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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 08/01/23, 08/29/24, 09/03/24, 12/03/24, 12/23/24, 08/13/25, and 08/20/25 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-3, 6-11, 14-17,and 19-25, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1,2,3,7,8,9,10,15,16,17,19,20,22,23,24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US 20220377532, hereinafter He) in view of Wellington Dan (US 20130136022, hereinafter Wellington)
Regarding claim 1, He discloses an access method, wherein the method comprises:
receiving first information from a network device, wherein the first information indicated whether access of a first terminal device is allowed (Par. 65: Lines 6-11; The gNB transmits an indication (i.e. first information) of whether access for the reduced-capability terminal device is permitted, which is received by the UE) or whether access of a second terminal is allowed (No patentable weight given due to the optional language “or”); and
determining whether access of the first terminal device is allowed (Par. 65: Lines 16-18 and Par. 66: Lines 1-2; The UE evaluates the indication to determine whether access is permitted or barred) or whether access of the second terminal device is allowed (No patentable weight given due to the optional language “or”),
wherein in case that access of the first terminal device is allowed, the first information further indicates access of the first terminal device based on a first resource is allowed or access of the first terminal device based on a second resource is allowed (Par. 66: Lines 5-9; The available set of PRACH (physical random access channels) resources for a device to gain access to the network may be partitioned into two or three groups; Par. 66: Lines 9-11, One of the PRACH groups is dedicated for NR-light UEs; Par. 66: Lines 11-14; Each PRACH group may be reserved for each one of multiple types of NR-light UEs; When access is permitted, the UE performs access using one of multiple distinct random access groups, where different PRACH resource sets are defined and selectively used) or in case that access of the second terminal device is allowed, the first information further indicates access of the second terminal device based on the first resource is allowed or access of the first terminal device based on the second resource is allowed (No patentable weight given due to the optional language “or”),
wherein the first resource and the second resource are different control resource sets, different random access resources, or different synchronization information resources, (Par. 66: Lines 5-9; The available set of PRACH (physical random access channels) resources for a device to gain access to the network may be partitioned into two or three groups; Par. 66: Lines 11-14; Each PRACH group may be reserved for each one of multiple types of NR-light UEs; Different PRACH groups constitute distinct random access resources, from which the UE selects based on the received access indication)
He does not disclose the first terminal device is a first-type reduced capability terminal device, the second terminal device is a second-type reduced capability terminal device.
Wellington, however, discloses the first terminal is a first-type reduced capability device, and the second terminal is a second-type reduced capability device (Par. 25: Lines 1-7; Terminal devices 150-170 may be, for example, a GSM phone and an LTE phone; The GSM phone represents a first-type reduced capability device, as it supports only a single frequency channel, has limited processing capacity, and lacks modern features such as carrier aggregation or multiple antennas. The LTE phone represents a second-type reduced capability device, having a greater capability than a GSM phone but still reduced relative to a full-featured 5G UE, for example in the number of antenna ports, supported bands, and processing complexity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify He to further include a first-type reduced capability terminal device and a second-type reduced capability terminal device, as taught by Wellington, such that the network access control indication/decision of He is applied in a system that supports multiple categories of reduced capability terminals. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because wireless networks commonly serve heterogeneous terminal populations with different capability levels, and distinguishing between at least two reduced-capability device types enables the network to selectively allow or bar access and/or steer different device types to different access resources (e.g., different PRACH groups) to manage load, reduce unnecessary access attempts, and improve overall access efficiency and resource allocation. Implementing Wellington’s teaching of multiple reduced-capability device types in He’s access-indication framework is a predictable design choice that merely applies known capability-class differentiation to an established access control procedure, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1, He does not disclose wherein the second terminal device and the first terminal device have different first feature, the first feature comprises one or more of the following:
a quantity of resources supported or configured, a quantity of transmit antenna ports, a quantity of receive antenna ports, a quantity of radio frequency channels, a quantity of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes, a supported peak rate, an application scenario, a latency requirement, or a processing capability.
Wellington, however, discloses wherein the second terminal device and the first terminal device have different first feature, the first feature comprises one or more of the following:
a quantity of resources supported or configured, a quantity of transmit antenna ports, a quantity of receive antenna ports, a quantity of radio frequency channels, a quantity of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes, a supported peak rate, an application scenario, a latency requirement, or a processing capability.
(Par. 25: Limes 1-7; Terminal devices 150-170 may be, for example, a GSM phone and a LTE phone; A GSM phone and LTE phone differ in multiple aspects, including processing capability and number of radio frequency channels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of He and Wellington to support access control for terminal devices with different features. Doing so would be a predictable and routine design choice to ensure compatibility and scalability across a variety of mobile devices.
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1, He does not disclose a quantity of radio frequency channels of the first terminal device is 1, and a quantity of radio frequency channels of the second terminal device is 2.
Wellington, however, discloses a quantity of radio frequency channels of the first terminal device is 1, and a quantity of radio frequency channels of the second terminal device is 2 (Par. 25: Limes 1-7; Terminal devices 150-170 may be, for example, a GSM phone and a LTE phone; As understood in the art, GSM is a 2G cellular technology that operates using a single RF at a time. In contrast, LTE supports carrier aggregation, which allows a terminal device to simultaneously use two or more frequency channels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of He and Wellington because networks are commonly designed to support different types of devices. Doing so would ensure compatibility with both older and more advanced devices.
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1, He discloses wherein the first resource and the second resource have different resource information, and the resource information is at least one of the following: time domain position information, frequency domain position information, code domain position information, a resource index, a power configuration, a beam resource, a time domain resource offset value, a frequency domain resource offset value, or a code domain resource offset value (Par. 66: Lines 5-9; The available set of PRACH (physical random access channels) resources for a device to gain access to the network may be partitioned into two or three groups; Par. 66: Lines 11-14; Each PRACH group may be reserved for each one of multiple types of NR-light UEs; The different PRACH groups are different resource information. Different PRACH groups occur in different PRACH occasions which are defined by specific time slots/symbols, thus constitute different time-domain position information. Different PRACH groups occupy different frequency allocations thus constitute different frequency-domain position information. The UE selects which PRACH group to use, this is effectively a resource index).
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1, He discloses wherein at least one piece of first information is comprised in a master information block (MIB), the at least one piece of first information is comprised in a downlink control information (DCI), or the at least one piece of first information is comprised in a system information block (SIB) (Par. 65: Lines 11-16; The first information that indicates if a UE is allowed can be included in a SIB1; The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optional language “or”).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 addresses the limitations presented in claim 9. Therefore, the limitations of claim 9 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 2 addresses the limitations presented in claim 10. Therefore, the limitations of claim 10 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 3 addresses the limitations presented in claim 11. Therefore, the limitations of claim 11 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 addresses the limitations presented in claim 15. Therefore, the limitations of claim 15 have been addressed. An apparatus capable of performing the recited functions necessarily includes a processor and memory.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 2 addresses the limitations presented in claim 16. Therefore, the limitations of claim 16 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 3 addresses the limitations presented in claim 17. Therefore, the limitations of claim 17 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 1 addresses the limitations presented in claim 19. Therefore, the limitations of claim 19 have been addressed. An apparatus capable of performing the recited functions necessarily includes a processor and memory.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 2 addresses the limitations presented in claim 20. Therefore, the limitations of claim 20 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 22, the rejection of claim 7 addressed the limitations presented in claim 22. Therefore, the limitations of claim 22 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 23, the rejection of claim 8 addressed the limitations presented in claim 23. Therefore, the limitations of claim 23 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 24, the rejection of claim 3 addressed the limitations presented in claim 24. Therefore, the limitations of claim 24 have been addressed.
Claims 6,14,21,25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US 20220377532, hereinafter He) in view of Wellington Dan (US 20130136022, hereinafter Wellington) in further view of Zhang et al. (US 20200107341, hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1, He in view of Wellington disclose first information (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1) but does not disclose wherein at least one bit state of the first information indicates one or more of time domain position information, frequency domain position information, code domain position information, a resource index, a time domain resource offset, a frequency domain resource offset, a code domain resource offset, a power configuration, or a beam resource of the first resource or the second resource.
Zhang, however, discloses at least one bit state of the first information indicates one or more of time domain position information, frequency domain position information, code domain position information, a resource index, a time domain resource offset, a frequency domain resource offset, a code domain resource offset, a power configuration, or a beam resource of the first resource or the second resource (Par. 380: Lines 14-20; Bits in MIB are used to encode time domain position information, frequency domain position information, and beam related information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the first information of He in view of Wellington to convey resource-related information in the form of bit states as taught by Zhang. The combination would allow for efficient signal resource configuration and access conditions in wireless networks.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 6 addresses the limitations presented in claim 14. Therefore, the limitations of claim 14 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 6 addresses the limitations presented in claim 21. Therefore, the limitations of claim 21 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 25, the rejection of claim 6 addresses the limitations presented in claim 25. Therefore, the limitations of claim 25 have been addressed.
Conclusion
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 FABIAN BOTELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-4439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/FABIAN BOTELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648