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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1,2,11-13,15-20, and 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luo (US 20210059015).
Re claim 1:
Luo discloses a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to (Fig.7 ref. 702a UE and Fig.3 shows a processor coupled with memory):
receive, via a serving cell, a first set of one or more signals indicating a first physical cell identifier (PCI) of the serving cell (Fig.7 ref. 701 Use 1st PCI and ref. 703a/b are received signals);
receive, via the serving cell subsequent to receipt of the first set of one or more signals, a control message indicating that the first PCI of the serving cell is changing to a second PCI (Fig.7 ref. 709 Indication of PCI change and Para.[0069] The IAB node 704 may determine, at 705 a PCI change for an IAB node serving the UE 702a or the MT 702b. The PCI change may be for IAB node 704 itself or may be for another IAB node, e.g., IAB node 706, serving the UE 702a or the MT 702b); and
monitor for a second set of one or more signals indicating the second PCI based at least in part on the control message (Para.[0074] In some aspects, a SIB message may include an indication of the PCI change for the serving IAB node. For example, a serving cell may first page inactive UE(s) or MT(s) and may provide an indication about a SIB modification. Then, the SIB may be provided, according to the SIB modification, that includes an indication of the PCI change for the serving IAB node. The UE 702a or MT 702b may receive the paging message 707 and determine the SIB modification. The UE or MT may use the SIB modification to monitor for a SIB and may determine the PCI change from the received SIB (e.g., indication 709 may be comprised in the SIB)).
Re claim 2:
Luo discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive the second set of one or more signals indicating the second PCI based at least in part on the control message (Para.[0074] he UE 702a or MT 702b may receive the paging message 707 and determine the SIB modification. The UE or MT may use the SIB modification to monitor for a SIB and may determine the PCI change from the received SIB (e.g., indication 709 may be comprised in the SIB)); and
communicate one or more messages with the serving cell based at least in part on the second PCI (Fig.7 ref. 719 Use New PCI and ref. 721 a/b shows communications using the second PCI – Examiner Note: the New PCI is the “second PCI”).
Re claim 11:
Luo discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: communicate one or more messages, wherein at least a portion of the one or more messages is scrambled according the first PCI prior to a time indicated in the control message for changing of the first PCI to the second PCI (Para.[0058] The PCI value may be used to determine a scrambling sequence that is applied to physical signals and/or channels that are transmitted by a particular IAB node and Para.[0071] The indication message may indicate a switch time for the new PCI, e.g., informing the UE or MT when to use the new PCI with the serving IAB node and Para.[0072] The predefined behavior may include updating the scrambling sequence used to decode communication from the IAB node based on the new PCI value. – Examiner Note: Luo shows updating the scrambling sequence based on the new PCI value, thus the first PCI is used prior to the update).
Re claim 12:
Luo discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: communicate one or more messages, wherein at least a portion of the one or more messages is scrambled according the second PCI after a time indicated in the control message for changing of the first PCI to the second PCI (Para.[0058] node 420, may use a PCI value. The PCI value may serve as an identifier for that IAB donor 410 or IAB node 420. The PCI value may be used to determine a scrambling sequence that is applied to physical signals and/or channels that are transmitted by a particular IAB node and Para.[0071] The indication message may indicate a switch time for the new PCI, e.g., informing the UE or MT when to use the new PCI with the serving IAB node and Para.[0072] The predefined behavior may include updating the scrambling sequence used to decode communication from the IAB node based on the new PCI value.).
Re claim 13:
Luo discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive the second set of one or more signals indicating the second PCI based at least in part on the control message (Para.[0074] In some aspects, a SIB message may include an indication of the PCI change for the serving IAB node. For example, a serving cell may first page inactive UE(s) or MT(s) and may provide an indication about a SIB modification. Then, the SIB may be provided, according to the SIB modification, that includes an indication of the PCI change for the serving IAB node. The UE 702a or MT 702b may receive the paging message 707 and determine the SIB modification. The UE or MT may use the SIB modification to monitor for a SIB and may determine the PCI change from the received SIB (e.g., indication 709 may be comprised in the SIB)).
Re claim 15:
Luo discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: communicate one or more messages, wherein at least a portion of the one or more messages is scrambled according the second PCI, a subset of a cell global identity (CGI) value of the serving cell, a hash of the CGI value, or any combination thereof (Para.[0072] The predefined behavior may include updating the scrambling sequence used to decode communication from the IAB node based on the new PCI value).
Re claim 16:
Luo discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the control message is part of a master information block or other message (Para.[0074] In some aspects, a SIB message may include an indication of the PCI change for the serving IAB node. For example, a serving cell may first page inactive UE(s) or MT(s) and may provide an indication about a SIB modification. Then, the SIB may be provided, according to the SIB modification, that includes an indication of the PCI change for the serving IAB node. The UE 702a or MT 702b may receive the paging message 707 and determine the SIB modification. The UE or MT may use the SIB modification to monitor for a SIB and may determine the PCI change from the received SIB (e.g., indication 709 may be comprised in the SIB)).
Re claim 17:
Luo discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the control message indicates the second PCI, a time that the first PCI of the serving cell is changing to the second PCI, or both (Para.[0071] The indication message to the UE or MT may indicate at least the new PCI value for the serving IAB node. The indication message may indicate a switch time for the new PCI, e.g., informing the UE or MT when to use the new PCI with the serving IAB node).
Re claim 18:
Luo discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the control message comprises an indication of a PCI modification period, the PCI modification period indicates a duration of time that the first PCI of the serving cell is changing to the second PCI (Para.[0071] The indication message to the UE or MT may indicate at least the new PCI value for the serving IAB node. The indication message may indicate a switch time for the new PCI, e.g., informing the UE or MT when to use the new PCI with the serving IAB node).
Re claim 19: Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1 from the perspective of the serving cell.
Re claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2 from the perspective of the serving cell.
Re claim 26: Claim 26 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 11.
Re claim 27: Claim 27 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 12.
Re claim 28: Claim 28 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 15.
Re claim 26: Claim 26 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 11.
Re claim 29: Claim 29 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 30: Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1 from the perspective of the serving cell.
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.
Claim(s) 3,4,8,21, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US 20210059015) in view of Cheng (US 20210120481).
Re claim 3:
As discussed above, Luo meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Luo does not explicitly disclose the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive, from a neighboring cell, a master information block or a system information block comprising a subset of a cell global identity (CGI) value or a hash of the CGI value.
Cheng discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive, from a neighboring cell, a master information block or a system information block comprising a subset of a cell global identity (CGI) value or a hash of the CGI value (Para.[0048] For example, in cases where SSBs from a neighbor cell are received in synchronization raster, the UE (e.g., the UE that receives the SSB) may directly identify SIB1 of the SSB (e.g., or in some cases may identify another SSB that includes SIB1, where the another SSB may be indicated by a previously-received SSB) and report the global cell ID to the network (e.g., the UE may identify CGI from SIB1 of the SSB associated with the neighbor cell, and report the CGI to the serving base station).).
Luo and Cheng are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Luo to include receiving and reporting a CGI as taught by Cheng in order to improve neighbor relation functionality (Cheng Para.[0006]).
Re claim 4:
As discussed above, Luo meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Luo does not explicitly disclose the UE of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit a report to the serving cell comprising at least the subset of the CGI value or the hash of the CGI value.
Cheng discloses the UE of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit a report to the serving cell comprising at least the subset of the CGI value or the hash of the CGI value (Para.[0048] For example, in cases where SSBs from a neighbor cell are received in synchronization raster, the UE (e.g., the UE that receives the SSB) may directly identify SIB1 of the SSB (e.g., or in some cases may identify another SSB that includes SIB1, where the another SSB may be indicated by a previously-received SSB) and report the global cell ID to the network (e.g., the UE may identify CGI from SIB1 of the SSB associated with the neighbor cell, and report the CGI to the serving base station).).
Luo and Cheng are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Luo to include receiving and reporting a CGI as taught by Cheng in order to improve neighbor relation functionality (Cheng Para.[0006]).
Re claim 8:
As discussed above, Luo meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Luo does not explicitly disclose the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit a mobile history report to the serving cell comprising at least a subset of a cell global identity (CGI) value or a hash of the CGI value.
Cheng discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit a mobile history report to the serving cell comprising at least a subset of a cell global identity (CGI) value or a hash of the CGI value (Para.[0048] For example, in cases where SSBs from a neighbor cell are received in synchronization raster, the UE (e.g., the UE that receives the SSB) may directly identify SIB1 of the SSB (e.g., or in some cases may identify another SSB that includes SIB1, where the another SSB may be indicated by a previously-received SSB) and report the global cell ID to the network (e.g., the UE may identify CGI from SIB1 of the SSB associated with the neighbor cell, and report the CGI to the serving base station).).
Luo and Cheng are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Luo to include receiving and reporting a CGI as taught by Cheng in order to improve neighbor relation functionality (Cheng Para.[0006]).
Re claim 21: Claim 21 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4 from the perspective of the serving cell.
Re claim 25: Claim 25 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 8 from the perspective of the serving cell.
Claim(s) 5 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US 20210059015) in view of Uesaka (US 20210068075).
Re claim 5:
As discussed above, Luo meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Luo does not explicitly disclose the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive, from the serving cell, a master information block and a system information block, wherein the master information block comprises a first portion of a subset of a cell global identity (CGI) value and the system information block comprises a second portion of the subset of the CGI value.
Uesaka discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive, from the serving cell, a master information block and a system information block, wherein the master information block comprises a first portion of a subset of a cell global identity (CGI) value and the system information block comprises a second portion of the subset of the CGI value (Para.[0073] In order to acquire the CGI of C2 the UE first acquires the MIB-NB to obtain at least a system frame number (SFN) and scheduling information used for transmitting SIB1-NB in C2, and use them to acquire the CGI by reading SIB1-NB. Network node B can use this information, e.g., to resolve PCI confusion when multiple cells have the same PCI, or for building automatic neighbor relations (ANR)).
Luo and Uesaka are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Luo to include receiving CGIs values on an MIB and SIB as taught by Uesaka in order to resolved PCI confusion or build ANRs (Uesaka Para.[0073]).
Re claim 22: Claim 22 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5 from the perspective of the serving cell.
Claim(s) 6 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US 20210059015) in view of Zhang (US 20140080468).
Re claim 6:
As discussed above, Luo meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Luo does not explicitly disclose the UE of claim 1, wherein, to receive the control message, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive, from the serving cell, a master information block indicating that the first PCI of the serving cell is changing to the second PCI.
Zhang discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein, to receive the control message, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive, from the serving cell, a master information block indicating that the first PCI of the serving cell is changing to the second PCI (Fig.5 ref. System Information Update (MIB (old PCI, new PCI)) and Para.[0112] the RN informs the forthcoming change of the PCI…Such information of the new PCI and optionally the old PCI may be accomplished by way of a dedicated information element (IE) in the system information update, specifically in the master information block or system information block).
Luo and Zhang are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Luo to include using an MIB to send a PCI change as taught by Zhang in order to enable efficient cell reconfiguration and allow the UE to update the PCI to cell mapping (Zhang Para.[0024,0112]).
Re claim 23: Claim 23 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6 from the perspective of the serving cell.
Claim(s) 7 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US 20210059015) in view of Ahlstrom (US 20210037435).
Re claim 7:
As discussed above, Luo meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Luo discloses wherein the control message is received based at least in part on t(Para.[0065] The use of a same PCI value by IAB nodes within proximity of each other may be referred to as a PCI collision. PCI collision may lead to issues with timing synchronization and channel estimation, and may further cause decoding failures for data traffic transmitted from at least one of these two neighboring cells and Para.[0077] The method enables the a UE or an MT to handle a PCI change of an IAB node to avoid PCI collisions between IAB nodes Examiner Note: Luo teaches PCI collision occurs when PCI matches and therefore the control message for a PCI change is sent).
Luo does not explicitly disclose the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit a report to the serving cell indicating at least a subset of a cell global identity (CGI) value or a hash of the CGI value, wherein the control message is received based at least in part on the report indicating matching PCI and frequency information and mismatching subsets of CGI values.
Ahlstrom discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit a report to the serving cell indicating at least a subset of a cell global identity (CGI) value or a hash of the CGI value, wherein the control message is received based at least in part on the report indicating matching PCI and frequency information and mismatching subsets of CGI values (Para.[0088] The measurement reporting configuration information element may include different event triggers with at least one event trigger having the one or more cells for which to report CGI or the one or more cells for which not to report the CGI. The one or more cells for which to report CGI may include a cell having physical cell identifier (PCI) confusion or a closed subscriber group (CSG) cell. PCI confusion may occur between a detected cell and a neighboring cell if the two cells have a same frequency and PCI and if a reference signal received power (RSRP) of the two cells is at least a handover threshold. The method may include reporting, for each of the one or more cells in the list, a CGI of the cell – Examiner note: PCI confusion is analogous to PCI collision of Luo and as discussed above, Luo shows a control message based on matching PCI values).
Luo and Ahlstrom are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Luo to include reporting a CQI and matching PCI and frequency as taught by Ahlstrom in order to address PCI confusion (Ahlstrom Para.[0004]).
Re claim 24: Claim 24 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7 from the perspective of the serving cell.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US 20210059015) in view of Teyeb (US 20240179528).
Re claim 14:
As discussed above, Luo meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Luo discloses the UE of claim 13, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit a first message, wherein at least a portion of the first message is scrambled according the first PCI (Para.[0058] The PCI value may be used to determine a scrambling sequence that is applied to physical signals and/or channels that are transmitted by a particular IAB node); and
(Para.[0058] The PCI value may be used to determine a scrambling sequence that is applied to physical signals and/or channels that are transmitted by a particular IAB node and Para.[0072] Therefore, the UE or MT may monitor for SSB and/or apply a QCL relationship following receipt of the indication of the PCI change based on SSB configuration information or QCL information known to the UE or MT. As an example, the UE or MT may continue to apply an existing SSB configuration and/or QCL information after receiving an indication of a PCI change for the serving IAB node).
Luo does not explicitly disclose transmit a second message that is a retransmission of the first message, wherein at least a portion of the second message is scrambled according the first PCI after a time indicated in the control message for changing of the first PCI to the second PCI.
Teyeb discloses transmit a second message that is a retransmission of the first message (Para.[0141] In some embodiments, the WTRU may continue using the same security keys (K.sub.gNB, K.sub.UPenc, K.sub.UPint K.sub.RRCenc, K.sub.RRCint) as before detecting the PCI change of the serving cell by the reception of the cell configuration update information. Since the network also knows that the change of the PCI of the cell, the gNB may keep using the same keys as before, even though the PCI of the serving cell has changed and Para.[0143] This may enable the proper reception of any outstanding packets (e.g., retransmissions) that were sent by the gNB before the change of the PCI and thus encrypted or integrity protected using the old keys).
Luo and Teyeb are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Luo to include a retransmission as taught by Teyeb in order to enable advantageous deployment of IAB solutions (Teyeb Para.[0027]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Da Silva (US 20240276585) shows changing a serving cell PCI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD SAJID ADHAMI whose telephone number is (571)272-8615. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights