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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the application filed on 09/05/2024.
Claims 1-14 are pending in this application, with claims 1 and 8 being independent.
Attorney Information Request
For efficient and faster prosecution of the current application, please provide direct phone number and email address of an attorney filing a response to this office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, line 4, “SI” should read “SIB1”
In claim 14, line 4, “SIB” should read “SIB1”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claims are not clearly written to define metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
In claims 1 and 8, the phrase “a first part of the SIB1 and a second part of the SIB1” is unclear as to what it refers to such SIB having multiple fields carrying different system information, etc. The limitations “processing the second part”, “transmitting to the first base station”, “initiating a random access” and “processing the first part of the SIB upon completion” are not properly tied to each other and all limitations appear as mutually exclusive events. This makes the claimed invention unclear such as what is being claimed and the inventive concept, etc.
Claims 2-7 are rejected based upon claim dependency to independent claim 1.
Claims 9-14 are rejected based upon claim dependency to independent claim 8.
In claims 2 and 9, the phrase “excluding scheduling information” is unclear as to where is the scheduling information or how it is received, etc. The limitations “forwarding” and “applying” are not properly tied to how they are related to the configurations in the SIB1 or received in a different manner or the terminal is preconfigured. This makes the claimed invention unclear such as what is being claimed and the inventive concept, etc.
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intel (R2-1809786, hereinafter referred to as “Intel”)-IDS in view of ISHII et al. (WO 2019 /217782 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Ishii”)-IDS.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Intel discloses a method performed by a terminal in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving, from a first base station, a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message including reconfiguration information with sync and system information block 1 (SIB1) (Intel Section:2 The RRC reconfiguration with sync and SIB1 from the network), the SIB1 including a first part of the SIB1 and a second part of the SIB1 (Intel Section:2 The SIB1 with cellaccessrellatedinfo (i.e. a part) and uac-barringinfo (i.e. a part)); processing the second part of the SIB1 (Intel Section:2,4.3 The terminal (i.e. UE) performs action after receiving RRC reconfiguration message having SIB1 information); transmitting, to the first base station, a RRC reconfiguration complete message (Intel Section:4.3 The RRC connection reconfiguration complete message is sent by the UE); initiating a random access procedure to a target cell of a second base station (Intel Section:4.3 A random access procedure is initiated by the UE).
Intel does not explicitly disclose processing the first part of the SIB1 upon a completion of the random access procedure.
However, Ishii from the same field of invention discloses processing the first part of the SIB1 upon a completion of the random access procedure (Ishii Fig.12 Para[0085-86] The wireless terminal sends on demand request (i.e. processing first part) to the access node as part of the SI request procedure. The SIB1 as minimum SI provides information such as scheduleinfolist which indicates SIB#A will be available by on-demand delivery and otherSIBinfo provides value tag information (i.e. information). The wireless terminal uses SIB1 and the information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Intel to have the feature of “processing the first part of the SIB1 upon a completion of the random access procedure” as taught by Ishii. The suggestion/motivation would have been to obtain or update SIBs in other SI (Ishii Para[0006]).
Specifically for claim 8, Intel in view of Ishii discloses the terminal that includes a transceiver (Ishii Fig.19 A Transceiver), a controller (Ishii Fig.19 A processor (i.e. controller)).
it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Intel to have the feature of “transceiver and controller of the terminal” as taught by Ishii. The suggestion/motivation would have been to obtain or update SIBs in other SI (Ishii Para[0006]).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intel in view of Ishii and further in view of Qualcomm (R2-1913398, hereinafter referred to as “Qualcomm”).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Intel in view of Ishii discloses the method and the terminal as explained above for Claim 1. Intel in view of Ishii does not explicitly disclose processing configurations in the SIB1 excluding scheduling information for system information (SI); forwarding a cell identity to an upper layer; forwarding a tracking area code to the upper layer; and applying a configuration included in serving cell configuration information.
However, Qualcomm from a similar field of invention discloses processing configurations in the SIB1 excluding scheduling information for system information (SI); forwarding a cell identity to an upper layer; forwarding a tracking area code to the upper layer; and applying a configuration included in serving cell configuration information (Qualcomm Section:5.2.2.2.4.2 After receiving SIB1, the UE processes it, forwards the cellidentity to upper layers, forwards TA to upper layers and apply the configuration in included in the SIB1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Intel and Ishii to have the feature of “processing configurations in the SIB1 excluding scheduling information for system information (SI); forwarding a cell identity to an upper layer; forwarding a tracking area code to the upper layer; and applying a configuration included in serving cell configuration information” as taught by Qualcomm. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide system information to a UE (Qualcomm Section:5.2.1).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intel in view of Ishii and further in view of LEE et al. (US 2019/0158988 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Lee”)-IDS and further in view of FUTAKI et al. (US 2019/0342824 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Futaki”)-IDS.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Intel in view of Ishii discloses the method and the terminal as explained above for Claim 1. Intel in view of Ishii does not explicitly disclose identifying that the terminal does not have a valid version of a system information block (SIB); and transmitting, to the second base station, a dedicated SIB request for the SIB after the random access procedure to the target cell is completed.
However, Lee from a similar field of invention discloses identifying that the terminal does not have a valid version of a system information block (SIB) (Lee Fig.13 Ref:S1310,1320 Para[0168-169] The UE (i.e. terminal) receives value tag for all system information from the RAN via system information message (i.e. SIB1).The UE determines the changed (i.e. validity) on-demand system information based on the value tag).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Intel and Ishii to have the feature of “identifying that the terminal does not have a valid version of a system information block (SIB)” as taught by Lee. The suggestion/motivation would have been to efficiently acquiring system information for efficiently utilizing radio resources (Lee Para[0008]).
Intel in view of Ishii and Lee does not explicitly disclose transmitting, to the second base station, a dedicated SIB request for the SIB after the random access procedure to the target cell is completed.
However, Futaki from a similar field of invention discloses transmitting, to the second base station, a dedicated SIB request for the SIB after the random access procedure to the target cell is completed (Futaki Fig.10 Ref:1005 Para[0084-85] The UE sends handover confirm for NR message (i.e. dedicated SIB request) with system information request to the target NR gNB).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Intel, Ishii and Lee to have the feature of “transmitting, to the second base station, a dedicated SIB request for the SIB after the random access procedure to the target cell is completed” as taught by Futaki. The suggestion/motivation would have been to enable notifying a UE of an indication about on-demand system information available in a cell (Futaki Para[0037]).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intel in view of Ishii and further in view of Lee and further in view of SHIH et al. (US 2021/0105852 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Shih”) -IDS.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Intel in view of Ishii discloses the method and the terminal as explained above for Claim 1. Intel in view of Ishii does not explicitly disclose identifying that the terminal does not have a valid version of a system information block (SIB); identifying whether a system information broadcast status is set to broadcasting, based on scheduling information for system information (SI) included in the first part of the SIB1; and in case that the system information broadcast status is set to not broadcasting, transmitting, to the second base station, a dedicated SIB request for the SIB.
However, Lee from a similar field of invention discloses identifying that the terminal does not have a valid version of a system information block (SIB) (Lee Fig.13 Ref:S1310,1320 Para[0168-169] The UE (i.e. terminal) receives value tag for all system information from the RAN via system information message (i.e. SIB1).The UE determines the changed (i.e. validity) on-demand system information based on the value tag).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Intel and Ishii to have the feature of “identifying that the terminal does not have a valid version of a system information block (SIB)” as taught by Lee. The suggestion/motivation would have been to efficiently acquiring system information for efficiently utilizing radio resources (Lee Para[0008]).
Intel in view of Ishii and Lee does not explicitly disclose identifying whether a system information broadcast status is set to broadcasting, based on scheduling information for system information (SI) included in the first part of the SIB1; and in case that the system information broadcast status is set to not broadcasting, transmitting, to the second base station, a dedicated SIB request for the SIB.
However, Shih from a similar field of invention discloses identifying whether a system information broadcast status is set to broadcasting, based on scheduling information for system information (SI) included in the first part of the SIB1; and in case that the system information broadcast status is set to not broadcasting, transmitting, to the second base station, a dedicated SIB request for the SIB (Shih Fig.2 Ref:202,222 Para[0183-185] The UE determines whether CSS is configured and transmits system information request when required SIB is not broadcasted)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a Intel, Ishii and Lee to have the feature of “identifying whether a system information broadcast status is set to broadcasting, based on scheduling information for system information (SI) included in the first part of the SIB1; and in case that the system information broadcast status is set to not broadcasting, transmitting, to the second base station, a dedicated SIB request for the SIB” as taught Shih. The suggestion/motivation would have been to use on-demand SI request and reception for increased resource and energy efficiency (Shih Para[0035]).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intel in view of Ishii, Lee, Shih and further in view of SHIH et al. (US 2019/0349837 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Shih-9837”).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Intel in view of Ishii, Lee and Shih discloses the method and the terminal as explained above for Claim 1. Intel in view of Ishii, Lee and Shih does not explicitly disclose in case that the system information broadcast status is set to broadcasting, acquiring the SIB that is broadcasted.
However, Shih-9837 from a similar field of invention discloses in case that the system information broadcast status is set to broadcasting, acquiring the SIB that is broadcasted (Shih-9837 Para[0079] The system information is periodically broadcasted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Intel, Ishii, Lee and Shih to have the feature of “in case that the system information broadcast status is set to broadcasting, acquiring the SIB that is broadcasted” as taught by Shih-9837. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide PLMN specific information (Shih-9837 Para[0003]).
Claims 6-7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intel in view of Ishii, Lee and Shih.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Intel in view of Ishii discloses the method and the terminal as explained above for Claim 1. Intel in view of Ishii does not explicitly disclose identifying that the terminal does not have a valid version of a system information block (SIB); identifying whether a common search space is configured in an active downlink (DL) bandwidth part (BWP); and in case that the common search space is not configured in the active DL BWP, transmitting, to the second base station, a dedicated SIB request for the SIB.
However, Lee from a similar field of invention discloses identifying that the terminal does not have a valid version of a system information block (SIB) (Lee Fig.13 Ref:S1310,1320 Para[0168-169] The UE (i.e. terminal) receives value tag for all system information from the RAN via system information message (i.e. SIB1).The UE determines the changed (i.e. validity) on-demand system information based on the value tag).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Intel and Ishii to have the feature of “identifying that the terminal does not have a valid version of a system information block (SIB)” as taught by Lee. The suggestion/motivation would have been to efficiently acquiring system information for efficiently utilizing radio resources (Lee Para[0008]).
Intel in view of Ishii and Lee does not explicitly disclose identifying whether a common search space is configured in an active downlink (DL) bandwidth part (BWP); and in case that the common search space is not configured in the active DL BWP, transmitting, to the second base station, a dedicated SIB request for the SIB.
However, Shih from a similar field of invention discloses identifying whether a common search space is configured in an active downlink (DL) bandwidth part (BWP); and in case that the common search space is not configured in the active DL BWP, transmitting, to the second base station, a dedicated SIB request for the SIB (Shih Fig.2 Ref:202,222 Para[0183-185] The UE determines whether CSS is configured and transmits system information request)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Intel, Ishii and Lee to have the feature of “identifying whether a common search space is configured in an active downlink (DL) bandwidth part (BWP); and in case that the common search space is not configured in the active DL BWP, transmitting, to the second base station, a dedicated SIB request for the SIB” as taught Shih. The suggestion/motivation would have been to use on-demand SI request and reception for increased resource and energy efficiency (Shih Para[0035]).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Intel in view of Ishii, Lee and Shih discloses the method and the terminal as explained above for Claim 1. Intel in view of Ishii and Lee does not explicitly disclose identifying whether a system information broadcast status is set to broadcasting, based on scheduling information for system information (SI) included in the first part of the SI; and wherein in case that the common search space is configured in the active DL BWP and the system information broadcast status is set to not broadcasting, transmitting, to the second base station, the dedicated SIB request for the SIB.
However, Shih from a similar field of invention discloses identifying whether a system information broadcast status is set to broadcasting, based on scheduling information for system information (SI) included in the first part of the SI; and wherein in case that the common search space is configured in the active DL BWP and the system information broadcast status is set to not broadcasting, transmitting, to the second base station, the dedicated SIB request for the SIB (Shih Fig.2 Ref:202,222 Para[0183-185] The UE determines whether CSS is configured and transmits system information request when required SIB is not broadcasted)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Intel, Ishii and Lee to have the feature of “identifying whether a system information broadcast status is set to broadcasting, based on scheduling information for system information (SI) included in the first part of the SI; and wherein in case that the common search space is configured in the active DL BWP and the system information broadcast status is set to not broadcasting, transmitting, to the second base station, the dedicated SIB request for the SIB” as taught Shih. The suggestion/motivation would have been to use on-demand SI request and reception for increased resource and energy efficiency (Shih Para[0035]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
Additional References
The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0365186 to Deenoo
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/defau1Vfiles/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM ET.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
