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 . Claims 1-13 are pending.
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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alur Shivaswamy et al. (US# 2024/0237122 hereinafter referred to as Alur).
RE Claim 1, Alur discloses a method for a radio access network (RAN) base station (BS) (See Alur FIG 1a, 1c – eNodeB in RAN) comprising:
establishing an S1 connection between a base station and a network gateway (See Alur FIG 1c; [0047] – establishing S1 connection between eNB and core network), the network gateway being for a 4G Evolved Packet Core (EPC) network or a 5G New Radio (NR) network (See Alur [0004], [0006], [0014], [0047] – can be for 4G or 5G network);
establishing an F1 setup including a System Information Block 1 (SIB1) between a Centralized Unit (CU) and a Distributed Unit (DU) of the base station (See Alur [0006], [0011], [0013] – establishing F1 (including SIB1) between DU + CU of base station);
establishing an X2 setup between a Master Node and the base station (See Alur [0047] – establishing X2 between multiple eNBs), the base station being configured to handle both a Stand Alone (SA) and a Non-Stand Alone (NSA) users (See Alur [0010], [0037] – base station can provide service to both SA and NSA users); and
at a disconnection of the network gateway, sending, by a CU Control Plane (CU-CP) of the base station (See Alur [0011], [0013] – in response to detecting loss of connectivity to core network, DU can be configured (via CU configuration update message)), a request to the DU of the base station to remove the SIB1 (See Alur [0011], [0013] –DU can be configured (via CU configuration update message) to disable SIB1 scheduling (i.e. remove the SIB1)), or to broadcast a minimal transmission of the SIB1 (See Alur [0011], [0013] – DU can be configured (via CU configuration update message) to disable 5GSTAC in SIB1 (i.e. broadcast a minimal transmission of the SIB1)) for an Automatic Neighbor Relation (ANR).
RE Claim 2, Alur discloses a method, as set forth in claim 1 above, wherein the base station is a gNodeB (gNB) (See Alur FIG 5b, 5c – gNB) and the network gateway is an Access and Mobility Function (AMF) for the 5G New Radio (NR) network (See Alur FIG 1c – mobility management), the method comprising:
establishing an Next Generation (NG) setup between the gNB and the AMF (See Alur FIG 1b, 5b, [0027] – establishing NG setup between eNB and 5GC (core network));
establishing the F1 setup between a gNB CU and a gNB-DU including the SIB1 (See Alur FIG 5b, [0006] – establishing connection (F1) between eNB DU and eNB CU);
establishing an Evolved Universal Mobile Telecommunications System Terrestrial Radio Access Network (EUTRAN) (See Alur [0043]-[0044] – EUTRAN) New Radio (E-UTRA-NR) Dual Connectivity (EN-DC) X2 setup between a Master eNB (MeNB) and the gNB (See Alur FIG 1b; [0047] – NR X2 setup between multiple eNodeBs providing dual connectivity between eNodeBs 106a, 106b, and 106c (i.e. 130a, 130b, 130c)); and
at a disconnection of the AMF (See Alur [0007], [0011] – when connectivity status shows the eNB is not connected to core network), sending, by a gNB-CU-Control Plane (gNB CU-CP) of the gNB, the request to the gNB-DU (See Alur FIGs 5b, 5c; [0007], [0013], [0047], [0066]-[0068] – gNB CU CP sending message to gNB DU CP) to remove the SIB1 or the request to broadcast the minimal transmission of the SIB1 for an Automatic Neighbor Relation (ANR) (See Alur [0013] – CU sends DU configuration update message configuring DU to either disable SIB1 scheduling (i.e. remove the SIB1) or disable 5GSTAC in SIB1 (i.e. broadcast a minimal transmission of the SIB1)).
RE Claim 3, Alur discloses a method, as set forth in claim 2 above, further comprising:
when a Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) connection (See Alur [0069] – connection can be SCTP) between the AMF and gNB CU-CP is down (See Alur FIG 5b, 5c; [0012] – when connection between gNB CU-CP and core network is down),
releasing, by the gNB, all SA User Equipment (UEs), wherein the gNB operates in an NSA only mode and handles only NSA users (See Alur [0012] – when connectivity to core network is down, cannot provide support for SA users and only providing support to NSA users); and
removing the SIB1 or transmitting minimal SIB1 for NSA operation in response to the request remove the SIB1 or broadcast the minimal transmission of the SIB1 for the ANR (See Alur [0012]-[0013] – configuration update message configuring DU to either disable SIB1 scheduling (i.e. remove the SIB1) or disable 5GSTAC in SIB1 (i.e. broadcast a minimal transmission of the SIB1)).
RE Claim 4¸ Alur discloses a method, as set forth in claim 2 above, further comprising:
sending, by the gNB CU-CP, a gNB-CU Configuration Update including an ANR SIB1 value (AnrSIB1) for the minimal transmission of the SIB1 that can be broadcasted for ANR or a No SIB1 value (noSIB) that the DU does not transmit the SIB1 (See Alur [0013] – CU sends DU configuration update message which comprises a value configuring DU to either disable SIB1 scheduling (i.e. remove the SIB1) or disable 5GSTAC in SIB1 (i.e. broadcast a minimal transmission of the SIB1)).
RE Claim 7, Alur discloses a method, as set forth in claim 4 above, further comprising:
acknowledging, by the gNB-DU, the gNB-CU Configuration Update (See Alur [0093] – configuration update acknowledge message sent by DU back to CU).
RE Claim 8, Alur discloses a method, as set forth in claim 3 above, further comprising:
once the AMF SCTP connection is back up, broadcasting, by the gNB DU, a complete SIB1 (See Alur [0011]-[0013] – when connectivity is back, DU transmits complete SIB1).
RE Claim 9, Alur discloses a method, as set forth in claim 8 above, further comprising:
requesting, by the gNB-CU-CP, the gNB DU to transmit the complete SIB1 by sending the gNB-CU Configuration Update with a complete SIB1 value (See Alur [0011], [0013] – setting value in configuration update message indicating to DU to transmit full SIB1 (i.e. including 5GSTAC)).
RE Claim 10, Alur discloses a method, as set forth in claim 9 above, further comprising:
acknowledging, by the gNB-DU, a gNB-CU Configuration Update, whereby the gNB can resume handling both SA and NSA users (See Alur [0103]-[0104] – once acknowledgment of service is back online, can provide service to both NSA+SA users).
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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alur Shivaswamy et al. (US# 2024/0237122 hereinafter referred to as Alur) in view of Shivaswamy et al. (US# 2024/0224365 hereinafter referred to as Shivaswamy).
RE Claim 6, Alur discloses a method, as set forth in claim 1 above, further comprising:
stopping the SIB1 broadcast as requested by the CU-CP (See Alur [0011]-[0013] – requesting to stop SIB1 by CU-CP).
Alur does not specifically disclose stopping the SIB1 broadcast for the ANR.
However, Shivaswamy teaches of stopping the SIB1 broadcast for the ANR (See Shivaswamy [0077], [0079] – CU indicating to stop SIB1; including neighbor list information DU should use instead).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the radio access network system, as disclosed in Alur, comprising stopping the SIB1 broadcast for the ANR, as taught in Shivaswamy. One is motivated as such in order to better provide service to users of differing capabilities/services when the network connectivity is in different connectivity statuses (See Shivaswamy Background; Summary).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alur Shivaswamy et al. (US# 2024/0237122 hereinafter referred to as Alur) in view of Pantelidou et al. (US# 2024/0098586 hereinafter referred to as Pantelidou).
RE Claim 11, Alur discloses a method, as set forth in claim 1 above, wherein the base station is an eNodeB (eNB) and the network gateway is a Mobility Management Entity/Serving Gateway (MME/S-GW) for the 4G EPC network (See Alur FIGs 1B, 1C, [0044] – network device can be eNB and gateway can be MME for 4G network), the method comprising:
establishing an S1 setup between the eNB and the MME/S-GW (See Alur FIG 1c; [0047] – establishing S1 connection between eNB and core network);
establishing a setup between an eNB CU and an eNB-DU including the SIB1 (See Alur [0006], [0011], [0013] – establishing setup (including SIB1) between DU + CU of base station);
establishing the EN-DC X2 setup between a Secondary eNB (SeNB) and a Master eNB (MgNB) (See Alur FIG 1b; [0047] – X2 setup between multiple eNodeBs providing dual connectivity between eNodeBs 106a, 106b, and 106c (i.e. 130a, 130b, 130c)); and
at a disconnection of the MME/S-GW (See Alur [0011], [0013] – in response to detecting loss of connectivity to core network, DU can be configured (via CU configuration update message)), sending, by an eNB-CU-CP of the eNB, the request to the eNB-DU to remove the SIB1 (See Alur [0011], [0013] –DU can be configured (via CU configuration update message) to disable SIB1 scheduling (i.e. remove the SIB1)) or the request to broadcast the minimal transmission of the SIB1 (See Alur [0011], [0013] – DU can be configured (via CU configuration update message) to disable 5GSTAC in SIB1 (i.e. broadcast a minimal transmission of the SIB1)).
Alur does not specifically disclose establishing an W1 setup between the eNB CU and the eNB-DU.
However, Pantelidou teaches of establishing an W1 setup between the eNB CU and the eNB-DU (See Pantelidou [0071], [0106] – W1 interface between the eNB CU and the eNB-DU).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the radio access network system, as disclosed in Alur, comprising establishing an W1 setup between the eNB CU and the eNB-DU, as taught in Pantelidou. One is motivated as such in order to help improve performance in the network (See Pantelidou Background; Summary).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 12-13 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant's argument that the cited references do not teach sending, by a CU Control Plane (CU-CP) of the base station, a request to the DU of the base station to remove the SIB1, or to broadcast a minimal transmission of the SIB1 for an Automatic Neighbor Relation (ANR), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Alur teaches of sending a request to the DU of the base station to remove the SIB1 (See Alur [0011], [0013] –DU can be configured (via CU configuration update message) to disable SIB1 scheduling (i.e. remove the SIB1)) or the request to broadcast a minimal transmission of the SIB1 (See Alur [0011], [0013] – DU can be configured (via CU configuration update message) to disable 5GSTAC in SIB1 (i.e. broadcast a minimal transmission of the SIB1)). The Examiner submits that the claim language is broad and vague with regards to the limitation “remove the SIB1”. That is, in the claim language, the SIB1 is only “included” in the “establishing an F1 setup”. Furthermore, in dependent claim 4, it is shown that “remove the SIB1” can be construed as a message (noSIB) that just indicates to the DU to not transmit the SIB1. Alur teaches that the DU can be notified via CU configuration update message to disable SIB1 scheduling such that SIB1 is not transmitted (i.e. remove the SIB1). Furthermore, Alur teaches the request to broadcast the minimal transmission of the SIB1. The Examiner submits that the limitation “broadcast a minimal transmission of the SIB1” is also broad and vague. That is, the claim language does not define what a “minimal transmission of the SIB1” is. In Alur, the 5GSTAC can be included with the SIB1 broadcast or not included with the SIB1 broadcast (i.e. when there is detected loss of connectivity to core network). Broadcasting the SIB1 without the 5GSTAC can be construed as broadcasting a “minimal transmission of the SIB1” (i.e. not the full transmission of the SIB1 which includes 5GSTAC).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Moosavi et al. (US# 2021/0153083 – which teaches of including ANR info in SIB1).
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 Steve R Young whose telephone number is (571)270-7518. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Chirag G Shah can be reached at (571) 272-3144. 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.
/STEVE R YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights