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.
(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, 6-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by EP 4572421 (Myung et al.).
As to claims 1 and 11, Myung teaches a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (see figures 2 and 3) and configured to cause the UE to:
receive, via a first cell, first system information (SI) comprising an indication of a neighboring cell in an energy saving state (see paragraphs 179 and 182, neighboring cell [~first cell] may provide information on NES cell [~neighboring cell] to UE via SIB1 of neighboring cell);
transmit a request signal to the neighboring cell (see paragraphs 163-164, 168 and 181, UE uses information it received about NES cell to request SIB1 from NES cell); and
receive, from the neighboring cell, an on-demand system information block (SIB) transmission comprising essential SI for the neighboring cell, wherein the essential SI comprises a master information block (MIB) for the neighboring cell, or a SIB type 1 (SIB1) for the neighboring cell, or a combination thereof (see paragraphs 163-164, 168 and 181, UE receives requested SIB1 from NES cell).
As to claim 2, Myung further teaches wherein the first SI comprises a cell identity of the neighboring cell (see paragraphs 179 and 182, neighbor cell [~first cell] may provide information on NES cell [~neighboring cell] to UE via SIB1 of neighbor cell, some cell ID for NES cell would be required).
As to claim 3, Myung further teaches wherein the first SI comprises a resource configuration for requesting the essential SI (see paragraphs 179 and 182, resource information such as that needed to perform RACH with NES cell is provided by the neighboring cell via SIB1 of neighbor cell).
As to claim 4, Myung further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to receive a broadcast from the neighboring cell, wherein the broadcast comprises one or more synchronization signals (see paragraphs 179 and 182, SSBs also sent by NES cell).
As to claim 6, Myung further teaches wherein the broadcast comprises the MIB for the neighboring cell, and wherein the on-demand SIB lacks the MIB for the neighboring cell (see paragraphs 123, 168, 179 and 183, UE may receive MIB from PCCH of the SSB and the on demand SIB1 via PDCCH).
As to claim 7, Myung further teaches wherein the first SI indicates a set of parameters for the neighboring cell, the set of parameters comprising one or more of: a system frame number (SFN) of the neighboring cell; an SFN offset with respect to a respective SFN of the first cell; a subcarrier spacing for a common channel of the neighboring cell; a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) configuration for a common PDCCH of the neighboring cell; a frequency offset between a synchronization signal of the neighboring cell and an overall resource block grid of the neighboring cell; a demodulation reference signal (DM RS) configuration for the neighboring cell; or a combination thereof (see paragraphs 163, 164, 168, 179 and 182, information regarding on-demand SIB1 for NES cell would include PDCCH information and subcarrier offsets for the NES cell).
As to claim 9, Myung further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: receive a broadcast from the neighboring cell, wherein the broadcast comprises one or more synchronization signals; reselect from the first cell to the neighboring cell based at least in part on the broadcast; and transmit the request signal in response to reselecting to the neighboring cell (see paragraphs 179-184, UE receives SSBs from NES cell which may trigger a conditional HO to the target NES cell).
As to claim 10, Myung further teaches wherein the broadcast comprises a first portion of the essential SI, and wherein the on-demand SIB comprises a remainder of the essential SI (see paragraphs 123, 168, 179 and 183, UE may receive MIB from PCCH of the SSB and the on demand SIB1 via PDCCH).
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.
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.
Claims 5, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myung in view of US 2026/0214554 (Wang).
As to claims 12 and 20, Myung teaches at least one base station for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (see figures 2 and 3) and configured to cause the base station to:
transmit, via a first cell, first system information (SI) comprising an indication of a neighboring cell in an energy saving state (see paragraphs 179 and 182, neighboring cell [~first cell] may provide information on NES cell [~neighboring cell] to UE via SIB1 of neighboring cell);
receive a request signal via the neighboring cell (see paragraphs 163-164, 168 and 181, UE uses information it received about NES cell to request SIB1 from NES cell); and
transmit, via the neighboring cell, an on-demand system information block (SIB) transmission comprising essential SI for the neighboring cell, wherein the essential SI comprises a master information block (MIB) for the neighboring cell, or a SIB type 1 (SIB1) for the neighboring cell, or a combination thereof (see paragraphs 163-164, 168 and 181, UE receives requested SIB1 from NES cell).
What is explicitly lacking from Myung is at least one base station being a base station.
In analogous art, Wang teaches the same base station providing first cell and neighbor cell in an energy saving state, such that the first cell provides information needed to obtain SSBs and SIBs from the neighbor cell (see Wang, paragraphs 79, 83-85 and 95-100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching into Myung so as to save hardware costs by having the same base station serve both cells.
As to claim 13, Myung further teaches wherein the first SI comprises a cell identity of the neighboring cell (see paragraphs 179 and 182, neighbor cell [~first cell] may provide information on NES cell [~neighboring cell] to UE via SIB1 of neighbor cell, some cell ID for NES cell would be required).
As to claim 14, Myung further teaches wherein the first SI comprises a resource configuration for requesting the essential SI (see paragraphs 179 and 182, resource information such as that needed to perform RACH with NES cell is provided by the neighboring cell via SIB1 of neighbor cell).
As to claim 15, Myung further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the base station to transmit, via the neighboring cell, a broadcast comprising one or more synchronization signals (see paragraphs 179 and 182, SSBs also sent by NES cell).
As to claim 17, Myung further teaches wherein the broadcast comprises the MIB for the neighboring cell, and wherein the on-demand SIB lacks the MIB for the neighboring cell (see paragraphs 123, 168, 179 and 183, UE may receive MIB from PCCH of the SSB and the on demand SIB1 via PDCCH).
As to claim 18, Myung further teaches wherein the first SI indicates a set of parameters for the neighboring cell, the set of parameters comprising one or more of: a system frame number (SFN) of the neighboring cell; an SFN offset with respect to a respective SFN of the first cell; a subcarrier spacing for a common channel of the neighboring cell; a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) configuration for a common PDCCH of the neighboring cell; a frequency offset between a synchronization signal of the neighboring cell and an overall resource block grid of the neighboring cell; a demodulation reference signal (DM RS) configuration for the neighboring cell; or a combination thereof (see paragraphs 163, 164, 168, 179 and 182, information regarding on-demand SIB1 for NES cell would include PDCCH information and subcarrier offsets for the NES cell).
As to claims 5 and 16, Myung further teaches wherein the on-demand SIB lacks the MIB for the neighboring cell (see paragraphs 123, 168, 179 and 183, UE may receive MIB from PCCH of the SSB and the on demand SIB1 via PDCCH).
What is lacking form Myung is wherein the first SI comprises the MIB for the neighboring cell, wherein the broadcast lacks the MIB for the neighboring cell.
In analogous art, Wang teaches the first cell providing SI to the UE which includes the MIB of the neighboring cell which is used by the UE to obtain SSBs and SIBs from the neighbor cell without receiving the MIB in a subsequent broadcast by the neighboring cell (see Wang, paragraphs 79, 83-85 and 95-100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching into Myung so as to provide the UE with important information on the neighboring cell in a timelier manner.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myung in view of US 2016/0345222 (Axmon et al.).
As to claim 8, Myung further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to determine a system frame number (SFN) of the neighboring cell (see paragraph 155)
What is lacking from Myung is based at least in part on a respective SFN of the first cell.
In analogous art, Axmon teaches a UE being provided an SFN for a source cell and SFN offset for calculating the SFN for the target cell (see Axmon, paragraphs 38-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching into Myung so as to ensure that signals from neighboring cells don’t overlap in time.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myung in view of Wang as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US 2016/0345222 (Axmon et al.).
As to claim 19, Myung further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to determine a system frame number (SFN) of the neighboring cell (see paragraph 155)
What is lacking from Myung is based at least in part on a respective SFN of the first cell.
In analogous art, Axmon teaches a UE being provided an SFN for a source cell and SFN offset for calculating the SFN for the target cell (see Axmon, paragraphs 38-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching into Myung so as to ensure that signals from neighboring cells don’t overlap in time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2026/0040206 (Jung et al.). US 2026/0214569 (Jung et al.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights