistency with the “transmitting multiple segments” step.
in claim 46, “a transmitter and receiver” should read “a transmitter and a receiver”.
in claim 46, “coupled to the transmitter and receiver” should read “coupled to the transmitter and the receiver”.
in claim 47, “segments of the SIB transmitted in the first cell” should read “segments of the SIB transmitted in at least the first cell” for consistency with the “transmitting multiple segments” step.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 36-45, and 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the segments of the SIB received in the first cell". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests that the limitation should read “segments of the SIB received in the first cell”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as such.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "in the event". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests that the limitation should read “in an event”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as such.
Claims 37-43 are rejected at least based on their dependency on claim 36.
Claim 44 recites the limitation "the same segmentation". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests that the limitation should read “a same segmentation”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as such.
Claim 48 recites the limitation "the same segmentation". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests that the limitation should read “a same segmentation”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as such.
Claims 45 and 49 are rejected at least based on their dependency on claims 44 and 48, respectively.
Claim 45 recites the limitation "in the event". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests that the limitation should read “in an event”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as such.
Claim 49 recites the limitation "in the event". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests that the limitation should read “in an event”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as such.
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.
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.
Claims 30-31, 35-36, 39, and 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panzner et al. (US 2024/0073789), hereinafter “Panzner”, in view of Venkatram et al. (US 2022/0030411), hereinafter “Venkatram”.
Regarding claims 30, 46, Panzner teaches:
A method performed by a user equipment for receiving system information messages from a wireless network or a user equipment (UE) for receiving system information messages from a wireless network, the method or the UE comprising:
a transmitter and receiver (see Panzner, Fig. 2, par. [0105]: The apparatus 50 may further comprise an antenna 59 connected to the radio interface circuitry 52 for transmitting radio frequency signals generated at the radio interface circuitry 52 to other apparatus(es) and for receiving radio frequency signals from other apparatus(es)); and
processing circuitry operatively coupled to the transmitter and receiver and configured (see Panzner, Fig. 2, par. [0103]: The apparatus 50 may comprise a controller 56 or processor for controlling the apparatus 50. The controller 56 may be connected to memory 58 which in embodiments of the invention may store both data and/or may also store instructions for implementation on the controller 56. The controller 56 may further be connected to codec circuitry 54 suitable for carrying out coding and decoding of audio and/or video data or assisting in coding and decoding carried out by the controller 56) to:
receive at least one segment of a segmented system information block (SIB) in a first cell, via the receiver (see Panzner, Fig. 8, par. [0150]: In phase 802, a UE is connected to a cell, ‘cell 1’ hosted by a gNB and the UE receives segment numbers #34, #35 and #36 of a SIB12 message from the gNB);
receive at least one other segment of the SIB in a second cell, via the receiver (see Panzner, Fig. 8, par. [0152]: The gNB hosting the new cell may determine non-received SIB message segments, in this example #37 and #38 and to transmit the non-received segments that have not been received by the UE. In this example the gNB hosting the new cell may start to transmit the non-received segments from segment #37 onwards. The non-received segments may be determined to be the segments of SIB12 that have a segment number that is greater than the segment number of the last segment received by the UE; in this case, the new cell corresponds to the second cell);
However, Panzner does not teach:
determine, based on information received from the wireless network, whether the at least one segment of the SIB received in the first cell can be concatenated with the at least one other segment of the SIB received in the second cell; and
concatenate the at least one segment received in the first cell with the at least one other segment received in the second cell, to form the SIB, or discard the at least one segment received in the first cell, depending on said information.
Venkatram, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
determine, based on information received from the wireless network, whether the at least one segment of the SIB received in the first cell can be concatenated with the at least one other segment of the SIB received in the second cell (see Venkatram, Fig. 3, par. [0123]: Upon receiving PWS segments via the second cell 305-b, the UE 115-b may be configured to determine whether PWS segments were previously received via the first cell 305-a should be kept or discarded. In particular, the PWS segments received via the second cell 305-b may be associated with the same PWS information as the PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a or different PWS information. As such, if the PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a and the second cell 305-b correspond to different PWS information (e.g., different PWS messages), the PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a may not be applicable to the second cell 305-b, and may therefore be discarded. Stated differently, if the geographical scope of PWS information corresponding to PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a does not include the second cell 305-b (e.g., the second cell 305-b is not included within the geographical scope of the PWS information on the first cell 305-a), the UE 115-b may determine that the PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a do not apply to the second cell 305-b, and may therefore be discarded, and see par. [0127]: if the geographical scope of the PWS information is PLMN-wide and serial identifiers of the PWS segments received via both the first cell 305-a and the second cell 305-b is the same, then the UE 115-b may determine that PWS information (e.g., cell broadcast system (CBS) message) has not been changed across cells 305, and that PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a may be maintained. In some cases, there is a possibility that the PWS information (CBS message) has been changed across cells. However, the satisfaction of the conditions above (e.g., same geographical scope, same serial-ids) may be sufficient for the UE 115-b to maintain PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a to maintain the possibility of successful concatenation of PWS segments across cells 305; in this case, upon receiving PWS information, it is determined whether segments received via the first cell are kept and combined with segments (i.e. concatenated) received in the second cell or discarded); and
concatenate the at least one segment received in the first cell with the at least one other segment received in the second cell, to form the SIB, or discard the at least one segment received in the first cell, depending on said information (see Venkatram, Fig. 3, pars. [0125-0126]: In cases where the UE 115-b determines that the second cell 305-b is not included within the geographical scope, the UE 115-b may determine that the PWS segments received via the first cell 305-b are not valid or applicable for the second cell 305-b, and may therefore discard the PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a (e.g., discard Segments 1, 3, 4, 5, 21, and/or message buffer 310-a). Conversely, if the UE 115-b determines that the second cell 305-b is included in the geographical scope (e.g., geographical scope matches and/or geographical scope includes both cells 305-a and 305-b), the UE 115-a may be configured to maintain PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a and maintain multiple message buffers 310. In particular, the UE 115-b may keep PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a based on the geographical scope matching, PWS scheduling information for the second cell 305-b being present, and serial identifiers (serial-ids) and message identifiers (message-ids) across the first cell 305-a and the second cell 305-b matching (e.g., being the same); in this case, segments received via the first cell are kept and combined with segments received in the second cell or discarded based on the determination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method or UE of Panzner with the determining whether segments can be concatenated and concatenating or discarding of Venkatram with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improved user experience and reducing power consumption (see Venkatram, par. [0241]).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram teaches the method.
Panzner does not teach, but Venkatram teaches:
wherein the information comprises a first segment area identifier associated with the at least one segment of the SIB received in the first cell and a second segment area identifier associated with the at least one other segment of the SIB received in the second cell, and wherein said determining comprises determining that the at least one segment of the SIB received in the first cell can be concatenated with the at least one other segment of the SIB received in the second cell in response to determining the first segment area identifier matches the second segment area identifier (see Venkatram, Fig. 3, pars. [0126-0127]: the UE 115-b may keep PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a based on the geographical scope matching, PWS scheduling information for the second cell 305-b being present, and serial identifiers (serial-ids) and message identifiers (message-ids) across the first cell 305-a and the second cell 305-b matching (e.g., being the same). For example, if the geographical scope of the PWS information is PLMN-wide and serial identifiers of the PWS segments received via both the first cell 305-a and the second cell 305-b is the same, then the UE 115-b may determine that PWS information (e.g., cell broadcast system (CBS) message) has not been changed across cells 305, and that PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a may be maintained. In some cases, there is a possibility that the PWS information (CBS message) has been changed across cells. However, the satisfaction of the conditions above (e.g., same geographical scope, same serial-ids) may be sufficient for the UE 115-b to maintain PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a to maintain the possibility of successful concatenation of PWS segments across cells 305, and see par. [0111]: system information (e.g., a SIB, PWS information) may be configured according to a certain quantity of segments for certain messages. For example, SIB7 and SIB8 may be configured with up to 64 segments to form a complete message (e.g., a warning message, a PWS message); in this case, the serial identifiers and geographical scope of segments from each cell correspond to the segment area identifiers and determining whether concatenation is possible is done based on matching).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Panzner with the specific information of Venkatram with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improved user experience and reducing power consumption (see Venkatram, par. [0241]).
Regarding claims 35, 47, Panzner teaches:
A method performed by a network node for providing system information to a user equipment (UE) or a network node for providing system information to a user equipment (UE), the method or the network node comprising:
radio circuitry configured to communicate with the UE (see Panzner, Fig. 10, par. [0160]: The apparatus comprises a processor 1002 and a transceiver 1004. The processor is operatively connected to the transceiver for controlling the transceiver); and
processing circuitry operatively coupled to the radio circuitry and configured (see Panzner, Fig. 10, par. [0160]: The apparatus comprises a processor 1002 and a transceiver 1004. The processor is operatively connected to the transceiver for controlling the transceiver) to:
transmit in at least a first cell, via the radio circuitry, multiple segments of a system information block, SIB (see Panzner, Fig. 8, par. [0150]: In phase 802, a UE is connected to a cell, ‘cell 1’ hosted by a gNB and the UE receives segment numbers #34, #35 and #36 of a SIB12 message from the gNB); and
However, Panzner does not teach:
transmit, via the radio circuitry, information indicating whether segments of the SIB transmitted in the first cell can be concatenated by a UE with one or more segments of the SIB received by the UE in a second cell.
Venkatram, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
transmit, via the radio circuitry, information indicating whether segments of the SIB transmitted in the first cell can be concatenated by a UE with one or more segments of the SIB received by the UE in a second cell (see Venkatram, Fig. 3, par. [0123]: Upon receiving PWS segments via the second cell 305-b, the UE 115-b may be configured to determine whether PWS segments were previously received via the first cell 305-a should be kept or discarded. In particular, the PWS segments received via the second cell 305-b may be associated with the same PWS information as the PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a or different PWS information. As such, if the PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a and the second cell 305-b correspond to different PWS information (e.g., different PWS messages), the PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a may not be applicable to the second cell 305-b, and may therefore be discarded. Stated differently, if the geographical scope of PWS information corresponding to PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a does not include the second cell 305-b (e.g., the second cell 305-b is not included within the geographical scope of the PWS information on the first cell 305-a), the UE 115-b may determine that the PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a do not apply to the second cell 305-b, and may therefore be discarded, and see par. [0127]: if the geographical scope of the PWS information is PLMN-wide and serial identifiers of the PWS segments received via both the first cell 305-a and the second cell 305-b is the same, then the UE 115-b may determine that PWS information (e.g., cell broadcast system (CBS) message) has not been changed across cells 305, and that PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a may be maintained. In some cases, there is a possibility that the PWS information (CBS message) has been changed across cells. However, the satisfaction of the conditions above (e.g., same geographical scope, same serial-ids) may be sufficient for the UE 115-b to maintain PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a to maintain the possibility of successful concatenation of PWS segments across cells 305, and see par. [0111]: system information (e.g., a SIB, PWS information) may be configured according to a certain quantity of segments for certain messages. For example, SIB7 and SIB8 may be configured with up to 64 segments to form a complete message (e.g., a warning message, a PWS message), and see par. [0116]: The UE 115-b may communicate with a network via one or more cells 305, including a first cell 305-a (e.g., Cell A) and a second cell 305-b (e.g., Cell B). In some implementations, the first cell 305-a and the second cell 305-b may be supported by the same base station 105 (e.g., base station 105-a illustrated in FIG. 2). Additionally, or alternatively, the first cell 305-a and the second cell 305-b may be supported by different base stations 105; in this case, based on transmitted PWS information, it is determined whether segments received via the first cell are kept and combined with segments received in the second cell or discarded).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method or network node of Panzner with the information for determining whether segments can be concatenated of Venkatram with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improved user experience and reducing power consumption (see Venkatram, par. [0241]).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram teaches the method.
Panzner does not teach, but Venkatram teaches:
wherein the information comprises a first segment area identifier associated with multiple segments of the SIB transmitted in the first cell, such that the segments of the SIB received in the first cell can be concatenated with one or more segments of the SIB received in the second cell in the event that the first segment area identifier matches a second segment area identifier received by the UE in the second cell (see Venkatram, Fig. 3, pars. [0126-0127]: the UE 115-b may keep PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a based on the geographical scope matching, PWS scheduling information for the second cell 305-b being present, and serial identifiers (serial-ids) and message identifiers (message-ids) across the first cell 305-a and the second cell 305-b matching (e.g., being the same). For example, if the geographical scope of the PWS information is PLMN-wide and serial identifiers of the PWS segments received via both the first cell 305-a and the second cell 305-b is the same, then the UE 115-b may determine that PWS information (e.g., cell broadcast system (CBS) message) has not been changed across cells 305, and that PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a may be maintained. In some cases, there is a possibility that the PWS information (CBS message) has been changed across cells. However, the satisfaction of the conditions above (e.g., same geographical scope, same serial-ids) may be sufficient for the UE 115-b to maintain PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a to maintain the possibility of successful concatenation of PWS segments across cells 305, and see par. [0111]: system information (e.g., a SIB, PWS information) may be configured according to a certain quantity of segments for certain messages. For example, SIB7 and SIB8 may be configured with up to 64 segments to form a complete message (e.g., a warning message, a PWS message); in this case, the serial identifiers and geographical scope of segments from each cell correspond to the segment area identifiers and determining whether concatenation is possible is done based on matching).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Panzner with the specific information of Venkatram with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improved user experience and reducing power consumption (see Venkatram, par. [0241]).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram teaches the method.
Panzner does not teach, but Venkatram teaches:
wherein the first segment area identifier is specific to the SIB (see Venkatram, Fig. 3, pars. [0126-0127]: the UE 115-b may keep PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a based on the geographical scope matching, PWS scheduling information for the second cell 305-b being present, and serial identifiers (serial-ids) and message identifiers (message-ids) across the first cell 305-a and the second cell 305-b matching (e.g., being the same). For example, if the geographical scope of the PWS information is PLMN-wide and serial identifiers of the PWS segments received via both the first cell 305-a and the second cell 305-b is the same, then the UE 115-b may determine that PWS information (e.g., cell broadcast system (CBS) message) has not been changed across cells 305, and that PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a may be maintained. In some cases, there is a possibility that the PWS information (CBS message) has been changed across cells. However, the satisfaction of the conditions above (e.g., same geographical scope, same serial-ids) may be sufficient for the UE 115-b to maintain PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a to maintain the possibility of successful concatenation of PWS segments across cells 305, and see par. [0111]: system information (e.g., a SIB, PWS information) may be configured according to a certain quantity of segments for certain messages. For example, SIB7 and SIB8 may be configured with up to 64 segments to form a complete message (e.g., a warning message, a PWS message)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Panzner with the specific information of Venkatram with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improved user experience and reducing power consumption (see Venkatram, par. [0241]).
Claims 32, 34, 37-38, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panzner in view of Venkatram, as applied to claims 30-31, 35-36, 39, and 46-47 above, and further in view of Tseng et al. (US 2021/0377844), hereinafter “Tseng”.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram teaches the method.
However, the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram does not teach:
wherein the first and second segment area identifiers are included in SIB1 messages received from the first and second cells, respectively.
Tseng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the first and second segment area identifiers are included in SIB1 messages received from the first and second cells, respectively (see Tseng, Fig. 2A, par. [0073]: UE 220 may receive (or be configured with) a first value tag (e.g., value tag (y), VT(y)) by base station 210. The first value tag (y) may be associated with target SIBx. The UE may receive this value tag/areaScope/systemInformationAreaID from the base station through DL control signaling (e.g., through RRC signaling, such as RRCReconfiguration message with the information element ‘dedicatedSIB1-Delivery’, which is configured to transmit SIB1 to the UE via UE-specific RRC signaling). Please also note this field has the same values as the corresponding configuration in the broadcasting SIB1) or through SI broadcasting (e.g., SIB1), and see par. [0075]: In stage 204 of FIG. 2B, UE 220 may receive (or be configured with) a second value tag (e.g., value tag (z), VT(z)) by base station 210. The second value tag (z) may also be associated with target SIBx (e.g., the value tag may change because the SIB version may have been updated by this time). UE 220 may receive this new value tag from the base station through DL control signaling (e.g., through RRC signaling) or through SI broadcasting (e.g., SIB1), and see par. [0080]: a UE may (re)select a serving/selected cell (e.g., such that the cellidentity parameter received from the new serving/selected cell may be different from the stored cellidentity parameter associated with the stored SIB segments) on a target frequency associated with a specific service (e.g., V2X-service) and the parameter {areaScope} may not be present in the stored SIB segments. Under such a circumstance, the UE may discard all of the stored SIB segments with their corresponding stored {PLMN-Identity or NPN-Identity}, {valueTag}, {areaScope} (if present), and {systemInformationAreaID} (if present) associated with the stored SIB segments; in this case, identity and area information is received via SIB1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the segment area identifiers of the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram with the segment area identifiers being included in SIB1 messages of Tseng with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of increasing the efficiency of SIB segment management (see Tseng, par. [0005]).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram, and further in view of Tseng, teaches the method.
The combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram does not teach, but Tseng teaches:
wherein the method comprises receiving, from the wireless network, an indication that an identifier or field included in each SIB1 is to be reused as a segment area identifier (see Tseng, Fig. 3B, pars. [0103-0104]: in action 380, process 300B may receive a value tag associated with the target SIB or the target SIB segment(s) when the UE is staying at the same serving cell during the SIB segments reception procedure or the UE has just started receiving the SIB segment(s) of the target SIB (e.g., when the UE has not stored any SIB segment of the target SIB yet). In action 390, process 300B may determine whether a corresponding value tag (e.g., which is transmitted via the currently received SIB1 of the serving cell) of the target SIB/SIB segments is the same as the corresponding value tag of the stored SIB segment(s), and see Fig. 2A, par. [0073]: UE 220 may receive (or be configured with) a first value tag (e.g., value tag (y), VT(y)) by base station 210. The first value tag (y) may be associated with target SIBx. The UE may receive this value tag/areaScope/systemInformationAreaID from the base station through DL control signaling (e.g., through RRC signaling, such as RRCReconfiguration message with the information element ‘dedicatedSIB1-Delivery’, which is configured to transmit SIB1 to the UE via UE-specific RRC signaling). Please also note this field has the same values as the corresponding configuration in the broadcasting SIB1) or through SI broadcasting (e.g., SIB1); in this case, receiving information associated with the target SIB triggers the use of a stored value tag, corresponding to receiving an indication that an identifier is to be reused).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram with the receiving an indication of reusing an identifier of Tseng with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of increasing the efficiency of SIB segment management (see Tseng, par. [0005]).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram teaches the method.
However, the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram does not teach:
wherein the first segment area identifier is included in a SIB1 message transmitted in the first cell.
Tseng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the first segment area identifier is included in a SIB1 message transmitted in the first cell (see Tseng, Fig. 2A, par. [0073]: UE 220 may receive (or be configured with) a first value tag (e.g., value tag (y), VT(y)) by base station 210. The first value tag (y) may be associated with target SIBx. The UE may receive this value tag/areaScope/systemInformationAreaID from the base station through DL control signaling (e.g., through RRC signaling, such as RRCReconfiguration message with the information element ‘dedicatedSIB1-Delivery’, which is configured to transmit SIB1 to the UE via UE-specific RRC signaling). Please also note this field has the same values as the corresponding configuration in the broadcasting SIB1) or through SI broadcasting (e.g., SIB1) ; in this case, identity and area information is received via SIB1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the segment area identifiers of the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram with the segment area identifiers being included in SIB1 messages of Tseng with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of increasing the efficiency of SIB segment management (see Tseng, par. [0005]).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram, and further in view of Tseng, teaches the method.
Panzner does not teach, but Venkatram teaches:
wherein the first segment area identifier comprises a first portion unique to the network node, among a group of network nodes including the network node (see Venkatram, Fig. 3, pars. [0126-0127]: the UE 115-b may keep PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a based on the geographical scope matching, PWS scheduling information for the second cell 305-b being present, and serial identifiers (serial-ids) and message identifiers (message-ids) across the first cell 305-a and the second cell 305-b matching (e.g., being the same). For example, if the geographical scope of the PWS information is PLMN-wide and serial identifiers of the PWS segments received via both the first cell 305-a and the second cell 305-b is the same, then the UE 115-b may determine that PWS information (e.g., cell broadcast system (CBS) message) has not been changed across cells 305, and that PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a may be maintained. In some cases, there is a possibility that the PWS information (CBS message) has been changed across cells. However, the satisfaction of the conditions above (e.g., same geographical scope, same serial-ids) may be sufficient for the UE 115-b to maintain PWS segments received via the first cell 305-a to maintain the possibility of successful concatenation of PWS segments across cells 305, and see par. [0100]: initiating a transition to a new communication resource may include the UE 115-a releasing a communication link with a cell associated with the first communication resource (e.g., releasing a communication link with the base station 105-a), or performing a UE-initiated reselection to a new cell associated with the second communication resource (e.g., a new cell of the base station 105-a, a new cell of the base station 105-b)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Panzner with the specific information of Venkatram with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improved user experience and reducing power consumption (see Venkatram, par. [0241]).
The combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram does not teach, but Tseng teaches:
wherein the first segment area identifier corresponds to a predetermined field designated as a segment area identifier (see Tseng, Fig. 2A, par. [0073]: UE 220 may receive (or be configured with) a first value tag (e.g., value tag (y), VT(y)) by base station 210. The first value tag (y) may be associated with target SIBx. The UE may receive this value tag/areaScope/systemInformationAreaID from the base station through DL control signaling (e.g., through RRC signaling, such as RRCReconfiguration message with the information element ‘dedicatedSIB1-Delivery’, which is configured to transmit SIB1 to the UE via UE-specific RRC signaling). Please also note this field has the same values as the corresponding configuration in the broadcasting SIB1) or through SI broadcasting (e.g., SIB1))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the segment area identifiers of the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram with the predetermined field of Tseng with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of increasing the efficiency of SIB segment management (see Tseng, par. [0005]).
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram teaches the method.
However, the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram does not teach:
wherein the method comprises transmitting an indication that an identifier or field included in the SIB 1 is to be reused as a segment area identifier.
Tseng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the method comprises transmitting an indication that an identifier or field included in the SIB 1 is to be reused as a segment area identifier (see Tseng, Fig. 3B, pars. [0103-0104]: in action 380, process 300B may receive a value tag associated with the target SIB or the target SIB segment(s) when the UE is staying at the same serving cell during the SIB segments reception procedure or the UE has just started receiving the SIB segment(s) of the target SIB (e.g., when the UE has not stored any SIB segment of the target SIB yet). In action 390, process 300B may determine whether a corresponding value tag (e.g., which is transmitted via the currently received SIB1 of the serving cell) of the target SIB/SIB segments is the same as the corresponding value tag of the stored SIB segment(s), and see Fig. 2A, par. [0073]: UE 220 may receive (or be configured with) a first value tag (e.g., value tag (y), VT(y)) by base station 210. The first value tag (y) may be associated with target SIBx. The UE may receive this value tag/areaScope/systemInformationAreaID from the base station through DL control signaling (e.g., through RRC signaling, such as RRCReconfiguration message with the information element ‘dedicatedSIB1-Delivery’, which is configured to transmit SIB1 to the UE via UE-specific RRC signaling). Please also note this field has the same values as the corresponding configuration in the broadcasting SIB1) or through SI broadcasting (e.g., SIB1) in this case, receiving information associated with the target SIB triggers the use of a stored value tag, corresponding to receiving an indication that an identifier is to be reused).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram with the transmitting an indication of reusing an identifier of Tseng with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of increasing the efficiency of SIB segment management (see Tseng, par. [0005]).
Claims 33 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panzner in view of Venkatram, as applied to claims 30-31, 35-36, 39, and 46-47 above, and further in view of Shih et al. (US 2021/0105852), hereinafter “Shih”.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram teaches the method.
However, the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram does not teach:
wherein the method comprises receiving, in association with the first and second segment area identifiers, a list of one or more SIBs to which the first and second segment area identifiers apply.
Shih, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the method comprises receiving, in association with the first and second segment area identifiers, a list of one or more SIBs to which the first and second segment area identifiers apply (see Shih, pars. [0081-0082]: The UE may indicate the requested SIB type and the requested SIB segment(s) by setting appropriate bits to “1” in the requested SIB list 112 and the requested SIB segment list 122, 124, 126 and 128. In one implementation, the per SIB based RRC message for on-demand SI request may include the stored value tag and/or area scope information per SIB for the on-demand SIBs. When the network receives the indicated value tag and/or area scope information, the network may respond with SIB delta information to the UE accordingly (e.g., only providing modified SIB content to the UE if the indicated information is different from the network's valid information), and see par. [0085]: In response to a reception of the RRC message for on-demand SI request without a requested SIB segment list (or with absent requested SIB segment list), the network may send all SIB segments of the UE's requested SIB type indicated by the requested SIB list in the RRC message for on-demand SI request. The UE may receive all SIB segments for the requested SIB type from the network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram with the list of one or more SIBs of Shih with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of increasing resource efficiency (see Shih, par. [0035]).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram teaches the method.
However, the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram does not teach:
wherein the method comprises transmitting, in association with the first segment area identifier, a list of one or more SIBs to which the first segment area identifier applies (see Shih, pars. [0081-0082]: The UE may indicate the requested SIB type and the requested SIB segment(s) by setting appropriate bits to “1” in the requested SIB list 112 and the requested SIB segment list 122, 124, 126 and 128. In one implementation, the per SIB based RRC message for on-demand SI request may include the stored value tag and/or area scope information per SIB for the on-demand SIBs. When the network receives the indicated value tag and/or area scope information, the network may respond with SIB delta information to the UE accordingly (e.g., only providing modified SIB content to the UE if the indicated information is different from the network's valid information), and see par. [0085]: In response to a reception of the RRC message for on-demand SI request without a requested SIB segment list (or with absent requested SIB segment list), the network may send all SIB segments of the UE's requested SIB type indicated by the requested SIB list in the RRC message for on-demand SI request. The UE may receive all SIB segments for the requested SIB type from the network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram with the list of one or more SIBs of Shih with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of increasing resource efficiency (see Shih, par. [0035]).
Claims 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panzner in view of Venkatram, as applied to claims 30-31, 35-36, 39, and 46-47 above, and further in view of Byun et al. (US 2018/0338277), hereinafter “Byun”.
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram teaches the method.
However, the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram does not teach:
wherein the method further comprises receiving the multiple segments of the SIB, or receiving the first segment area identifier, or receiving both the multiple segments of the SIB and the first segment area identifier, from a second network node.
Byun, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the method further comprises receiving the multiple segments of the SIB, or receiving the first segment area identifier, or receiving both the multiple segments of the SIB and the first segment area identifier, from a second network node (see Byun, Fig. 15, pars. [0177-0178]: In step S1503, when the CU receives an on-demand system information indication message or a new message including a system information group or determines to broadcast one or more system information groups, the CU may transmit a message requesting the broadcast of the one or more system information groups to the DU. The message may be a system information broadcast request message or a new message. The message may include information per system information group. For example, the message may include information on a first system information group and information on a second system information group. The information on the first system information group may include at least one of system information group 1, timing information for broadcasting, logical channel-related information, a DU ID, a cell ID, ID, a beam ID, and on-demand system information-related information. The information on the second system information group may include at least one of system information group 2, timing information for broadcasting, logical channel-related information, a DU ID, a cell ID, ID, a beam ID, and on-demand system information-related information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram with the receiving information from a second network node of Byun with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of efficiently managing resources for storing information related to an SIB (see Byun, par. [0124]).
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram, and further in view of Byun, teaches the method.
The combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram does not teach, but Byun teaches:
wherein the network node is a distributed unit of a base station and the second network node is a central unit of the base station (see Byun, Fig. 15, pars. [0177-0178]: In step S1503, when the CU receives an on-demand system information indication message or a new message including a system information group or determines to broadcast one or more system information groups, the CU may transmit a message requesting the broadcast of the one or more system information groups to the DU. The message may be a system information broadcast request message or a new message. The message may include information per system information group. For example, the message may include information on a first system information group and information on a second system information group. The information on the first system information group may include at least one of system information group 1, timing information for broadcasting, logical channel-related information, a DU ID, a cell ID, ID, a beam ID, and on-demand system information-related information. The information on the second system information group may include at least one of system information group 2, timing information for broadcasting, logical channel-related information, a DU ID, a cell ID, ID, a beam ID, and on-demand system information-related information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of the combination of Panzner in view of Venkatram with the receiving information from a central unit of Byun with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of efficiently managing resources for storing information related to an SIB (see Byun, par. [0124]).
Claims 44-45 and 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge et al. (US 2018/0324740), hereinafter “Edge”, in view of Venkatram.
Regarding claims 44, 48, Edge teaches:
A method performed by a first network node for providing system information to a user equipment (UE) or first network node for providing system information to a user equipment (UE), the method or the first network node comprising:
radio circuitry configured to communicate with the UE (see Edge, Fig. 12, par. [0223]: communication interface 1230 may include a network interface device or card, a modem, a router, a switch, a transceiver, a