DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 11-13 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.
Claims 11-13 recite the limitation "the restriction indication" in lines 6-4-4, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims as it could refer to either restriction indication (transmitted to central network node or another cell).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 15, 18, 19, 21, 29, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu (2022/0377641).
As to claim 1, Liu discloses A distributed network node for wireless communication, comprising:
a processing system (130) that includes one or more processors (131) and one or more memories (132) coupled with the one or more processors, the processing system configured (see [0159], Fig 3, [0067]) to cause the distributed network node to:
transmit, to a central network node, a restriction indication ([0147]: “PCI conflict report”) that indicates a restriction for a physical cell identifier (PCI) configuration of a cell that is served by the distributed network node, the distributed network node being associated with an integrated access and backhaul node, see [0060]; and
receive, from the central network node, a PCI configuration ([0064]-[0066] … mobile IAB is configured with (re-sent) non-conflicting PCI) of the cell that is in accordance with the restriction indication. Also see [0068]
As to claim 15, Liu (inherently) discloses The distributed network node of claim 1, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the distributed network node to transmit, to the central network node, another restriction indication that includes an updated restriction for the PCI configuration of the cell.
As to claim 18, Liu (inherently) discloses The distributed network node of claim 15, to cause the distributed network node to transmit the other restriction indication, the processing system is configured to cause the distributed network node to transmit the other restriction indication in accordance with the distributed network node reconfiguring a PCI value for another cell that is served by the distributed network node.
As to claim 19, Liu discloses The distributed network node of claim 1, wherein, to cause the distributed network node to transmit the restriction indication that indicates the restriction for the PCI configuration of the cell, the processing system is configured to cause the distributed network node to transmit a restriction indication that (inherently) indicates a restriction for a PCI configuration of a frequency resource, wherein the cell is associated with the frequency resource.
As to claim 21, Liu discloses A central network node (see [0046]: (“CU” 120 of “CU-DU in an IAB system”, Fig 3) for wireless communication, comprising:
a processing system (see [0158]: Fig 12) that includes one or more processors (121) and one or more memories (122) coupled with the one or more processors, the processing system configured to cause the central network node to:
receive (see [0147]: PCI conflict report), from a distributed network node associated with an integrated access and backhaul node, a restriction indication that indicates a restriction for a physical cell identifier (PCI) configuration of a cell that is served by the distributed network node (see [0060]; and
transmit, (see [0064]-[0066]: “configuring” implies transmission given Fig 11) to the distributed network node, a PCI configuration of the cell that is in accordance with (“selecting a PCI that does not conflict with a PCI of the first cell”) the restriction indication.
Claims 29 and 30 recite methods corresponding to the apparatus / nodes of claims 1 and 21 respectively. See above for corresponding claim mapping.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-8, 14, 22-23, and 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (2021/0345232), hereinafter “Zhou”.
As to claim 2, Liu disclose The distributed network node of claim 1, is silent to yet in an analogous art Zhou discloses wherein the restriction indication includes a PCI value (see [0061]: indication of the number of or the candidate PCIs) that is not to be used for the PCI configuration of the cell. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to transmit a PCI value as the indication in the conflict report as taught by Zhou for the purpose of clearly identifying the PCI.
As to claim 3, Liu discloses The distributed network node of claim 1, is silent to yet in an analogous art Zhou discloses wherein the restriction indication includes a plurality of PCI values (see [0061]: indication of the number of or the candidate PCIs) that are not to be used for the PCI configuration of the cell. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to transmit a plurality of PCI values as the indication in the conflict report as taught by Zhou for the purpose of clearly identifying the conflicting PCI(s).
As to claims 5 & 6, the combination of Liu and Zhou discloses The distributed network node (as applied above to claims 2 or 3), wherein the cell (claim 5) / a PCI value (claim 6) is indicated using a cell identifier. Zhou [0061]-[0062]: (PCI – associated with serving cell)
As to claim 7, the combination of Liu and Zhou discloses The distributed network node of claim 6, wherein, to cause the distributed network node to receive the PCI configuration of the cell, the processing system is configured to cause the distributed network node to receive a PCI configuration of the cell that includes another PCI value that is equal to the PCI value. See Zhou [0059]-[0060].
As to claim 8, the combination of Liu and Zhou discloses The distributed network node of claim 6, wherein, to cause the distributed network node to receive the PCI configuration of the cell, the processing system is configured to cause the distributed network node to receive a PCI configuration of the cell that includes another PCI value that is different than the PCI value. See Zhou [0059]-[0060].
As to claim 14, the combination of Liu and Zhou discloses The distributed network node of claims 2 or 3, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the distributed network node to transmit, on a shared frequency resource, a first a synchronization signal block (SSB) that is in accordance with the PCI configuration (new / changed PCI) and a second SSB that is in accordance with a restricted PCI value (original / conflicting PCI).
Claims 22-23 and 25-28 correspond to claims 2-3 and 5-8 respectively. Corresponding citations apply as above.
Claim(s) 4, 10, 12, 13, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lenovo (3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 Meeting #119 R3-230341, “PCI collision mitigation of mobile IAB-node mobility”, 2/17/2023
As to claim 4, Liu discloses The distributed network node of claim 1, is silent to yet in an analogous art Lenovo discloses wherein the restriction indication includes a plurality of PCI values that are allowed to be used for the PCI configuration of the cell, and wherein, to cause the distributed network node to receive the PCI configuration of the cell, the processing system is (inherently) configured to cause the distributed network node to receive a PCI configuration of the cell that is in accordance with a PCI value of the plurality PCI values that are allowed to be used for the PCI configuration of the cell. See Proposals 3 & 4. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to wherein the restriction indication includes a plurality of PCI values that are allowed to be used for the PCI configuration of the cell, and wherein, to cause the distributed network node to receive the PCI configuration of the cell, the processing system is configured to cause the distributed network node to receive a PCI configuration of the cell that is in accordance with a PCI value of the plurality PCI values that are allowed to be used for the PCI configuration of the cell for the purpose of optimization.
Claim 24 corresponds to claim 4, see corresponding citations as applied above.
As to claim 10, Liu discloses The distributed network node of claim 1, is silent to yet in an analogous art Lenovo discloses wherein, to cause the distributed network node to transmit the restriction indication to the central network node, the processing system is configured to cause the distributed network node to transmit the restriction indication to the central network node in accordance with transmitting an indication of a restricted PCI value to another cell. See 7.8 wherein its known to additionally notify IAB-donor-CU. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu to cause the node to transmit in accordance with transmitting an indication of a restricted PCI value to another cell for the purpose of system optimization and/or handoff notification / preparation.
As to claim 12, the combination of Liu and Lenovo discloses The distributed network node of claim 10, wherein the other cell is associated with another central network node, wherein, to cause the distributed network node to transmit the restriction indication to the central network node, the processing system is configured to cause the distributed network node to transmit the restriction indication in accordance with transmitting an indication of the other cell to the other central network node. (See Lenovo: 7.8 wherein its known to additionally notify IAB-donor-CU).
As to claim 13, the combination of Liu and Lenovo disclose The distributed network node of claim 10, wherein the other cell is associated with another central network node (IAB-donor-CU), wherein, to cause the distributed network node to transmit the restriction indication to the central network node, the processing system is configured to cause the distributed network node to transmit the restriction indication in accordance with an indication that the other central network node has activated the other cell. The examiner takes official notice that before the effective filing date of the instant application it would known to transmit/receive an activation indication and therefore before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cause the distributed network node to transmit the restriction indication in accordance with an indication that the other central network node has activated the other cell to avoid interference.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Lenovo as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Noh et al. (2022/0232655) hereinafter “Noh”.
As to claim 11, the combination of Liu and Lenovo discloses The distributed network node of claim 10, is silent to yet in an analogous art Noh discloses wherein the cell is associated with a first frequency carrier and the other cell is associated with a second frequency carrier, wherein the first frequency carrier at least partially overlaps with the second frequency carrier, (see [0395]-[0399] for DC-CA, such cooperation is necessary) and wherein, to cause the distributed network node to transmit the restriction indication to the central network node, the processing system is configured to cause the distributed network node to transmit the restriction indication in accordance with the first frequency carrier overlapping with the second frequency carrier. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to cause the distributed network node to transmit the restriction indication in accordance with the first frequency carrier overlapping with the second frequency carrier for the purpose of avoiding interference in DC-CA embodiments.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Zhou as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Luo et al. (2021/0058854) hereinafter “Luo”.
As to claim 9, the combination of Liu and Zhou discloses The distributed network node of claim 5, is silent to yet in an analogous art Luo disclose wherein the cell identifier is a cell global identity. See [0059]. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the cell identifier is a cell global identity as taught by Luo for the purpose of providing further distinguishing features.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu.
As to claim 16, Liu discloses The distributed network node of claim 15, is silent to wherein, to cause the distributed network node to transmit the other restriction indication, the processing system is configured to cause the distributed network node to transmit the other restriction indication in accordance with the distributed network node adding or deleting another cell having a PCI value associated with the updated restriction. The examiner takes official notice that before the effective filing date of the instant invention it was well known in the art to update a network in real time when adding or deleting another cell and that at the minimum such would result in the detection and transmission as applied above.
As to claim 17, Liu discloses The distributed network node of claim 15, is silent to wherein, to cause the distributed network node to transmit the other restriction indication, the processing system is configured to cause the distributed network node to transmit the other restriction indication in accordance with the distributed network node activating or deactivating another cell having a PCI value associated with the updated restriction. The examiner takes official notice that before the effective filing date of the instant invention it was well known in the art to update a network in real time when activating or deactivating another cell and that at the minimum such would result in the detection and transmission as applied above.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (2025/0150874).
As to claim 20, Liu discloses The distributed network node of claim 1, wherein, to cause the distributed network node to transmit the restriction indication, the processing system is configured to cause the distributed network node to transmit the restriction indication in accordance with receiving another PCI configuration of the cell (inherently - nothing to prevent such), is silent to yet in an analogous art Kim discloses and in accordance with rejecting the other PCI configuration or indicating a failure to apply the other PCI configuration. See [0407]-[-408] Kim teaches to send a rejection message upon receiving a conflicting configuration message. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to transmit the restriction indication in accordance with rejecting the other PCI configuration or indicating a failure to apply the other PCI configuration as taught by Kim for the purpose of allowing notifications.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang et al. (2022/0232391) disclose the reporting of a PCI conflict with CGI and SSB info. See [0009]+.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESTER KINCAID whose telephone number is (571)272-7922. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7-5.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
LESTER G. KINCAID
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2649
/LESTER G KINCAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649