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 .
Applicant’s RCE filed 12/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3,7-14,17,18,21-23, and 26-30 are amended.
Claims 4-6,15,16,24, and 25 are cancelled.
Claims 1-3,7-14,17-23, and 26-30 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3,7,8,11-14,17,20,22,23,26,27,29, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nagano (US 20240031911).
Re claim 1:
Nagano discloses an apparatus configured for wireless communications, the apparatus comprising: one or more memories comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to, individually or collectively, execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to (Fig. 13):
receive first system information (Para.[0059] at least one of first system information (e.g., SIB1) used for cell selection, second system information (e.g., SIB2) used for intra-frequency cell reselection, and third system information (e.g., SIB4) used for inter-frequency cell reselection):
including first one or more parameters for at least one of: cell selection or cell reselection associated with support of one or more capabilities of the apparatus, the one or more capabilities including a capability of the apparatus to support network energy savings; a capability of the apparatus to report one or more worst beams; a capability of the apparatus to perform cross link interference (CLI) measurement; a capability of the apparatus to perform full-duplex (FD) communication; a capability of the apparatus to dynamically activate and deactivate uplink transmission with energy saving patterns; a capability of the apparatus to report traffic predictions; an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) mobile termination (MT) capability of the apparatus or a reduced capability (RedCap) of the apparatus (Fig. 3 ref. S103 RedCap Terminal? Yes and ref. S104-S105 and ref. S109 Determined as Barred Cell and Para.[0083] In step S109, the terminal 10 determines that the access to the specific cell is barred. As described above, the terminal 10 can determines that the access to the specific cell is barred, by use of the following determination conditions, for example: [0084] 1> if in RRC_IDLE or RRC_INACTIVE or in RRC_CONNECTED while T311 is running; [0085] 2> if the UE is a reduced capability UE according to TS 38.306 [26]: [0086] 3> if redCap-AccessAllowed is not included in SIB1; or [0087] 3> if redCap-AccessAllowed is set to true in SIB1, and singleRx-AccessAllowed is not included in SIB1, and the reduced capability UE supports no more than a single receiver; or [0088] 3> if redCap-AccessAllowed is set to true in SIB1, and twoRx-AccessAllowed is not included in SIB1, and the reduced capability UE supports no more than a dual receiver. [0089] 4> consider the cell as barred in accordance with TS 38.304 [20] – Examiner Note: singleRX-AccessAllowed and twoRx-AccessAllowed are “first one or more parameters”); and
receive second system information including second one or more parameters for the at least one of: cell selection or cell reselection, different than the first one or more parameters, associated with a lack of support of the one or more capabilities of the apparatus (Fig.3 ref. S103 RedCap Terminal? No and ref. S110 Camp on Cell based on Cell Selection Criterion S and Para.[0090] In step S110, the terminal 10 determines, based on the cell selection criterion S, whether or not the terminal 10 camps on the specific cell. More specifically, in a case where the specific cell satisfies the cell selection criterion S, the terminal 10 may camp on the specific cell); and
perform a measurement of one or more signals from one or more cells (Para.[0046] As expressed by Formula 1, Srxlev may be derived based on at least one of the following parameters. [0047] A reception level (hereinafter referred to as “Q.sub.rxlevmeas,” e.g., Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP)) measured by the terminal 10 about the specific cel); and
perform the at least one of cell selection or cell reselection based on the measurement of the one or more signals and on: the first one or more parameters when the apparatus supports the one or more capabilities; or the second one or more parameters when the apparatus lacks support for the one or more capabilities (Para.[0104] The terminal 10 may control cell selection/reselection based on Srxlev derived based on Q.sub.rxlevmin for the single Rx terminal and Q.sub.rxlevmeas measured in the specific cell and/or Squal derived based on Q.sub.qualmin for the single Rx terminal and Q.sub.qualmeas measured in the specific cell and Fig.3 ref. S103 RedCap Terminal? No and ref. S110 Camp on cell based on cell selection criterions S).
Re claim 2:
Nagano discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to prioritize selection of a cell that supports the one or more of the capabilities of the apparatus over a cell that does not support the one or more capabilities of the apparatus (Para [0067] In view of this, in the present embodiment, (1) by prohibiting access of the terminal 10 of the specific type and/or with the specific number of antennas to a specific cell, a decrease in the use efficiency of radio resources in the specific cell is prevented. Further, (2) while the access of the terminal 10 of the specific type and/or with the specific number of antennas to the specific cell is allowed, the coverage of the terminal 10 is prevented from being reduced).
Re claim 3:
Nagaon discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first system information or the second system information is received in ne or more system information blocks (SIBs) (Para.[0059] at least one of first system information (e.g., SIB1) used for cell selection, second system information (e.g., SIB2) used for intra-frequency cell reselection, and third system information (e.g., SIB4) used for inter-frequency cell reselection).
Re claim 7:
Nagano discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first system information comprises one or more first thresholds for cell selection, one or more first threshold for reselection, one or more first thresholds for performing inter-cell measurements, or a combination thereof, and the second system information comprises one or more second thresholds for cell selection, one or more second threshold for reselection, one or more second thresholds for performing inter-cell measurements, or a combination thereof (Para.[0106] FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating an example of the cell selection criterion S1 according to the present embodiment. For example, the terminal 10 in FIG. 5 is a single Rx terminal. As illustrated in FIG. 5, Srxlev in the cell selection criterion S1 may be derived based on at least one of Q.sub.rxlevmeas, Q.sub.rxlevminoffset, P.sub.compensation, and Qoffset.sub.temp in addition to Q.sub.rxlevmin for the single Rx terminal. Further, Squal may be derived based on at least one of Q.sub.qualmeas, Q.sub.qualminoffset, and Qoffset.sub.temp in addition to Q.sub.qualmin for the single Rx terminal. In FIG. 5, expressions for the cell selection criterion S1 are described, but they are just an example and are not limited to those illustrated herein. For example, if Srxlev and/or Squal in the cell selection criterion S1 are larger (or equal to or larger) than a given value, the given value is not limited to 0).
Re claim 8:
Nagano discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein: the first system information further comprises one or more first offsets associated with the one or more first thresholds for cell selection, the one or more first thresholds for reselection, the one or more first thresholds for performing inter-cell measurements, or a combination thereof, based on the one or more capabilities; and the second system information further comprises one or more second offsets associated with the one or more second thresholds for cell selection, the one or more second thresholds for reselection, the one or more second thresholds for performing inter-cell measurements, or a combination thereof, based on the one or more capabilities (FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating an example of the cell selection criterion S1 according to the present embodiment. For example, the terminal 10 in FIG. 5 is a single Rx terminal. As illustrated in FIG. 5, Srxlev in the cell selection criterion S1 may be derived based on at least one of Q.sub.rxlevmeas, Q.sub.rxlevminoffset, P.sub.compensation, and Qoffset.sub.temp in addition to Q.sub.rxlevmin for the single Rx terminal. Further, Squal may be derived based on at least one of Q.sub.qualmeas, Q.sub.qualminoffset, and Qoffset.sub.temp in addition to Q.sub.qualmin for the single Rx terminal. In FIG. 5, expressions for the cell selection criterion S1 are described, but they are just an example and are not limited to those illustrated herein. For example, if Srxlev and/or Squal in the cell selection criterion S1 are larger (or equal to or larger) than a given value, the given value is not limited to 0).
Re claim 11:
Nagano discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the one or more first thresholds for cell selection comprises: a first cell selection received signal quality threshold (Srxlev); and a first cell selection quality value (Squal); and the one or more second thresholds for cell selection comprises: a second Srxlev; and a second Squal (FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating an example of the cell selection criterion S1 according to the present embodiment. For example, the terminal 10 in FIG. 5 is a single Rx terminal. As illustrated in FIG. 5, Srxlev in the cell selection criterion S1 may be derived based on at least one of Q.sub.rxlevmeas, Q.sub.rxlevminoffset, P.sub.compensation, and Qoffset.sub.temp in addition to Q.sub.rxlevmin for the single Rx terminal. Further, Squal may be derived based on at least one of Q.sub.qualmeas, Q.sub.qualminoffset, and Qoffset.sub.temp in addition to Q.sub.qualmin for the single Rx terminal. In FIG. 5, expressions for the cell selection criterion S1 are described, but they are just an example and are not limited to those illustrated herein. For example, if Srxlev and/or Squal in the cell selection criterion S1 are larger (or equal to or larger) than a given value, the given value is not limited to 0).
Re claim 12:
Nagano discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the first system information further includes a first set of parameters comprising first one or more minimum received quality level parameters, first one or more minimum received quality offset parameters, first one or more power compensation parameters, first one or more signal quality temporary offset parameters, first one or more signal quality minimum parameters, first one or more cell specific signal quality minimum offset parameters, or a combination thereof, associated with the support of the one or more capabilities; and the second system information further includes a second set of parameters comprising second one or more minimum received quality level parameters, second one or more minimum received quality offset parameters, second one or more power compensation parameters, second one or more signal quality temporary offset parameters, second one or more signal quality minimum parameters, second one or more cell specific signal quality minimum offset parameters, or a combination thereof, associated with the lack of support of the one or more capabilities (Para.[0110] For example, in FIG. 6, in information (e.g., “cellSelectionInfo”) related to cell selection in SIB1, Q.sub.rxlevmin,SingleRx information (e.g., “q-RxLevMinSingleRx”), Q.sub.qualmin,SingleRx information (e.g., “q-QualMinSingleRx”), Q.sub.rxlevmin,TwoRx information (e.g., “RxLevMinTwoRx”), and Q.sub.qualmin,TwoRx information (e.g., “q-QualMinTwoRx”) are defined. The Q.sub.rxlevmin,SingleRx information and the Q.sub.qualmin,SingleRx information, or the Q.sub.rxlevmin,TwoRx information and the Q.sub.qualmin,TwoRx information may be used to derive Q.sub.rxlevmin and Q.sub.qualmin in the cell selection criterion S1 at the time of cell selection. Note that, in a case where the terminal 10 is a single Rx terminal, if the Q.sub.rxlevmin,SingleRx information and the Q.sub.qualmin,SingleRx information are not included in SIB1, Q.sub.rxlevmin and Q.sub.qualmin may be derived based on existing parameters (e.g., “q-RxLevMin” and “q-QualMin”) in SIB1, and cell selection may be controlled based on the existing cell selection criterion S based on Q.sub.rxlevmin and Q.sub.qualmin thus derived).
Re claim 13:
Nagano discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more capabilities comprises a first plurality of capabilities corresponding to a feature group (Para.[0071] Here, the RedCap access information is information related to whether the access of the RedCap terminal to the specific cell is allowed or barred and Para.[0063] Further, RedCap terminals identified by a specific type may have different capabilities. For example, a plurality of RedCap terminals having different numbers of receiving antennas (e.g., RedCap terminals with a single receiving antenna, two receiving antennas, three or more receiving antennas, and the like) may be provided).
Re claim 14:
Nagano discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the first system information further includes first cell barring information based on the support of the one or more capabilities; the cell barring information indicates one or more cells as unavailable for cell selection and cell reselection, one or more cells as available for cell selection and cell reselection, or a combination thereof; and the second system information further includes cell barring information based on the lack of support of the one or more capabilities (Para.[0083] In step S109, the terminal 10 determines that the access to the specific cell is barred. As described above, the terminal 10 can determines that the access to the specific cell is barred, by use of the following determination conditions, for example: [0086] 3> if redCap-AccessAllowed is not included in SIB1; or [0087] 3> if redCap-AccessAllowed is set to true in SIB1, and singleRx-AccessAllowed is not included in SIB1, and the reduced capability UE supports no more than a single receiver; or [0088] 3> if redCap-AccessAllowed is set to true in SIB1, and twoRx-AccessAllowed is not included in SIB1, and the reduced capability UE supports no more than a dual receiver. [0089] 4> consider the cell as barred in accordance with TS 38.304 [20] and Para.[0157-0162]).
Re claim 17:
Nagano discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the first system information includes first cell capability information of the one or more cells; and the second system information includes second cell capability information of the one or more cells; and cause the apparatus to perform the cell selection, cell reselection, or both comprises the one or more processors being configured, individually or collectively, to cause the apparatus to perform the cell selection, the cell reselection, or both further based on the cell capability information (Fig.4 CellAccessRelatedInfo field descriptions redcap-AccessAllowed; singleRx-AccessAllowed; twoRx-AccessAllowed and Para. [0093] For example, in FIG. 4, in a case where the access of the RedCap terminal to the specific cell is allowed, the RedCap access information is set to true and is included in SIB1. Further, in a case where the access of the single Rx terminal to the specific cell is allowed, the single Rx access information is set to true and is included in SIB1. Further, in a case where the access of the two Rx terminal to the specific cell is allowed, the two Rx access information is set to true and is included in SIB1 and Fig.3 ref. S103 RedCap Terminal? No).
Re claim 20:
Nagano discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus comprises a user equipment (UE) in a radio resource control (RRC) idle mode or an RRC inactive mode (Para. [0038] (Cell Selection/Reselection) and [0039] The terminal 10 in an idle state, an inactive state, or a connected state during running of a specific timer selects and/or reselects a cell and [0040] Here, the idle state is a state where a connection (hereinafter referred to as “RRC connection”) of a RadioResorurce Control (RRC) layer between the terminal 10 and the base station 20 is not established and is also called RRC_IDLE, an idle mode, an RRC idle mode, and the like).
Re claim 22: Claim 22 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1 from the perspective of the base station.
Re claim 23: Claim 23 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 26: Claim 26 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Re claim 27: Claim 27 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 8.
Re claim 29: Claim 29 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 30: Claim 30 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1 from the perspective of the base station.
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of Gao (US 20210352714).
Re claim 9:
As discussed above, Nagano meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Nagano does not explicitly disclose the apparatus of claim 7, wherein: the first system information further comprises one or more first threshold scaling factors associated with the one or more first thresholds for cell selection, one or more first thresholds for reselection, one or more first thresholds for performing inter-cell measurements, or a combination thereof, based on the one or more capabilities; and the second system information further comprises one or more second threshold scaling factors associated with the one or more second thresholds for cell selection, one or more second thresholds for reselection, one or more second thresholds for performing inter-cell measurements, or a combination thereof, based on the one or more capabilities.
Gao discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein: the first system information further comprises one or more first threshold scaling factors associated with the one or more first thresholds for cell selection, one or more first thresholds for reselection, one or more first thresholds for performing inter-cell measurements, or a combination thereof, based on the one or more capabilities; and the second system information further comprises one or more second threshold scaling factors associated with the one or more second thresholds for cell selection, one or more second thresholds for reselection, one or more second thresholds for performing inter-cell measurements, or a combination thereof, based on the one or more capabilities (Para.[0046] In particular embodiments, the reselection configuration may include, for example, at least one of a list containing cell identities, a range of cell identities, a list of cell indexes, an indication of a target type of cells, a reselection priority for the target type of cells, a scaling factor to a reselection priority for the target type of cells, an offset to the reselection priority for the target type of cells, a scaling factor to measurement results for the target type of cells, an offset to the measurement results for the target type of cells, a reselection threshold for the target type of cells, a scaling factor to the reselection threshold for the target type of cells – Examiner Note: Nagano discloses first and second system information).
Nagano and Gao are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagano to include a scaling factor as taught by Gao in order to assist in cell reselection (Gao Para.[0002]).
Re claim 28: Claim 28 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 9.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of Xu (US 20210068010).
Re claim 10:
As discussed above, Nagano meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Nagano does not explicitly disclose the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the first system information further comprises one or more first time duration thresholds associated with the one or more first thresholds for cell selection, one or more first thresholds for reselection, one or more first thresholds for performing inter-cell measurements, or a combination thereof, based on the one or more capabilities; and the second system information further comprises one or more second time duration thresholds associated with the one or more second thresholds for cell selection, one or more second thresholds for reselection, one or more second thresholds for performing inter-cell measurements, or a combination thereof, based on the one or more capabilities.
Xu discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the first system information further comprises one or more first time duration thresholds associated with the one or more first thresholds for cell selection, one or more first thresholds for reselection, one or more first thresholds for performing inter-cell measurements, or a combination thereof, based on the one or more capabilities; and the second system information further comprises one or more second time duration thresholds associated with the one or more second thresholds for cell selection, one or more second thresholds for reselection, one or more second thresholds for performing inter-cell measurements, or a combination thereof, based on the one or more capabilities (Para.[0077] The wireless device may also perform high priority inter-frequency cell re-selection, at least in some instances, e.g., if cell quality for a cell deployed on a high priority frequency has a cell quality greater than a configured threshold for a specified time duration – Examiner Note: Nagano discloses first and second system information).
Nagano and Xu are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagano to include a time duration as taught by Xu in order to evaluate when cell reselection should occur (Xu Para.[0077]).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of Cheng (US 20250016700).
Re claim 18:
As discussed above, Nagano meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Nagano does not explicitly disclose the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the cell capability information comprises network energy saving state information.
Cheng discloses the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the cell capability information comprises network energy saving state information (Para.[0076] For example, SIB1 may include a flag to indicate whether the cell is energy-saving or a cell ID list associated with the serving cells or the neighboring cells in the energy-saving state. The UE may determine whether to prioritize the cells in the list based on capability, mobility, and location status and Para.[0074] The UE in the camped state may receive SIB4. SIB4 contains cell re-selection information for inter-frequency cell re-selection. The cell re-selection information for inter-frequency cell re-selection may include interFreqCellReselectionInfo. The SIB4 may provide the SMTC and SMTC2-LP. The SMTC may indicate periodicity, offset, and duration, and the SMTC2-LP may provide pci-list and periodicity longer than the periodicity of the SMTC. For example, the periodicity may be set to 20 ms for SMTC and set to 160 ms for SMTC2-LP. In an example, a new SMTC may be provided for network energy savings. The new SMTC may include periodicity, offset, duration, pci-list, ssb-ToMeasure, and flags to enable new cell reselection and symbol demodulation procedures. The periodicity may be set to a value greater than 160 ms).
Nagano and Cheng are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagano to include cell capability information comprising network energy saving state information as taught by Cheng in order to improve network energy efficiency (Cheng Para.[0007]).
Re claim 19:
As discussed above, Nagano meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Nagano does not explicitly disclose the apparatus of claim 18, wherein the network energy saving state information indicates at least one of: a normal active state in which any user equipment (UE) is permitted to access a cell; a power saving state in which the cell is not preferred for high performance UEs; a deep power saving state in which a normal UE should not attempt to camp on the cell; or an inactive state in which the cell is not available for access until the cell wakes up.
Cheng discloses the apparatus of claim 18, wherein the network energy saving state information indicates at least one of: a normal active state in which any user equipment (UE) is permitted to access a cell; a power saving state in which the cell is not preferred for high performance UEs; a deep power saving state in which a normal UE should not attempt to camp on the cell; or an inactive state in which the cell is not available for access until the cell wakes up (Para.[0060] The network node may determine whether the UE can access the LP cell).
Nagano and Cheng are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagano to include cell capability information comprising network energy saving state information as taught by Cheng in order to improve network energy efficiency (Cheng Para.[0007]).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of Nuggehalli (US 20250081072).
Re claim 21:
As discussed above, Nagano meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Nagano does not explicitly disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the first system information further indicates first one or more whitelisted cells, first one or more blacklisted cells, or a combination thereof, based on the support of the one or more capabilities; the second system information further indicates second one or more whitelisted cells, second one or more blacklisted cells, or a combination thereof, based on the support of the one or more capabilities; the whitelisted cells indicate cells for performing measurements; and the blacklisted cells indicate to skip for performing measurements.
Nuggehalli discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the first system information further indicates first one or more whitelisted cells, first one or more blacklisted cells, or a combination thereof, based on the support of the one or more capabilities; the second system information further indicates second one or more whitelisted cells, second one or more blacklisted cells, or a combination thereof, based on the support of the one or more capabilities; the whitelisted cells indicate cells for performing measurements; and the blacklisted cells indicate to skip for performing measurements (Para.[0011] Additionally or alternatively, the one or more sets of cell reselection information may include at least one of a list of frequencies for the UE to measure, a whitelist corresponding to one or more TN cells to search, and a blacklist corresponding to one or more TN cells to ignore. In some embodiments, the one or more sets of TN cell reselection information may be included in one or more system information blocks (SIBs). Additionally or alternative, the network node may indicate, through one or more SIBs configured as system information block-4 (SIB4), which of the one or more SIBs are being transmitted – Examiner Note: Nagano discloses first and second system information).
Nagano and Nuggehalli are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagano to a whitelist and blacklist as taught by Nuggehalli in order to enhance communication coordination and power saving techniques (Nuggehalli Para.[0002]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, Applicant contends Nagano does not disclose the terminal receives first system information associated with support of one or more capabilities and second system information associated with lack of support of the one or more capabilities.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nagano discloses first system information associated with support of one or more capabilities (Fig. 3 ref. S103 RedCap Terminal? Yes and ref. S104-S105 and ref. S109 Determined as Barred Cell and Para.[0083] In step S109, the terminal 10 determines that the access to the specific cell is barred. As described above, the terminal 10 can determines that the access to the specific cell is barred, by use of the following determination conditions, for example: [0087] 3> if redCap-AccessAllowed is set to true in SIB1, and singleRx-AccessAllowed is not included in SIB1, and the reduced capability UE supports no more than a single receiver; or [0088] 3> if redCap-AccessAllowed is set to true in SIB1, and twoRx-AccessAllowed is not included in SIB1, and the reduced capability UE supports no more than a dual receiver); and
receive second system information including second one or more parameters for the at least one of: cell selection or cell reselection, different than the first one or more parameters, associated with a lack of support of the one or more capabilities of the apparatus (Fig.3 ref. S103 RedCap Terminal? No and ref. S110 Camp on Cell based on Cell Selection Criterion S and Para.[0090] In step S110, the terminal 10 determines, based on the cell selection criterion S, whether or not the terminal 10 camps on the specific cell. More specifically, in a case where the specific cell satisfies the cell selection criterion S, the terminal 10 may camp on the specific cell).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD SAJID ADHAMI whose telephone number is (571)272-8615. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471