DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on November 18, 2025 does not include all of the indicated allowable subject matter from the last office action. The present amendment has changed the scope and interpretation of the claims.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 11 be found allowable, claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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) 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnamoorthy et al. (Krishnamoorthy), U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0201933 in view of Zhang et al. (Zhang), U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0228269 and further in view of Cheng, U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0077310.
Regarding claims 1, 6, 11, (13 see objection above) and 16, Krishnamoorthy discloses a resource information indication method, comprising: determining, by a network device (item 110, 120 or 130; see figure 1) (with memory and processor) (The transceiver that performs the establishing at 310 may also work in tandem with at least one processor (analogous to, for example, the processing system 230 of FIG. 2) and/or at least one memory (analogous to, for example, the memory component 240 of FIG. 2).) (0034; see figure 2), first indication information (MIB or SIB information) (see 0035), wherein: a bit state (00, 01 or 10) (see 0054) of the first indication information is a bit state (0 or 1) in a first state set (00, 01 or 10) (see 0054), and the network device supports a first terminal device (item 150 or 160; see figure 1) (with memory and processor and inherently decodes the received information) (The transceiver that performs the establishing at 310 may also work in tandem with at least one processor (analogous to, for example, the processing system 230 of FIG. 2) and/or at least one memory (analogous to, for example, the memory component 240 of FIG. 2).) (0034; see figure 2) in accessing the network device (not barred state), or the bit state of the first indication information is a bit state in a second state set, and the network device does not support the first terminal device in accessing the network device (barred state); and sending, by the network device, first information, wherein the first information comprises the first indication information (In some implementations, the access point 120 will intermittently (for example, periodically) indicate whether a cell associated with the access point 120 is barred or not barred. The indication as to whether the cell is barred may be included, for example, in the network configuration data received at 320 (for example, in a SIB2 block).) (0052); (For example, a RLF feedback binary sequence may have a length of two bits, wherein ‘00’ indicates that the cell is not barred, ‘01’ indicates that the cell is barred for a period of time that does not exceed the cell bar threshold, ‘10’ indicates that the cell has been barred for a period of time that exceeds the cell bar threshold, and ‘11’ indicates that the RLF status of the access point 120 is unknown.) (0054).
Krishnamoorthy, however, fails to disclose wherein before the sending, by the network device, the first information, the method further comprises: sending, by the network device, a master information block to the first terminal device, wherein the master information block comprises cellBarred information, and the cellBarred information is not applied to the first terminal device.
In a similar field of endeavor, Zhang discloses a method and device for measurement restriction. Zhang further discloses sending, by a network device, cellBarred information, and the cellBarred information is not applied to the first terminal device (the network device 110 may broadcast (220) cell barred information specific to a Release-15 terminal device to prevent the terminal device 160 from accessing the cell 115. In the meanwhile, the terminal device 160 as a Release-15 terminal device may ignore cell barred information for a pre-Release-15 terminal device, also called as legacy terminal device) (0051).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Krishnamoorthy with the teachings of Zhang. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Although Krishnamoorthy and Zheng as combined does not specifically disclose when (i.e. before the sending limitation), the examiner contends that when this information is sent/broadcasted would be a design preference.
The combination of Krishnamoorthy and Zheng further fail to disclose that the cellbarred information is sent/broadcasted in a MIB.
In a similar field of endeavor, Cheng discloses connection re-direction method for UE and remote access node, UE using the same and remote access node using the same.
Cheng further discloses wherein cellbarred information can be sent/broadcasted in a MIB (The cellBarred information element (IE) within the MIB could be set as ‘barred’. The intraFreqReselection IE within MIB could be set as “allowed”.) (0058).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Krishnamoorthy and Zheng with the teachings of Cheng. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 2, 7, 12, 13 and 17, Krishnamoorthy as modified discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first information comprises downlink control information or a system information block sent by the network device (At 320, the access terminal 160 receives network configuration data from the access point 120. The network configuration data may be gathered from …information blocks (for example, a Master Information Block (MIB) or one or more System Information Blocks (SIBx), etc.) (0035).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 8-10, 14, 15 and 18-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art (Krishnamoorthy) fails to suggest or render obvious sending, by the network device, second indication information used to indicate a broadcast channel type, wherein: a state of the second indication information is 0, and the first information is a master information block comprised on a broadcast channel; or the state of the second indication information is 1, and the first information is an extended information block comprised on a broadcast channel and at least one of the extended information block does not comprise cellBarred information or the extended information block comprises third indication information.
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art (Krishnamoorthy) fails to suggest or render obvious wherein the first indication information is indicated by using 1 bit, and the method further comprises: the bit state of the first indication information is the bit state in the first state set, a bit state of second indication information is a third state, and the network device supports the first terminal device in accessing the network device; the bit state of the first indication information is the bit state in the first state set, the bit state of the second indication information is a fourth state, and the network device supports the first terminal device in accessing the network device; the bit state of the first indication information is the bit state in the second state set, the bit state of the second indication information is the third state, and the network device does not support the first terminal device in accessing the network device; or the bit state of the first indication information is the bit state in the second state set, the bit state of the second indication information is the fourth state, and the network device does not support the first terminal device in accessing the network device, wherein the third state and the fourth state each comprise 0 and 1, and the third state is different from the fourth state, as explicitly detailed.
Regarding claim 8, the closest prior art (Krishnamoorthy) fails to suggest or render obvious wherein the method further comprises: obtaining, by the first terminal device, second indication information that is used to indicate a broadcast channel type and that is sent by the network device, wherein a state of the second indication information is 0, and the first information is a master information block comprised on a broadcast channel; or the state of the second indication information is 1, and the first information is an extended information block comprised on a broadcast channel and at least one of the extended information block does not comprise cellBarred information or the extended information block comprises third indication information, as explicitly detailed.
Regarding claim 9, the closest prior art (Krishnamoorthy) fails to suggest or render obvious wherein the first indication information is indicated by using 1 bit, and the method further comprises: the bit state of the first indication information is the bit state in the first state set, a bit state of second indication information is a third state, and the first terminal device is to access the network device; the bit state of the first indication information is the bit state in the first state set, the bit state of the second indication information is a fourth state, and the first terminal device is to access the network device; the bit state of the first indication information is the bit state in the second state set, the bit state of the second indication information is the third state, and the first terminal device is not to access the network device; or the bit state of the first indication information is the bit state in the second state set, the bit state of the second indication information is the fourth state, and the first terminal device is not to access the network device, wherein the third state and the fourth state each comprise 0 and 1, and the third state is different from the fourth state, as explicitly detailed.
Regarding claim 10, the closest prior art (Krishnamoorthy) fails to suggest or render obvious wherein the first indication information is indicated by using 2 bits; and the first terminal device is to access the network device, the bit state of the first indication information comprises the first state set, and the first state set comprises {10, 11} or {01, 11}; or the first terminal device is not to access the network device, the bit state of the first indication information comprises the first state set, and the first state set comprises {00, 01} or {00, 10}, wherein the first state set indicates that the network device supports the first terminal device in accessing the network device, the second state set indicates that the network device does not support the first terminal device in accessing the network device, and the first state set is different from the second state set, as explicitly detailed.
Regarding claim 14, the closest prior art (Krishnamoorthy) fails to suggest or render obvious wherein the transmitter is further configured to send third indication information that is used to indicate a broadcast channel type, wherein: a state of the third indication information is 0, and the first information is a master information block comprised on a broadcast channel; or the state of the third indication information is 1, and the first information is an extended information block comprised on a broadcast channel and at least one of the extended information block does not comprise cellBarred information or the extended information block comprises third indication information, as explicitly detailed.
Regarding claim 15, the closest prior art (Krishnamoorthy) fails to suggest or render obvious wherein the first indication information is indicated by using 1 bit, and the bit state of the first indication information is the bit state in the first state set, a bit state of second indication information is a third state, and the network device supports the first terminal device in accessing the network device; the bit state of the first indication information is the bit state in the first state set, the bit state of the second indication information is a fourth state, and the network device supports the first terminal device in accessing the network device; the bit state of the first indication information is the bit state in the second state set, the bit state of the second indication information is the third state, and the network device does not support the first terminal device in accessing the network device; or the bit state of the first indication information is the bit state in the second state set, the bit state of the second indication information is the fourth state, and the network device does not support the first terminal device in accessing the network device, wherein the third state and the fourth state each comprise 0 and 1, and the third state is different from the fourth state, as explicitly detailed.
Regarding claim 18, the closest prior art (Krishnamoorthy) fails to suggest or render obvious wherein the processor is further configured to obtain second indication information that is used to indicate a broadcast channel type and that is sent by the network device, wherein: a state of the second indication information is 0, and the first information is a master information block comprised on a broadcast channel; or the state of the second indication information is 1, and the first information is an extended information block comprised on a broadcast channel and at least one of the extended information block does not comprise cellBarred information or the extended information block comprises third indication information, as explicitly detailed.
Regarding claim 19, the closest prior art (Krishnamoorthy) fails to suggest or render obvious wherein the first indication information is indicated by using 1 bit, and the bit state of the first indication information is the bit state in the first state set, a bit state of second indication information is a third state, and the first terminal device is to access the network device; the bit state of the first indication information is the bit state in the first state set, the bit state of the second indication information is a fourth state, and the first terminal device is to access the network device; the bit state of the first indication information is the bit state in the second state set, the bit state of the second indication information is the third state, and the first terminal device is not to access the network device; or the bit state of the first indication information is the bit state in the second state set, the bit state of the second indication information is the fourth state, and the first terminal device is not to access the network device, wherein the third state and the fourth state each comprise 0 and 1, and the third state is different from the fourth state, as explicitly detailed.
Regarding claim 20, the closest prior art (Krishnamoorthy) fails to suggest or render obvious wherein the first indication information is indicated by using 2 bits; and the first terminal device is to access the network device, the bit state of the first indication information comprises the first state set, and the first state set comprises {10, 11} or {01, 11}; or the first terminal device is not to access the network device, the bit state of the first indication information comprises the first state set, and the first state set comprises {00, 01} or {00, 10}, wherein the first state set indicates that the network device supports the first terminal device in accessing the network device, the second state set indicates that the network device does not support the first terminal device in accessing the network device, and the first state set is different from the second state set, as explicitly detailed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No, 2017/0013501 discloses a method and UE for blocking network access according to application.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEMICA M. BEAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-7797. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 3:00 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, Matthew D. Anderson can be reached at 571-272-4177. 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.
/TEMICA M BEAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646