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 Office Action is in response to claims filed on 10/10/2024.
Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,120,542, hereinafter ‘patent 542’; in view of Moosavi et al. (US 2021/0243624 A1).
Regarding claim 1; claim 1 of ‘patent 542’ recites a method, comprising: transmitting, by a first node to a second node, a first message that includes a physical cell identifier (PCI) of a cell (transmitting, by a secondary node (SN) to a master node (MN), a first message that includes a physical cell identifier (PCI) of a cell), when a cell global identifier (CGI) of the cell associated with the PCI is not found in the first node (when a cell global identifier (CGI) of the cell associated with the PCI is not found in the SN), and receiving, by the first node from the second node, second message that includes the system information related to the PCI (receiving, by the SN from the MN, a second message that includes (i) the information on the cell and (ii) the PCI of the cell).
Claim 1 of ‘patent 542’ discloses a MN transmits system information related to the PCI to a SN.
Claim 1 of ‘patent 542’ does not explicitly disclose the information obtained via instructing a UE to read system information related to the PCI to acquire information on the cell.
Moosavi discloses a second node to instruct a user equipment (UE) to read system information related to the PCI to acquire information on the cell (the MN sends a CGI report request to the UE; the UE retrieves the CGI from the neighbor node and reports the CGI to the MN; the CGI is related to a PCI of the neighbor cell; see paragraphs [0007], [0106] – [0107] and Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of claim 1 of ‘patent 542’ and Moosavi to instruct a UE to read system information related to the PCI to reduce operation costs (see paragraph [0003] of Moosavi).
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of ‘patent 542’; in view of Moosavi; and in further view of Harada et al. (WO2019/138519).
Regarding claim 2; the combination of claim 1 of ‘patent 542’ and Moosavi discloses receiving system information related to the PCI.
The combination of claim 1 of ‘patent 542’ and Moosavi does not explicitly disclose the information on the cell include an indication of whether a SSB is associated with RMSI.
Harada discloses wherein the information on the cell includes an indication of whether a synchronization signal and physical broadcast channel block (SSB) is associated with remaining minimum system information (RMSI) (information is defined to notify the presence or absence of the corresponding RMSI to the SSB; see paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of claim 1 of ‘patent 542’, Moosavi and Harada to include an indication of whether a SSB is associated with a RMSI to suppressing delay (see paragraph [0009] of Harada).
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of ‘patent 542’; in view of Moosavi; and in further view of Luo et al. (US 2021/0377755 A1).
Regarding claim 3; the combination of claim 1 of ‘patent 542’ and Moosavi discloses exchanging messages between a SN and a MN.
The combination of claim 1 of ‘patent 542’ and Moosavi does not explicitly disclose the messages are via an Xn interface.
Luo discloses wherein the first message and the second message are messages of an Xn interface (the MN may be connected to the SN via an Xn interface; see paragraph [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of claim 1 of ‘patent 542’, Moosavi and Luo to exchange messages between a SN and a MN via an Xn interface to support 5G core network (see paragraph [0062] of Luo).
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of ‘patent 542’; in view of Moosavi; and in further view of Teyeb et al. (US 2012/0329461 A1).
Regarding claim 4; the combination of claim 1 of ‘patent 542’ and Moosavi discloses an SN transmits a CGI information request to an MN.
The combination of claim 1 of ‘patent 542’ and Moosavi does not explicitly disclose the request is transmitted responsive to receiving a measurement report of the UE.
Teyeb discloses wherein the first node is a secondary node (SN) and the second node is a master node (MN) wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transmit the first message responsive to receiving a measurement report of the UE including the PCI (a relay node receives measurement reports from a mobile terminal that includes PCIs of candidate cells for handover, if a CGI corresponding to a PCI is not found in the RN, the RN sends a message that include the PCI of the target cell to a donor base station; see paragraphs [0064], [0087] and Fig. 12A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of claim 1 of ‘patent 542’, Moosavi and Teyeb to transmit the request in responsive to a UE’s measurement report to permit a SN to identify a target cell with the cell’s PCI in an handover process (see paragraph [0022]).
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of ‘patent 542’; in view of Moosavi.
Regarding claim 5; claim 11 of ‘patent 542’ discloses a first node, comprising: at least one processor configured to (secondary node (SN) comprising: one or more processors configured to implement steps of): transmit, to a second node, a first message that includes a physical cell identifier (PCI) of a cell (transmitting, to a master node (MN), a first message that includes a physical cell identifier (PCI) of a cell), when a cell global identifier (CGI) of the cell associated with the PCI is not found in the first node (when a cell global identifier (CGI) of the cell associated with the PCI is not found in the SN); and receive from the second node, second message that includes the system information related to the PCI (and receiving, from the MN, a second message that includes (i) information on the cell and (ii) the PCI of the cell).
Claim 11 of ‘patent 542’ discloses a MN transmits system information related to the PCI to a SN.
Claim 11 of ‘patent 542’ does not explicitly disclose the information obtained via instructing a UE to read system information related to the PCI to acquire information on the cell.
Moosavi discloses a second node to instruct a user equipment (UE) to read system information related to the PCI to acquire information on the cell (the MN sends a CGI report request to the UE; the UE retrieves the CGI from the neighbor node and reports the CGI to the MN; the CGI is related to a PCI of the neighbor cell; see paragraphs [0007], [0106] – [0107] and Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of claim 11 of ‘patent 542’ and Moosavi to instruct a UE to read system information related to the PCI to reduce operation costs (see paragraph [0003] of Moosavi).
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of ‘patent 542’; in view of Moosavi; and in further view of Harada.
Regarding claim 6; the combination of claim 11 of ‘patent 542’ and Moosavi discloses receiving system information related to the PCI.
The combination of claim 11 of ‘patent 542’ and Moosavi does not explicitly disclose the information on the cell include an indication of whether a SSB is associated with RMSI.
Harada discloses wherein the information on the cell includes an indication of whether a synchronization signal and physical broadcast channel block (SSB) is associated with remaining minimum system information (RMSI) (information is defined to notify the presence or absence of the corresponding RMSI to the SSB; see paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of claim 11 of ‘patent 542’, Moosavi and Harada to include an indication of whether a SSB is associated with a RMSI to suppressing delay (see paragraph [0009] of Harada).
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of ‘patent 542’; in view of Moosavi; and in further view of Teyeb.
Regarding claim 7; the combination of claim 11 of ‘patent 542’ and Moosavi discloses an SN transmits a CGI information request to an MN.
The combination of claim 11 of ‘patent 542’ and Moosavi does not explicitly disclose the request is transmitted responsive to receiving a measurement report of the UE.
Teyeb discloses wherein the first node is a secondary node (SN) and the second node is a master node (MN) wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transmit the first message responsive to receiving a measurement report of the UE including the PCI (a relay node receives measurement reports from a mobile terminal that includes PCIs of candidate cells for handover, if a CGI corresponding to a PCI is not found in the RN, the RN sends a message that include the PCI of the target cell to a donor base station; see paragraphs [0064], [0087] and Fig. 12A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of claim 11 of ‘patent 542’, Moosavi and Teyeb to transmit the request in responsive to a UE’s measurement report to permit a SN to identify a target cell with the cell’s PCI in an handover process (see paragraph [0022]).
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of ‘patent 542’. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 8; claim 1 of ‘patent 542’ recites a method, comprising: transmitting, by a first node to a second node, a first message that includes a physical cell identifier (PCI) of a cell (a method, comprising: transmitting, by a secondary node (SN) to a master node (MN), a first message that includes a physical cell identifier (PCI) of a cell), when a cell global identifier (CGI) of the cell associated with the PCI is not found in the first node (when a cell global identifier (CGI) of the cell associated with the PCI is not found in the SN), to cause a second node to acquire information on the cell within the MN by searching for a cell identifier corresponding to the PCI (to cause the MN to acquire information on the cell within the MN by searching for the CGI associated with the PCI); and receiving, by the first node from the second node, second message that includes the cell identifier and the information on the cell within the second node (receiving, by the SN from the MN, a second message that includes (i) the information on the cell and (ii) the PCI of the cell, wherein the information on the cell within the MN includes a cell identifier, a public land mobile network (PLMN) list corresponding to the cell, a band list, a tracking area code (TAC), a radio access network (RAN) area code (RANAC), and frequency information).
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of ‘patent 542’. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 9; claim 1 of ‘patent 542’ recites wherein the information on the cell further comprises at least one of a public land mobile network (PLMN), list corresponding to the cell, a band list, a tracking area code (TAC), an RAN area code (RANAC), or frequency point information (wherein the information on the cell within the MN includes a cell identifier, a public land mobile network (PLMN) list corresponding to the cell, a band list, a tracking area code (TAC), a radio access network (RAN) area code (RANAC), and frequency information).
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of ‘patent 542’; in view of Luo.
Regarding claim 10; The combination of claim 1 of ‘patent 542’ and Moosavi does not explicitly disclose the messages via an Xn interface.
Luo discloses wherein the first message and the second message are messages of an Xn interface (the MN may be connected to the SN via an Xn interface; see paragraph [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of claim 1 of ‘patent 542’ and Luo to exchange messages between a SN and a MN via an Xn interface to support 5G core network (see paragraph [0062] of Luo).
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of ‘patent 542’; in view of Teyeb.
Regarding claim 11; the combination of claim 1 of ‘patent 542’ and Moosavi discloses an SN transmits a CGI information request to an MN.
The combination of claim 1 of ‘patent 542’ and Moosavi does not explicitly disclose the request is transmitted responsive to receiving a measurement report of the UE.
Teyeb discloses wherein the first node is a secondary node (SN) and the second node is a master node (MN) wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transmit the first message responsive to receiving a measurement report of the UE including the PCI (a relay node receives measurement reports from a mobile terminal that includes PCIs of candidate cells for handover, if a CGI corresponding to a PCI is not found in the RN, the RN sends a message that include the PCI of the target cell to a donor base station; see paragraphs [0064], [0087] and Fig. 12A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of claim 1 of ‘patent 542’ and Teyeb to transmit the request in responsive to a UE’s measurement report to permit a SN to identify a target cell with the cell’s PCI in an handover process (see paragraph [0022]).
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of ‘patent 542’. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 12; claim 11 of ‘patent 542’ recites a first node, comprising: at least one processor configured to (a secondary node (SN) comprising: one or more processors configured to implement steps of): transmit, to a second node, a first message that includes a physical cell identifier (PCI) of a cell (transmitting, to a master node (MN), a first message that includes a physical cell identifier (PCI) of a cell), when a cell global identifier (CGI) of the cell associated with the PCI is not found in the first node (when a cell global identifier (CGI) of the cell associated with the PCI is not found in the SN), to cause a second node to acquire information on the cell within the MN by searching for a cell identifier corresponding to the PCI (to cause the MN to acquire information on the cell within the MN by searching for the CGI associated with the PCI); and receive, from the second node, second message that includes the cell identifier and the information on the cell within the second node (and receiving, from the MN, a second message that includes (i) information on the cell and (ii) the PCI of the cell, wherein the information on the cell within the MN includes a cell identifier, a public land mobile network (PLN) list corresponding to the cell, a band list, a tracking area code (TAC), a radio access network (RAN) area code (RANAC), and frequency information).
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of ‘patent 542’. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 13; claim 11 of ‘patent 542’ recites wherein the information on the cell further comprises at least one of a public land mobile network (PLMN), list corresponding to the cell, a band list, a tracking area code (TAC), an RAN area code (RANAC), or frequency point information (wherein the information on the cell within the MN includes a cell identifier, a public land mobile network (PLN) list corresponding to the cell, a band list, a tracking area code (TAC), a radio access network (RAN) area code (RANAC), and frequency information).
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of ‘patent 542’; in view of Luo.
Regarding claim 14; claim 11 of ‘patent 542’ recites exchanging messages between a SN and a MN.
Claim 11 of ‘patent 542’ does not explicitly disclose the messages are via an Xn interface.
Luo discloses wherein the first message and the second message are messages of an Xn interface (the MN may be connected to the SN via an Xn interface; see paragraph [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of claim 11 of ‘patent 542’, Moosavi and Luo to exchange messages between a SN and a MN via an Xn interface to support 5G core network (see paragraph [0062] of Luo).
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of ‘patent 542’; in view of Teyeb.
Regarding claim 15; claim 11 of ‘patent 542’ recites an SN transmits a CGI information request to an MN.
Claim 11 of ‘patent 542’ does not explicitly disclose the request is transmitted responsive to receiving a measurement report of the UE.
Teyeb discloses wherein the first node is a secondary node (SN) and the second node is a master node (MN) wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transmit the first message responsive to receiving a measurement report of the UE including the PCI (a relay node receives measurement reports from a mobile terminal that includes PCIs of candidate cells for handover, if a CGI corresponding to a PCI is not found in the RN, the RN sends a message that include the PCI of the target cell to a donor base station; see paragraphs [0064], [0087] and Fig. 12A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of claim 11 of ‘patent 542’ and Teyeb to transmit the request in responsive to a UE’s measurement report to permit a SN to identify a target cell with the cell’s PCI in an handover process (see paragraph [0022]).
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.
Claims 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1; claim 1 recites the limitation "… cause a second node to instruct …" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 2-4; claims 2-4 are dependent claims of claim 1 and therefore inherit the 35 U.S.C 112(b) issues of the independent claim.
Regarding claim 5; claim 5 recites the limitation "… cause a second node to instruct …" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 6-7; claims 6-7 are dependent claims of claim 5 and therefore inherit the 35 U.S.C 112(b) issues of the independent claim.
Regarding claim 8; claim 8 recites the limitation "… cause a second node to instruct …" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 9-11; claims 9-11 are dependent claims of claim 8 and therefore inherit the 35 U.S.C 112(b) issues of the independent claim.
Regarding claim 12; claim 12 recites the limitation "… cause a second node to instruct …" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 13-15; claims 13-15 are dependent claims of claim 12 and therefore inherit the 35 U.S.C 112(b) issues of the independent claim.
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.
Claims 8, 11-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teyeb et al. (US 2012/0329461 A1).
Regarding claim 8; Teyeb discloses a method, comprising: transmitting, by a first node to a second node, a first message that includes a physical cell identifier (PCI) of a cell (a mobile relay node (RN) transmits a request including PCI(s) to a donor base station; see paragraphs [0064]-[0066]), when a cell global identifier (CGI) of the cell associated with the PCI is not found in the first node (the mobile RN obtains PCI(s) and does not have corresponding CGIs; see paragraphs [0054]-[0056] and [0064]), to cause a second node to acquire information on the cell within the MN by searching for a cell identifier corresponding to the PCI (the donor base station selects from a set of neighbor cell information stored at the donor base station pertains to the one or more identified cells; the neighbor cell information maps PCI(s) to corresponding CGI(s); see paragraphs [0064] – [0066]; and receiving, by the first node from the second node, second message that includes the cell identifier and the information on the cell within the second node (the donor base station responds to such a request with neighbor cell information that includes the unique cell identifiers (CGI) missing at the RN 16; see paragraphs [0054] and [0064]).
Regarding claim 12; Teyeb discloses a first node (mobile RN; see Fig. 13), comprising: at least one processor (processing circuit; see Fig. 13) configured to: transmit, to a second node, a first message that includes a physical cell identifier (PCI) of a cell (a mobile relay node (RN) transmits a request including PCI(s) to a donor base station; see paragraphs [0064] - [0066]), when a cell global identifier (CGI) of the cell associated with the PCI is not found in the first node (the mobile RN obtains PCI(s) and does not have corresponding CGIs; see paragraphs [0054]-[0056] and [0064]), to cause a second node to acquire information on the cell within the MN by searching for a cell identifier corresponding to the PCI (the donor base station selects from a set of neighbor cell information stored at the donor base station pertains to the one or more identified cells; the neighbor cell information maps PCI(s) to corresponding CGI(s); see paragraphs [0064] – [0066]); and receive, from the second node, second message that includes the cell identifier and the information on the cell within the second node (the donor base station responds to such a request with neighbor cell information that includes the unique cell identifiers (CGI) missing at the RN 16; see paragraphs [0054] and [0064]).
Regarding claims 11 and 15; Teyeb discloses wherein the first node is a secondary node (SN) and the second node is a master node (MN) wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transmit the first message responsive to receiving a measurement report of the UE including the PCI (a relay node receives measurement reports from a mobile terminal that includes PCIs of candidate cells for handover, if a CGI corresponding to a PCI is not found in the RN, the RN sends a message that include the PCI of the target cell to a donor base station; see paragraphs [0064], [0087] and Fig. 12A).
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, 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 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R1-1817304 (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2#104); in view of Moosavi et al. (US 2021/0243624 A1).
Regarding claim 1; R1-1817304 discloses a method, comprising: transmitting, by a first node to a second node, a first message that includes a physical cell identifier (PCI) of a cell (SN sends the report CGI request to MN via CG-Config; the CG-config includes PCI of the unknow cell; see section 2.2), when a cell global identifier (CGI) of the cell associated with the PCI is not found in the first node (the CG-config report request indicates that the CGI associated with the PCI is not find in the SN; see section 2.2), and receiving, by the first node from the second node, second message that includes the system information related to the PCI (the MN transmit CG-ConfigInfo to the SN; the CG-ConfigInfo includes CGI related to the PCI; see section 2.2).
R1-1817304 discloses a MN transmits CGI information to a SN in response to receiving a request from the SN.
R1-1817304 does not explicitly disclose the information obtained via instructing a UE to read system information related to the PCI to acquire information on the cell.
Moosavi discloses a second node to instruct a user equipment (UE) to read system information related to the PCI to acquire information on the cell (the MN sends a CGI report request to the UE; the UE retrieves the CGI from the neighbor node and reports the CGI to the MN; the CGI is related to a PCI of the neighbor cell; see paragraphs [0007], [0106] – [0107] and Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of R1-1817304 and Moosavi to instruct a UE to read system information related to the PCI to reduce operation costs (see paragraph [0003] of Moosavi).
Regarding claim 5; R1-1817304 discloses transmit, to a second node, a first message that includes a physical cell identifier (PCI) of a cell (SN sends the report CGI request to MN via CG-Config; the CG-config includes PCI of the unknow cell; see section 2.2), when a cell global identifier (CGI) of the cell associated with the PCI is not found in the first node (the CG-config report request indicates that the CGI associated with the PCI is not find in the SN; see section 2.2), and receive from the second node, second message that includes the system information related to the PCI (the MN transmit CG-ConfigInfo to the SN; the CG-ConfigInfo includes CGI related to the PCI; see section 2.2).
R1-1817304 discloses a MN transmits CGI information to a SN in response to receiving a request from the SN.
R1-1817304 does not explicitly disclose the information obtained via instructing a UE to read system information related to the PCI to acquire information on the cell.
Moosavi discloses a first node (network node; see paragraph [0118] and Fig. 6), comprising: at least one processor (processing circuitry; see paragraph [0118] and Fig. 6); and a second node to instruct a user equipment (UE) to read system information related to the PCI to acquire information on the cell (the MN sends a CGI report request to the UE; the UE retrieves the CGI from the neighbor node and reports the CGI to the MN; the CGI is related to a PCI of the neighbor cell; see paragraphs [0007], [0106] – [0107] and Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of R1-1817304 and Moosavi to instruct a UE to read system information related to the PCI to reduce operation costs (see paragraph [0003] of Moosavi).
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R1-1817304; in view of Moosavi; and in further view of Harada et al. (WO2019/138519).
Regarding claims 2 and 6; the combination of R1-1817304 and Moosavi discloses receiving system information related to the PCI.
The combination of R1-1817304 and Moosavi does not explicitly disclose the information on the cell include an indication of whether a SSB is associated with RMSI.
Harada discloses wherein the information on the cell includes an indication of whether a synchronization signal and physical broadcast channel block (SSB) is associated with remaining minimum system information (RMSI) (information is defined to notify the presence or absence of the corresponding RMSI to the SSB; see paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of R1-1817304, Moosavi and Harada to include an indication of whether a SSB is associated with a RMSI to suppressing delay (see paragraph [0009] of Harada).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R1-1817304; in view of Moosavi; and in further view of Luo et al. (US 2021/0377755 A1).
Regarding claim 3; the combination of R1-1817304 and Moosavi discloses exchanging messages between a SN and a MN.
The combination of R1-1817304 and Moosavi does not explicitly disclose messages are exchanged via an Xn interface.
Luo discloses wherein the first message and the second message are messages of an Xn interface (the MN may be connected to the SN via an Xn interface; see paragraph [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of R1-1817304, Moosavi and Luo to exchange messages between a SN and a MN via an Xn interface to support 5G core network (see paragraph [0062] of Luo).
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R1-1817304; in view of Moosavi; and in further view of Teyeb et al. (US 2012/0329461 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 7; the combination of R1-1817304 and Moosavi discloses an SN transmits a CGI information request to an MN.
The combination of R1-1817304 and Moosavi does not explicitly disclose the request is transmitted responsive to receiving a measurement report of the UE.
Teyeb discloses wherein the first node is a secondary node (SN) and the second node is a master node (MN) wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transmit the first message responsive to receiving a measurement report of the UE including the PCI (a relay node receives measurement reports from a mobile terminal that includes PCIs of candidate cells for handover, if a CGI corresponding to a PCI is not found in the RN, the RN sends a message that include the PCI of the target cell to a donor base station; see paragraphs [0064], [0087] and Fig. 12A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of R1-1817304, Moosavi and Teyeb to transmit the request in responsive to a UE’s measurement report to permit a SN to identify a target cell with the cell’s PCI in an handover process (see paragraph [0022]).
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teyeb; in view of Won et al. (US 2016/0316467 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 13; Teyeb discloses a second node transmits a message including the cell identifier and information on the cell to a first node.
Teyeb does not explicitly disclose the information include a TAC.
Won discloses wherein the information on the cell further comprises at least one of a public land mobile network (PLMN) list corresponding to the cell, a band list, a tracking area code (TAC), an RAN area code (RANAC), or frequency point information (the neighbor cell information may contain a CGI, a PCI, a frequency band and a tracking area code; see paragraph [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Teyeb and Won to include a TAC in the information to efficiently perform PCI confusion mechanism (see paragraph [0014] of Won).
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teyeb; in view of Yang (WO 2019/136874 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 14; Teyeb discloses a first node and a second node exchange messages.
Teyeb does not explicitly disclose messages are via an Xn interface.
Yang discloses wherein the first message and the second message are messages of an Xn interface (the interface between the relay node and the base station may be Xn interface; see paragraph [0172]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Teyeb and Yang to exchange messages using Xn interface to enable a first node serves as an access network device (see paragraph [0172] of Yang).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NING LI whose telephone number is (571)270-0624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/N.L/Examiner, Art Unit 2415
/MANSOUR OVEISSI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights