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 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.
(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, 5-9, 12, 13, 15, 18, 20 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Shih et al. (U.S. 2019/0349837), hereinafter Shih.
With respect to Claim 1, Shih teaches a user equipment (UE) (figure 23, #2300), comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (figure 23, #2328); 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 (figure 23, #2326) to:
transmit, to a first network entity, a request for a system information block associated with a cell, wherein the request for the system information block comprises an indication of an operator identifier associated with the UE (¶ 0056, “In action 210, the UE 102 may transmit an RRC message to request system information (e.g., RRCSystemInfoRequest message) from the NR gNB 104. The RRCSystemInfoRequest message may include the PLMN information associated with the UE 102.”); and
receive, from the first network entity, a response to the request for the system information block. (¶ 0056, “action 212, upon receiving the RRCSystemInfoRequest message including the PLMN information of the UE 102, the NR gNB 104 may transmit the PLMN-specific system information (e.g., system information block(s), system information message (SI message), etc.) requested by the UE 102.”)
wherein the response comprises:the system information block based at least in part on the operator identifier associated with the UE corresponding to an operator that is common with the first network entity (¶ 0003, “Another important feature in the next generation wireless network is network sharing, which allows multiple public land mobile networks (PLMNs) to operate the same cell. Thus, there is a need for providing a method for transmitting and receiving PLMN-specific system information in a shared network.”); or
a negative acknowledgement feedback message based at least in part on the operator identifier associated with the UE corresponding to an operator that is different from an operator associated with the first network entity.
With respect to Claim 5, Shih teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein, to transmit the request for the system information block, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit a preamble signal requesting the system information block associated with the cell, wherein a sequence of the preamble signal indicates the operator identifier associated with the UE (¶ 0045, “For example, the RA preamble that the UE transmits (e.g., during MSG1 transmission in the 4-step Random Access Channel (RACH) procedure, or during MSGA transmission in the 2-step RACH procedure) may correspond to the system information (e.g., SIB, SI message) requested by the UE.”)
With respect to Claim 6, Shih teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein, to transmit the request for the system information block, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit a message associated with a random access channel procedure, wherein the message comprises a payload indicating the operator identifier associated with the UE (¶ 0045, “For example, the RA preamble that the UE transmits (e.g., during MSG1 transmission in the 4-step Random Access Channel (RACH) procedure, or during MSGA transmission in the 2-step RACH procedure) may correspond to the system information (e.g., SIB, SI message) requested by the UE.”)
With respect to Claim 7, Shih teaches the UE of claim 6, wherein the operator identifier associated with the UE comprises a complete public land mobile network identifier, or a partial public land mobile network identifier (¶ 0056, “In action 210, the UE 102 may transmit an RRC message to request system information (e.g., RRCSystemInfoRequest message) from the NR gNB 104. The RRCSystemInfoRequest message may include the PLMN information associated with the UE 102.”)
With respect to Claim 8, Shih teaches 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 a downlink signal comprising a preamble identifier associated with the operator identifier, wherein the downlink signal comprises at least one of system information associated with the cell or a second cell, a radio resource control signal, a non-access stratum message, a location-specific signal, or any combination thereof (¶ 0045, “For example, the RA preamble that the UE transmits (e.g., during MSG1 transmission in the 4-step Random Access Channel (RACH) procedure, or during MSGA transmission in the 2-step RACH procedure) may correspond to the system information (e.g., SIB, SI message) requested by the UE.”)
With respect to Claim 9, Shih teaches the UE of claim 8, wherein the location-specific signal is associated with a registration area of the UE or a radio access network based notification area or both (¶ 0083, “A data structure 1200 of the SIB1 may include a CellUniqueId IE, which may include a cell global identity (e.g., CellGlobalIdNR) and a tracking area code.”)
With respect to Claim 12, Shih teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein the first network entity is associated with a plurality of operators including an operator associated with the operator identifier, and the system information block comprises information associated with the operator (¶ 0005, “The number of entries in the first list ranges from one to the number of public land mobile networks (PLMNs) operating the cell. Each entry in the first list includes an indicator corresponding to a PLMN operating the cell and access control information of the PLMN operating the cell.”)
With respect to Claim 13, Shih teaches 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 first network entity and prior to transmitting the request for the system information block, a broadcast signal associated with the cell, wherein the broadcast signal comprises an indication of an operator identifier associated with the cell (¶ 0050, “The LTE SIB1 may broadcast at most six PLMN identities in the cell access related information.”)
With respect to Claim 15, Shih teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein: the request for the system information block associated with the cell is based at least in part on obtaining a list of a plurality of cell identifiers for a plurality of cells associated with a common operator for a geographical location, the cell is included in the plurality of cells (¶ 0083, “In one implementation, the system information (e.g., the SIB1) may broadcast a list of cell unique identities (e.g., cellUniqueId), as shown in FIG. 12. The maximum number of entries in the list may be the maximum number of PLMNs sharing the cell (e.g., 12 in NR).”)
With respect to Claim 18, 22 and 23, the claim is the method corresponding to the UE of claim 1, 5 and 6 and are rejected accordingly.
With respect to Claim 20, the claim is the non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to the UE of claim 1, and are rejected accordingly.
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 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.
Claim(s) 4, 16 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih et al. (U.S. 2019/0349837), hereinafter Shih, in view of Li et al. (US 2024/0129095), hereinafter Li.
With respect to Claim 4, Shih teaches the UE of claim 3, wherein the negative acknowledgement feedback message comprises an indication of a reason for denial of the request for the system information block.
Li teaches wherein the negative acknowledgement feedback message comprises an indication of a reason for denial of the request for the system information block (¶ 0068, “it is useless to issue the requested SIB, the base station may feed back the NACK and inform the reason for sending the NACK at the same time, and the UE can know the reason for the base station sending the NACK based on the reason, so as not to repeatedly initiate the acquisition request or continuously wait.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Li with the invention in Li in order to allow the system to better understand why something is denied and better determine corrective action.
With respect to Claim 16, Shih teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein, to receive the response, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive, from the first network entity, a negative acknowledgement feedback message based at least in part on the indication of the operator identifier associated with the UE, wherein the negative acknowledgement feedback message indicates that the first network entity is not ready to transmit the system information block, the UE and the first network entity being associated with same operators
Li teaches the response, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive, from the first network entity, a negative acknowledgement feedback message based at least in part on the indication of the operator identifier associated with the UE, wherein the negative acknowledgement feedback message indicates that the first network entity is not ready to transmit the system information block, the UE and the first network entity being associated with same operators (¶ 0058, “the NACK is issued in response to that a resource indicated by the configuration information carried by the requested SIB is not configured; the NACK is issued in response to that the resource indicated by the configuration information carried by the requested SIB is configured, and the resource indicated by the configuration information is unavailable.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Li with the invention in Li in order to allow the system to better understand why something is denied and better determine corrective action.
With respect to Claim 21, the claim is the method corresponding to the UE of claim 4 and are rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih et al. (U.S. 2019/0349837), hereinafter Shih, in view of Yang et al. (U.S. 2021/0007147), hereinafter Yang
With respect to Claim 10, Shih teaches the UE of claim 1, Shih fails to explicitly teach wherein a preamble identifier associated with the operator identifier is preconfigured or obtained by the UE from a server
Yang teaches wherein a preamble identifier associated with the operator identifier is preconfigured or obtained by the UE from a server (¶ 0253, “For each CC, a probability that a corresponding CC is selected as the PRACH transmission target may be preconfigured (through the SIB). Thus, the UE may perform the CC selection by applying the above probability.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Yang with the invention of Shih to have the preamble either preconfigured or obtained from a server as the eNB needs it to send to the UE.
Claim(s) 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih et al. (U.S. 2019/0349837), hereinafter Shih, in view of Peisa et al. (U.S. 2020/0245293), hereinafter Peisa.
With respect to Claim 11, Shih teaches 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 second network entity, a downlink signal comprising a preamble identifier indicating the operator identifier associated with the UE
Peisa teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive, from a second network entity, a downlink signal comprising a preamble identifier indicating the operator identifier associated with the UE (¶ 0068, “According to one embodiment the Network (NW) provides a full list of all PLMN IDs duplicating ones present also in the minimum system information, on demand. In another embodiment the NW provides a list of additional PLMN IDs in the on-demand system information.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Peisa with the invention of Shih to obtain the information from the network as it would either need to be preconfigured or obtained from another device.
With respect to Claim 17, Shih teaches the UE of claim 1, Shih teaches wherein the operator identifier comprises an index indicating operator information (¶ 0082, “Each entry in the list of PLMN-specific access control information may include a PLMN identity (the format of the PLMN identity may be an indicator, an index, an integer, a bitmap, etc.) and its corresponding access control information.”)
Shih fails to explicitly teach wherein the index is included in a hash table.
Peisa teaches wherein the index is included in a hash table (¶ 0024, “The PLMN IDs may be compressed using a hash function, by taking the least significant bits of the PLMN ID, using a Bloom filter.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Peisa with the invention of Shih to use a hash function in the system of Shih. The motivation is that hashing is a well known way of sorting and organizing tables and would benefit from the other known benefits of hashing.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih et al. (U.S. 2019/0349837), hereinafter Shih, in view of Agiwal et al. (U.S. 2020/0107233), hereinafter Agiwal.
With respect to Claim 14, Shih teaches the UE of claim 13, Shih fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: compare the operator identifier associated with the cell with the operator identifier associated with the UE, wherein transmitting the request for the system information block is based at least in part on the operator identifier associated with the cell and the operator identifier associated with the UE being same.
Agiwal teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: compare the operator identifier associated with the cell with the operator identifier associated with the UE, wherein transmitting the request for the system information block is based at least in part on the operator identifier associated with the cell and the operator identifier associated with the UE being same (¶ 0033, “Preferably, the method may further comprise receiving the SI message of a cell detected on a specific unlicensed carrier frequency based on the monitoring of the at least one window; identifying whether a PLMN ID (public land mobile network identifier) of the cell corresponds to a desired PLMN ID for the terminal based on the received SI message.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Yang with the invention of Agiwal in other to allow the system to better determine when to make a request for system information.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, Shih does not disclose providing system information or a negative acknowledgement based on whether a UE and network entity correspond to a common operator or different operators. Indeed, Shih at most includes a general description of NACK transmission. For example, Shih explains that, "[i]f the NR gNB 104 fails to receive and decode the MSG3, the NR gNB 104 may reply with a MAC CE including negative acknowledgement (e.g., NACK)." Id. 1 [0093] (emphasis added). However, a NACK for indicating a failure to receive or decode a MSG3 is not the same as "wherein the response comprises a negative acknowledgement feedback message based at least in part on the operator identifier associated with the UE corresponding to an operator that is different from an operator associated with the first network entity," as recited in amended independent claim 1. Thus, Shih fails to disclose all of the features of amended independent claim 1.
Examiner disagrees in part, the drafting of the claim has been changed from what it was previously. This drafting effectively removes the requirement that Shih teach this limitation.
Looking specifically to the drafting, the response is:
the system information block based at least in part on the operator identifier associated with the UE corresponding to an operator that is common with the first network entity;
or
a negative acknowledgement feedback message based at least in part on the operator identifier associated with the UE corresponding to an operator that is different from an operator associated with the first network entity.
A system that returns “the system information block based at least in part on the operator identifier associated with the UE corresponding to an operator that is common with the first network entity” to the request would anticipate the claimed invention in the current drafting.
Examiner submits that Shih anticipates the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jae Y Lee can be reached at 571-270-3936. 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.
/ANGELA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights