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 .
Response to Arguments
Following response to arguments is based on Applicant’s arguments filed on 28 August 2026.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments [Pages 13-16] with respect to rejection of claims 1, 9, 13 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, on page 15, Applicant argues that Takahashi fails to teach “receive information indicating that a SIB1 for a cell is not periodically broadcast within the cell… transmit… a request for the SIB1”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments and submits as follows.
First of all, the Examiner acknowledges the explanation provided in the remarks. However, the actual recitation of the claim does not preclude the Examiner from current interpretation. Claim 1’s overall scope is directed to i) receive an information, ii) transmit a request and iii) receive a SIB1.
Hence, when Takahashi recites: “base station 10 transmits a value tag for each SIB which is not periodically broadcasted among system information (for example… SIB1…) which is normally periodically broadcasted” [Paragraph 111], it is actually indicating that, in this scenario, the SIB1 is not periodically broadcasted, because the claim is only asking for an information/message/notification/indication, not actually asking that SIB1 be not periodically broadcasted. An information can contain/recite any message, which is not necessarily an active/true event. Furthermore, as illustrated in Fig. 9 – step s401, the SIB1 is transmitted along with SIBs3-5, thus becoming an aperiodic broadcasted SIB1 [Paragraph 113]; as well as having the UE to request for a SIB [Paragraph 50], since the claim does not provide details about what kind of request is being provided.
Therefore, for the purpose of the examination and moving forward, the Examiner respectfully recommends the incorporation of further details (including active features) that preclude the Examiner from current interpretation, including the relevancy of having a SIB1 not periodically broadcasted.
Regarding claims 9 and 13, these claims comprise similar limitations to those set forth in independent claim 1 and are rejected based on similar reasoning.
Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejections.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-11, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)-(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0159110).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi teaches a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 1) comprising:
a processor (1001 – Fig. 27); and
a transceiver operatively coupled to the processor (21-22 – Fig. 25), the transceiver configured to:
receive information indicating that a system information block 1 (SIB1) for a cell is not periodically broadcast within the cell (UE 20 receives info about SIB1 not periodically broadcast within cell, from BS 10 [Paragraphs 11, 45, 106, 111, 117]. Additionally, actual recitation of the claim does not preclude the Examiner from current interpretation. Claim 1’s overall scope is directed to i) receive an information, ii) transmit a request and iii) receive a SIB1. Hence, when Takahashi recites: “base station 10 transmits a value tag for each SIB which is not periodically broadcasted among system information (for example… SIB1…) which is normally periodically broadcasted” [Paragraph 111], it is actually indicating that, in this scenario, the SIB1 is not periodically broadcasted, because the claim is only asking for an information/message/notification/indication, not actually asking that SIB1 be not periodically broadcasted. An information can contain/recite any message, which is not necessarily an active/true event. Furthermore, as illustrated in Fig. 9 – step s401, the SIB1 is transmitted along with SIBs3-5, thus becoming an aperiodic broadcasted SIB1 [Paragraph 113]; as well as having the UE to request for a SIB [Paragraph 50], since the claim does not provide details about what kind of request is being provided. Therefore, for the purpose of the examination and moving forward, the Examiner respectfully recommends the incorporation of further details (including active features) that preclude the Examiner from current interpretation, including the relevancy of having a SIB1 not periodically broadcasted);
transmit, based on the information, a request for the SIB1 of the cell (UE 20 requests BS 10 the SIB1 [Paragraphs 11, 45, 106, 111, 117]); and
receive the SIB1 of the cell (BS 10 transmits the SIB1 to UE 20 [Paragraphs 11, 45, 106, 111, 117]).
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi further teaches the UE of Claim 1, wherein to receive the information indicating that the SIB1 for the cell is not periodically broadcast within the cell, the transceiver is further configured to receive at least one of: a master information block (MIB) of the cell indicating that the SIB1 is not periodically broadcast (since there is no support on the spec that all of the listed limitations are inclusive but optional (thus, only one limitation is enough for the at least one requirement), the UE receives MIB for the not periodically broadcast [Paragraphs 4, 77, 111]); a payload of a physical broadcast channel (PBCH) of the cell indicating that the SIB1 is not periodically broadcast; downlink control information (DCI) of a physical downlink common control channel (PDCCH) of the cell indicating that the SIB1 is not periodically broadcast ([Paragraph 6, 235]); information indicating a list of cells or carrier frequencies of cells not periodically broadcasting the SIB1 ([Paragraphs 72, 176]); a SIB1 request configuration ([Paragraph 63]); a synchronization signal block (SSB) in at least one resource associated with on demand SIB1 transmission; a primary synchronization signal (PSS)/secondary synchronization signal (SSS) sequence associated with on demand SIB1 transmission; a radio resource control (RRC) message including a list of cells or carrier frequencies of cells not periodically broadcasting SIB1 ([Paragraph 121]); and information indicating that the cell is an access cell ([Paragraph 172]).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi further teaches the UE of Claim 1, wherein to transmit the request for the SIB1 of the cell, the transceiver is further configured to transmit, to the cell or another cell, at least one of: as part of a random access (RA) procedure, a message indicating the request for the SIB1 of the cell ([Paragraphs 149, 154, 162, 167]); as part of a random access (RA) procedure, a PRACH preamble indicating the request for the SIB1 of the cell ([Paragraphs 165, 172, 175]); a low power wakeup signal (LP WUS) indicating the request for the SIB1 of the cell ([Paragraphs 46, 64, 74]); and a scheduling request indicating the request for the SIB1 of the cell ([Paragraph 4]).
Regarding claims 9-11, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 1-3.
Regarding claims 13-15, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 1-3.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 4-7 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0159110) in view of Wu et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0244509).
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi teaches all the limitations recited in claim 1.
However, Takahashi does not explicitly mention: receive, from the cell or another cell, a first SIB1 request configuration; and transmit the request for the SIB1 of the cell based on the receipt of the first SIB1 request configuration; and the processor is configured to: start a validity timer upon receiving the first SIB1 request configuration; and discard the first SIB1 request configuration upon expiry of the validity timer.
Wu teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
receive, from the cell or another cell, a first SIB1 request configuration; and transmit the request for the SIB1 of the cell based on the receipt of the first SIB1 request configuration; and the processor is configured to: start a validity timer upon receiving the first SIB1 request configuration; and discard the first SIB1 request configuration upon expiry of the validity timer (for the disclosed system, SIB request configurations are received/transmitted based on configuration requests; where validity timer is started and ended for validation of the requests for the SIB1 [Paragraphs 6-14, 20-24, 26, 34]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Takahashi) by implementing timers for the transmission of the SIB1 (as taught by Wu) for the purpose of extending efficiency performance (Wu – Paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi further teaches the UE of Claim 4, wherein to receive the first SIB1 request configuration, the transceiver is further configured to receive, from the cell or the other cell, a configuration for at least one of: a random access (RA) procedure for the request for the SIB1 of the cell ([Paragraphs 149, 154, 162, 172]); a low power wakeup signal (LP WUS) for the request for the SIB1 of the cell ([Paragraphs 46, 65, 80]); and a PUCCH configuration for the request for the SIB1 of the cell.
Regarding claim 6, Wu further teaches the UE of Claim 4, wherein the first SIB1 request configuration, when received from the other cell includes at least one of: a per cell configuration for the SIB1 request ([Paragraphs 20-22, 71, 154]); a per frequency configuration for the SIB1 request ([Paragraphs 74-76]); a configuration for the SIB1 request applicable for all cells of a system information (SI) area ([Paragraphs 15-16, 35-36]); and a configuration for the SIB1 request applicable for all cells of a radio access network (RAN) notification area ([Paragraphs 55-56]).
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi further teaches the UE of Claim 4, wherein: the transceiver is further configured to receive a second SIB1 request configuration (several SIB configurations are received [Paragraph 63]), the first SIB1 request configuration is associated with a first system information (SI) area identifier (area IDs are associated with the with SIB [Paragraphs 96-98, 101, 192, 203]) the second SIB1 request configuration is associated with a second SI area identifier (second area IDs are associated with the with SIB [Paragraphs 96-98, 101, 192, 203]); and to transmit the request for the SIB1 of the cell: the processor is further configured to determine whether the first SI area identifier or the second SI area identifier corresponds with the cell (the area IDs are determined to belong or not to the cell [Paragraphs 96-98, 101, 192, 203]); and the transceiver is further configured to apply, based on the determination, the first or the second SIB1 request configuration to transmit the request for the SIB1 of the cell (based on the determination, it is established which request is transmitted [Paragraphs 96-98, 101, 192, 203]).
Regarding claims 16-19, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 4-7.
Claims 8, 12, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0159110) in view of Lee et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0117004).
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi teaches all the limitations recited in claim 1.
However, Takahashi does not explicitly mention: receive the requested SIB1 in a monitoring window that starts at one of: an offset from an end of an occasion in which the request for the SIB1 of the cell is transmitted; a first PDCCH monitoring occasion that is at least one symbol away from the end of the occasion in which the request for the SIB1 of the cell is transmitted; an offset from an end of an occasion in which an acknowledgement for the request for the SIB1 of the cell is received; and a first PDCCH monitoring occasion that is at least one symbol away from the end of the occasion in which the acknowledgement for the request for the SIB1 of the cell is received.
Lee teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
receive the requested SIB1 in a monitoring window that starts at one of: an offset from an end of an occasion in which the request for the SIB1 of the cell is transmitted ([Paragraphs 104, 120-121, 125, 244]); a first PDCCH monitoring occasion that is at least one symbol away from the end of the occasion in which the request for the SIB1 of the cell is transmitted ([Paragraphs 76, 100-101]); an offset from an end of an occasion in which an acknowledgement for the request for the SIB1 of the cell is received ([Paragraph 78]); and a first PDCCH monitoring occasion that is at least one symbol away from the end of the occasion in which the acknowledgement for the request for the SIB1 of the cell is received ([Paragraphs 84]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Takahashi) by implementing monitoring window (as taught by Lee) for the purpose of supporting proper communication (Lee – Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 12, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 8.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 8.
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 FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. 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.
September 8, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights