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 (IDS’s) submitted on 09/07/2023 and 05/23/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 13-14, 17, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 11-12, 14, and 17-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,561. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims having a broader scope recite similar steps as that of the referenced U.S. Patent No. 12,069,561. The mapping of claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of the referenced patent is noted below.
Claim No.
Instant Application
Claim No.
U.S. Patent No. 12,069,561
1
A method for controlling cell access, performed by a terminal device, the method comprising: determining whether the terminal device is allowed to access a cell corresponding to a network device or barred from accessing the cell according to first information from the network device and a terminal type of the terminal device; wherein the terminal type comprises at least a first terminal type and a second terminal type, and the first information is used for determining whether a respective terminal device corresponding to each of the first terminal type and the second terminal type is allowed to access the cell or barred from accessing the cell.
1
receiving, from a network device, first information for determining whether each of at least two terminal types is allowed to access a cell corresponding to the network device or barred from accessing the cell corresponding to the network device, wherein each of the at least two terminal types is determined based on a timing advance (TA) pre-compensation capability; and accessing or not accessing the cell based on the first information, wherein the first information comprises cell access barring indication information for directly indicating whether access is allowed or barred.
5
The method of claim 1, wherein the first information comprises cellBarred information, the cellBarred information indicating Barred represents that the access is barred, and the cellBarred information indicating NotBarred represents that the access is allowed.
6
The method of claim 1, wherein the cell access barring indication information is a cellBarred parameter, and the cellBarred parameter takes a value of Barred or notBarred.
8
A terminal device comprising a processor, wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether the terminal device is allowed to access a cell corresponding to a network device or barred from accessing the cell according to first information from the network device and a terminal type of the terminal device; wherein the terminal type comprises at least a first terminal type and a second terminal type, and the first information is used for determining whether a respective terminal device corresponding to each of the first terminal type and the second terminal type is allowed to access the cell or barred from accessing the cell.
10
A terminal device, comprising: a transceiver, configured to receive, from a network device, first information for determining whether each of at least two terminal types is allowed to access a cell corresponding to the network device or barred from accessing the cell corresponding to the network device, wherein each of the at least two terminal types is determined based on a timing advance (TA) pre-compensation capability; and a processor, configured to access or not access the cell based on the first information, wherein the first information comprises cell access barring indication information for directly indicating whether access is allowed or barred.
11
The terminal device of claim 8, wherein the terminal device with the first terminal type has a Timing Advance (TA) pre- compensation capability, and the terminal device with the second terminal type has no TA pre-compensation capability; the terminal device with the first terminal type has a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) positioning capability, and the terminal device with the second terminal type has no GNSS positioning capability; or the terminal device with the first terminal type has a TA pre-compensation capability and a GNSS positioning capability, and the terminal device with the second terminal type has no TA pre-compensation capability or GNSS positioning capability or has neither the TA pre- compensation capability nor the GNSS positioning capability.
11
The terminal device of claim 10, wherein the at least two terminal types comprise a first terminal type and a second terminal type, wherein the first terminal type has the TA pre-compensation capability and the second terminal type has no TA pre-compensation capability; or the first terminal type has a positioning capability and the second terminal type has no positioning capability; or the first terminal type has the TA pre-compensation capability and a positioning capability, and the second terminal type has no at least one of the TA pre-compensation capability or the positioning capability.
13
The terminal device of claim 8, further comprising a transceiver wherein the processor is further configured to control the transceiver to: receive the first information from the network device through system information.
12
The terminal device of claim 10, wherein the transceiver is further configured to receive, from the network device, system information comprising the first information.
14
A network device, comprising a transceiver and a processor, wherein the processor is configured to control the transceiver to:
A network device, comprising: a transceiver, configured to
send first information to a terminal device, wherein the first information enables the terminal device to determine whether the terminal device is allowed to access a cell corresponding to the network device or barred from accessing the cell according to the first information and a terminal type of the terminal device; wherein the terminal type comprises at least a first terminal type and a second terminal type, and the first information is used for determining whether a respective terminal device corresponding to each of the first terminal type and the second terminal type is allowed to access the cell or barred from accessing the cell.
send first information for determining whether each of at least two terminal types is allowed to access a cell corresponding to the network device or barred from accessing the cell corresponding to the network device, wherein each of the at least two terminal types is determined based on a timing advance (TA) pre-compensation capability, and wherein the first information comprises cell access barring indication information for directly indicating whether access is allowed or barred.
17
The network device of claim 14, wherein the terminal device with the first terminal type has a Timing Advance (TA) pre- compensation capability, and the terminal device with the second terminal type has no TA pre-compensation capability; or the terminal device with the first terminal type has a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) positioning capability, and
the terminal device with the second terminal type has no GNSS positioning capability; or the terminal device with the first terminal type has a TA pre-compensation capability and a GNSS positioning capability, and the terminal device with the second terminal type has no TA pre-compensation capability or GNSS positioning capability or has neither the TA pre- compensation capability nor the GNSS positioning capability.
17
The network device of claim 14, wherein the at least two terminal types comprise a first terminal type and a second terminal type, wherein the first terminal type has the TA pre-compensation capability and the second terminal type has no TA pre-compensation capability; or the first terminal type has a positioning capability and the second terminal type has no positioning capability; or the first terminal type has the TA pre-compensation capability and a positioning capability, and the second terminal type has no at least one of the TA pre-compensation capability or the positioning capability.
19
The network device of claim 14, wherein the processor is further configured to control the transceiver to: send the first information through system information.
18
The network device of claim 14, wherein the transceiver is further configured to send system information comprising the first information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Re. Claim 1, the claim recites the abstract idea of a mental process. Specifically, the claim recites determining whether the terminal device is allowed to access a cell corresponding to a network device or barred from accessing the cell according to first information from the network device and a terminal type of the terminal device; wherein the terminal type comprises at least a first terminal type and a second terminal type, and the first information is used for determining whether a respective terminal device corresponding to each of the first terminal type and the second terminal type is allowed to access the cell or barred from accessing the cell.
The claim itself is recited at a high level of generality such that decisive operations themselves could be performed with the human mind. Essentially, the claim is directed to determining if a terminal is allowed to access a cell based on received information and a known type of device. Making a determination based on known and received information can be performed in the human mind.
Moreover, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) reminds examiners that, “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.” While the claim limitations may recite structural elements, those elements merely perform them in a computer network environment. Reciting elements in such a field of use do not transform the claim itself beyond an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), bullet 2. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites two additional elements – a terminal performing the determining step and first information received from a network device. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a terminal) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations are:
A terminal (performing determining)
The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the terminal is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality to implement the abstract idea.
The claim purports an abstract idea squarely analogous to the abstract idea concepts identified by the courts; inventive concept linked to a particular technological environment or field, i.e. mental processes are abstract ideas under Alice/Mayo step one. See, e.g., CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]omputational methods which can be performed entirely in the human mind are the types of methods that embody the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)); see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”
First information from a network device
The additional structure within the claim amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), bullet i, reminds examiners that, “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result--a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))”
The steps within the claim are well-understood and no inventive concept is recited, therefore the claim is ineligible.
Re. Claim 2, the claim does include an additional element, (“in response to the terminal device being of the first terminal type and the first information indicating that the terminal device corresponding to the first terminal type is allowed to access the cell, determining that the terminal device is allowed to access the cell”), that is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the abstract idea of “Mental Processes” (which is identified as “Abstract Idea (Judicial Exception)” since it recites concepts (determining a terminal is allowed to access the cell based on received information) that can be performed in the human mind (including, observation, evaluation, judgment).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites two additional elements – a terminal and first information indicating the terminal is allowed to access the cell. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a terminal) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, mere data gathering, and insignificant application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations are:
A terminal (performing determining)
The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the terminal is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality to implement the abstract idea.
First information indicating the terminal is allowed to access the network
The additional structure within the claim amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Specifically, the first information indicating the terminal is allowed to access the network amounts to no more than mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106(g).
The steps within the claim are well-understood and no inventive concept is recited, therefore the claim is ineligible.
Re. Claim 3, the claim does include an additional element, (“in response to the terminal device being of the second terminal type and the first information indicating that the terminal device corresponding to the second terminal type is allowed to access the cell, determining that the terminal device is allowed to access the cell”), that is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the abstract idea of “Mental Processes” (which is identified as “Abstract Idea (Judicial Exception)” since it recites concepts (determining a terminal is allowed to access the cell based on received information) that can be performed in the human mind (including, observation, evaluation, judgment).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites two additional elements – a terminal and first information indicating the terminal is allowed to access the cell. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a terminal) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, mere data gathering, and insignificant application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations are:
A terminal (performing determining)
The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the terminal is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality to implement the abstract idea.
First information indicating the terminal is allowed to access the network
The additional structure within the claim amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Specifically, the first information indicating the terminal is allowed to access the network amounts to no more than mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106(g).
The steps within the claim are well-understood and no inventive concept is recited, therefore the claim is ineligible.
Re. Claim 4, the claim does include an additional element, (detailing what constitutes the first and second terminal types), that is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the abstract idea of “Mental Processes” (which is identified as “Abstract Idea (Judicial Exception)” since it recites concepts that can be performed in the human mind (including, observation, evaluation, judgment).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites two additional elements – a terminal and details regarding what distinguishes a first terminal type from a second terminal type. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a terminal) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, mere data gathering, and insignificant application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations are:
A terminal (performing determining)
The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the terminal is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality to implement the abstract idea.
details regarding what distinguishes a first terminal type from a second terminal type
The additional structure within the claim amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Specifically, the and details regarding what distinguishes a first terminal type from a second terminal type amounts to no more than mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106(g).
The steps within the claim are well-understood and no inventive concept is recited, therefore the claim is ineligible.
Re. Claim 5, the claim does include an additional element, (“wherein the first information comprises cellBarred information, the cellBarred information indication Barred represents that the access is barred, and the cellBarred information indicating NotBarred represents that the access in allowed”), that is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the abstract idea of “Mental Processes” (which is identified as “Abstract Idea (Judicial Exception)” since it recites concepts that can be performed in the human mind (including, observation, evaluation, judgment).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites one additional element – first information. The information is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., cellBarred information) such that it amounts no more than mere data gathering. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element/limitation is:
First information
The additional structure within the claim amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Specifically, the first information amounts to no more than mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106(g).
The steps within the claim are well-understood and no inventive concept is recited, therefore the claim is ineligible.
Re. Claim 8, the claim recites the abstract idea of a mental process. Specifically, the claim recites determine whether the terminal device is allowed to access a cell corresponding to a network device or barred from accessing the cell according to first information from the network device and a terminal type of the terminal device; wherein the terminal type comprises at least a first terminal type and a second terminal type, and the first information is used for determining whether a respective terminal device corresponding to each of the first terminal type and the second terminal type is allowed to access the cell or barred from accessing the cell.
The claim itself is recited at a high level of generality such that decisive operations themselves could be performed with the human mind. Essentially, the claim is directed to determining if a terminal is allowed to access a cell based on received information and a known type of device. Making a determination based on known and received information can be performed in the human mind.
Moreover, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) reminds examiners that, “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.” While the claim limitations may recite structural elements, those elements merely perform them in a computer network environment. Reciting elements in such a field of use do not transform the claim itself beyond an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), bullet 2. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites two additional elements – a terminal comprising a processor performing the determining step and first information received from a network device. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a terminal) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations are:
A terminal comprising a processor (performing determining)
The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the terminal is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality to implement the abstract idea.
The claim purports an abstract idea squarely analogous to the abstract idea concepts identified by the courts; inventive concept linked to a particular technological environment or field, i.e. mental processes are abstract ideas under Alice/Mayo step one. See, e.g., CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]omputational methods which can be performed entirely in the human mind are the types of methods that embody the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)); see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”
First information from a network device
The additional structure within the claim amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), bullet i, reminds examiners that, “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result--a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))”
The steps within the claim are well-understood and no inventive concept is recited, therefore the claim is ineligible.
Re. Claim 9, the claim does include an additional element, (“in response to the terminal device being of the first terminal type and the first information indicating that the terminal device corresponding to the first terminal type is allowed to access the cell, determining that the terminal device is allowed to access the cell”), that is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the abstract idea of “Mental Processes” (which is identified as “Abstract Idea (Judicial Exception)” since it recites concepts (determining a terminal is allowed to access the cell based on received information) that can be performed in the human mind (including, observation, evaluation, judgment).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites two additional elements – a terminal and first information indicating the terminal is allowed to access the cell. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a terminal) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, mere data gathering, and insignificant application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations are:
A terminal (performing determining)
The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the terminal is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality to implement the abstract idea.
First information indicating the terminal is allowed to access the network
The additional structure within the claim amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Specifically, the first information indicating the terminal is allowed to access the network amounts to no more than mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106(g).
The steps within the claim are well-understood and no inventive concept is recited, therefore the claim is ineligible.
Re. Claim 10, the claim does include an additional element, (“in response to the terminal device being of the second terminal type and the first information indicating that the terminal device corresponding to the second terminal type is allowed to access the cell, determining that the terminal device is allowed to access the cell”), that is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the abstract idea of “Mental Processes” (which is identified as “Abstract Idea (Judicial Exception)” since it recites concepts (determining a terminal is allowed to access the cell based on received information) that can be performed in the human mind (including, observation, evaluation, judgment).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites two additional elements – a terminal and first information indicating the terminal is allowed to access the cell. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a terminal) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, mere data gathering, and insignificant application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations are:
A terminal (performing determining)
The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the terminal is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality to implement the abstract idea.
First information indicating the terminal is allowed to access the network
The additional structure within the claim amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Specifically, the first information indicating the terminal is allowed to access the network amounts to no more than mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106(g).
The steps within the claim are well-understood and no inventive concept is recited, therefore the claim is ineligible.
Re. Claim 11, the claim does include an additional element, (detailing what constitutes the first and second terminal types), that is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the abstract idea of “Mental Processes” (which is identified as “Abstract Idea (Judicial Exception)” since it recites concepts (determining a terminal is allowed to access the cell based on received information) that can be performed in the human mind (including, observation, evaluation, judgment).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites two additional elements – a terminal and details regarding what distinguishes a first terminal type from a second terminal type. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a terminal) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, mere data gathering, and insignificant application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations are:
A terminal (performing determining)
The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the terminal is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality to implement the abstract idea.
details regarding what distinguishes a first terminal type from a second terminal type
The additional structure within the claim amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Specifically, the and details regarding what distinguishes a first terminal type from a second terminal type amounts to no more than mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106(g).
The steps within the claim are well-understood and no inventive concept is recited, therefore the claim is ineligible.
Re. Claim 12, the claim does include an additional element, (“wherein the first information comprises cellBarred information, the cellBarred information indication Barred represents that the access is barred, and the cellBarred information indicating NotBarred represents that the access in allowed”), that is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the abstract idea of “Mental Processes” (which is identified as “Abstract Idea (Judicial Exception)” since it recites concepts that can be performed in the human mind (including, observation, evaluation, judgment).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites one additional element – first information. The information is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., cellBarred information) such that it amounts no more than mere data gathering. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element/limitation is:
First information
The additional structure within the claim amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Specifically, the first information amounts to no more than mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106(g).
The steps within the claim are well-understood and no inventive concept is recited, therefore the claim is ineligible.
Re. Claim 14, the claim recites the abstract idea of a mental process. Specifically, the claim recites send first information to a terminal device, wherein the first information enables the terminal device to determining whether the terminal device is allowed to access a cell corresponding to a network device or barred from accessing the cell according to first information from the network device and a terminal type of the terminal device; wherein the terminal type comprises at least a first terminal type and a second terminal type, and the first information is used for determining whether a respective terminal device corresponding to each of the first terminal type and the second terminal type is allowed to access the cell or barred from accessing the cell.
The claim itself is recited at a high level of generality such that decisive operations themselves could be performed with the human mind. Essentially, the claim is directed to determining if a terminal is allowed to access a cell based on received information and a known type of device. Making a determination based on known and received information can be performed in the human mind.
Moreover, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) reminds examiners that, “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.” While the claim limitations may recite structural elements, those elements merely perform them in a computer network environment. Reciting elements in such a field of use do not transform the claim itself beyond an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), bullet 2. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – a terminal performing the determining step. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a terminal) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations are:
A network device comprising a transceiver and a processor
The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the network device is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality to implement the abstract idea.
The claim purports an abstract idea squarely analogous to the abstract idea concepts identified by the courts; inventive concept linked to a particular technological environment or field, i.e. mental processes are abstract ideas under Alice/Mayo step one. See, e.g., CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]omputational methods which can be performed entirely in the human mind are the types of methods that embody the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)); see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”
Sending first information from a network device to a terminal device
The additional structure within the claim amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), bullet i, reminds examiners that, “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result--a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))”
A terminal (performing determining)
The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the terminal is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality to implement the abstract idea.
The claim purports an abstract idea squarely analogous to the abstract idea concepts identified by the courts; inventive concept linked to a particular technological environment or field, i.e. mental processes are abstract ideas under Alice/Mayo step one. See, e.g., CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]omputational methods which can be performed entirely in the human mind are the types of methods that embody the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)); see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”
The steps within the claim are well-understood and no inventive concept is recited, therefore the claim is ineligible.
Re. Claim 15, the claim does include an additional element, (“wherein the first information indicates that the terminal device corresponding to the first terminal type is allowed to access the cell and enables the terminal device with the first terminal type to determine that the terminal device is allowed to access the cell”), that is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the abstract idea of “Mental Processes” (which is identified as “Abstract Idea (Judicial Exception)” since it recites concepts that can be performed in the human mind (including, observation, evaluation, judgment).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites two additional elements – a terminal and first information indicating the terminal is allowed to access the cell. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a terminal) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, mere data gathering, and insignificant application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations are:
A terminal (performing determining)
The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the terminal is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality to implement the abstract idea.
First information indicating the terminal is allowed to access the network
The additional structure within the claim amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Specifically, the first information indicating the terminal is allowed to access the network amounts to no more than mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106(g).
The steps within the claim are well-understood and no inventive concept is recited, therefore the claim is ineligible.
Re. Claim 16, the claim does include an additional element, (“wherein the first information indicates that the terminal device corresponding to the second terminal type is allowed to access the cell and enables the terminal device with the second terminal type to determines that the terminal device is allowed to access the cell”), that is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the abstract idea of “Mental Processes” (which is identified as “Abstract Idea (Judicial Exception)” since it recites concepts that can be performed in the human mind (including, observation, evaluation, judgment).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites two additional elements – a terminal and first information indicating the terminal is allowed to access the cell. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a terminal) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, mere data gathering, and insignificant application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations are:
A terminal (performing determining)
The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the terminal is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality to implement the abstract idea.
First information indicating the terminal is allowed to access the network
The additional structure within the claim amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Specifically, the first information indicating the terminal is allowed to access the network amounts to no more than mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106(g).
The steps within the claim are well-understood and no inventive concept is recited, therefore the claim is ineligible.
Re. Claim 17, the claim does include an additional element, (detailing what constitutes the first and second terminal types), that is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the abstract idea of “Mental Processes” (which is identified as “Abstract Idea (Judicial Exception)” since it recites concepts that can be performed in the human mind (including, observation, evaluation, judgment).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites two additional elements – a terminal and details regarding what distinguishes a first terminal type from a second terminal type. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a terminal) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, mere data gathering, and insignificant application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations are:
A terminal (performing determining)
The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the terminal is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality to implement the abstract idea.
details regarding what distinguishes a first terminal type from a second terminal type
The additional structure within the claim amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Specifically, the and details regarding what distinguishes a first terminal type from a second terminal type amounts to no more than mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106(g).
The steps within the claim are well-understood and no inventive concept is recited, therefore the claim is ineligible.
Re. Claim 18, the claim does include an additional element, (“wherein the first information comprises cellBarred information, the cellBarred information indication Barred represents that the access is barred, and the cellBarred information indicating NotBarred represents that the access in allowed”), that is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the abstract idea of “Mental Processes” (which is identified as “Abstract Idea (Judicial Exception)” since it recites concepts that can be performed in the human mind (including, observation, evaluation, judgment).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites one additional element – first information. The information is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., cellBarred information) such that it amounts no more than mere data gathering. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element/limitation is:
First information
The additional structure within the claim amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Specifically, the first information amounts to no more than mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106(g).
The steps within the claim are well-understood and no inventive concept is recited, therefore the claim is ineligible.
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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mu (US 2024/0040484).
Re. Claim 1. Mu teaches A method for controlling cell access (Mu, 0099: FIG. 3 is a flow chart of an access control method according to an embodiment. ),
performed by a terminal device (Mu, 0099: As shown in FIG. 3, the access control method is applied to a terminal, and includes the following steps.), the method comprising:
determining whether the terminal device is allowed to access a cell corresponding to a network device or barred from accessing the cell according to first information from the network device (Mu, 0033: In embodiments of the disclosure, the signaling includes at least: a parameter related to access control of the first type of terminal, or a parameter related to access control of the second type of terminal. 0041: In some embodiments of the disclosure, the network device sends the corresponding signaling according to the first type of terminal or the second type of terminal. The terminal determines the cell that can be accessed via the parameter related to the access control included in the signaling. [The parameter included in the signaling corresponds to the first information, and as the signaling is defined as including the parameter related to access control, any instance of the signaling necessarily implies the parameter related to access control.]) and
a terminal type of the terminal device (Mu, 0102: In embodiments of the disclosure, the signaling includes at least a parameter related to access control of the first type of terminal, or a parameter related to the access control of the second type of terminal.);
wherein the terminal type comprises at least a first terminal type and a second terminal type (Mu, 0103: The type of the terminal is a first type of terminal or a second type of terminal.), and
the first information is used for determining whether a respective terminal device corresponding to each of the first terminal type and the second terminal type is allowed to access the cell or barred from accessing the cell (Mu, 0110: In some embodiments of the disclosure, the network device sends the corresponding signaling according to the first type of terminal or the second type of terminal. The terminal determines the cell that can be accessed via the parameter related to the access control included in the signaling.).
Re. Claim 2. Mu teaches claim 1,
wherein determining whether the terminal device is allowed to access the cell corresponding to the network device or barred from accessing the cell according to the first information from the network device and the terminal type of the terminal device comprises:
in response to the terminal device being of the first terminal type and the first information indicating that the terminal device corresponding to the first terminal type is allowed to access the cell (Mu, 0056: In some embodiments of the disclosure, the parameter related to the access control of the first type of terminal is a parameter configured to indicate the parameter related to the access permission status of the first type of terminal carried in the MIB. 0064: In an implementation, in response to the access configuration for the first type of terminal being valid, it is determined to indicate that the first type of terminal is allowed to access the cell.),
determining that the terminal device is allowed to access the cell (Mu, 0064: In an implementation, in response to the access configuration for the first type of terminal being valid, it is determined to indicate that the first type of terminal is allowed to access the cell.).
Re. Claim 3. Mu teaches claim 1,
wherein determining whether the terminal device is allowed to access the cell corresponding to the network device or barred from accessing the cell according to the first information from the network device and the terminal type of the terminal device comprises:
in response to the terminal device being of the second terminal type and the first information indicating that the terminal device corresponding to the second terminal type is allowed to access the cell (Mu, 0075: In embodiments of the disclosure, the parameter related to the access control of the second type of terminal is a parameter configured to indicate an access permission status of the second type of terminal. 0086: In an implementation, in response to the access configuration for the second type of terminal being valid, it is determined to indicate that the second type of terminal is allowed to access the cell.),
determining that the terminal device is allowed to access the cell (Mu, 0086: In an implementation, in response to the access configuration for the second type of terminal being valid, it is determined to indicate that the second type of terminal is allowed to access the cell.).
Re. Claim 5. The method of claim 1,
wherein the first information comprises cellBarred information (Mu, 0033: In embodiments of the disclosure, the signaling includes at least: a parameter related to access control of the first type of terminal, or a parameter related to access control of the second type of terminal.),
the cellBarred information indicating Barred represents that the access is barred (Mu, 0052: In the access control method of the disclosure, the parameter related to the access control of the first type of terminal may be a parameter indicating that the first type of terminal is allowed to access the cell, or a parameter indicating that the first type of terminal is denied access to the cell. And 0078: In the access control method of the disclosure, the parameter related to the access control of the second type of terminal may be a parameter indicating that the second type of terminal is allowed to access the cell, or a parameter indicating that the second type of terminal is not allowed to access the cell.), and
the cellBarred information indicating NotBarred represents that the access is allowed (Mu, 0052: In the access control method of the disclosure, the parameter related to the access control of the first type of terminal may be a parameter indicating that the first type of terminal is allowed to access the cell, or a parameter indicating that the first type of terminal is denied access to the cell. And 0078: In the access control method of the disclosure, the parameter related to the access control of the second type of terminal may be a parameter indicating that the second type of terminal is allowed to access the cell, or a parameter indicating that the second type of terminal is not allowed to access the cell.).
Re. Claim 6. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving the first information from the network device through system information (Mu, 0043: In some embodiments of the disclosure, the signaling may be an MIB, or the signaling may be signaling carried in a PDCCH; or, the signaling may be signaling carried in a PDSCH; or the signaling may be a PDCCH scheduling RMSI; or, the signaling may be a PDSCH scheduling RMSI.).
Re. Claim 7. The method of claim 6,
wherein the first information is contained in its entirety in a Main Information Block (MIB) (Mu, 0043: In some embodiments of the disclosure, the signaling may be an MIB); or
Re. Claim 8. A terminal device (Mu, 0143: FIG. 6 is a block diagram of a device 300 for performing access control according to an embodiment. The device 300 may be may be a mobile phone, computer, digital broadcast terminal, messaging device, game console, tablet device, medical device, fitness device, personal digital assistant, and the like.),
comprising a processor (Mu, 0144: As illustrated in FIG. 6, the device 300 may include one or more of the following components: a processing component 302, a memory 304, a power component 306, a multimedia component 308, an audio component 310, an input/output (I/O) interface 312, a sensor component 314, and a communication component 316.)
Further components of claim 8 perform the same steps as claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Re. Claim 9. Mu teaches claim 8. Further components of claim 9 perform the same steps as claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2).
Re. Claim 10. Mu teaches claim 8. Further components of claim 10 perform the same steps as claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3).
Re. Claim 12. Mu teaches claim 8. Further components of claim 12 perform the same steps as claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5).
Re. Claim 13. Mu teaches claim 8,
Mu further teaches a transceiver (Mu, 0152 [Communication component 316 of Fig. 6 performs the functions of a transceiver.]),
Further components of claim 13 perform the same steps as claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6).
Re. Claim 14. A network device (Mu, 0011: According to a third aspect of embodiments of the disclosure, there is provided a network device.),
comprising a transceiver and a processor (Mu, 0012: a processor; a memory configured to store processor-executable instructions; in which the processor is configured to determine signaling, the signaling including at least a parameter related to access control of a first type of terminal, or a parameter related to access control of a second type of terminal; And 0027-0028 [a transceiver is a necessary component of a wireless network device]),
wherein the processor is configured to control the transceiver to:
send first information to a terminal device (Mu, 0041: In some embodiments of the disclosure, the network device sends the corresponding signaling according to the first type of terminal or the second type of terminal.),
wherein the first information enables the terminal device to determine whether the terminal device is allowed to access a cell corresponding to the network device or barred from accessing the cell according to the first information and a terminal type of the terminal device (Mu, 0041: In some embodiments of the disclosure, the network device sends the corresponding signaling according to the first type of terminal or the second type of terminal. The terminal determines the cell that can be accessed via the parameter related to the access control included in the signaling. [The parameter included in the signaling corresponds to the first information, and as the signaling is defined as including the parameter related to access control, the signaling necessarily implies the parameter related to access control.]);
wherein the terminal type comprises at least a first terminal type and a second terminal type (Mu, 0103: The type of the terminal is a first type of terminal or a second type of terminal.), and
the first information is used for determining whether a respective terminal device corresponding to each of the first terminal type and the second terminal type is allowed to access the cell or barred from accessing the cell (Mu, 0110: In some embodiments of the disclosure, the network device sends the corresponding signaling according to the first type of terminal or the second type of terminal. The terminal determines the cell that can be accessed via the parameter related to the access control included in the signaling.).
Re. Claim 15. The network device of claim 14,
wherein the first information indicates that the terminal device corresponding to the first terminal type is allowed to access the cell (Mu, 0056: In some embodiments of the disclosure, the parameter related to the access control of the first type of terminal is a parameter configured to indicate the parameter related to the access permission status of the first type of terminal carried in the MIB. 0064: In an implementation, in response to the access configuration for the first type of terminal being valid, it is determined to indicate that the first type of terminal is allowed to access the cell.). and
enables the terminal device with the first terminal type to determine that the terminal device is allowed to access the cell (Mu, 0064: In an implementation, in response to the access configuration for the first type of terminal being valid, it is determined to indicate that the first type of terminal is allowed to access the cell.)
Re. Claim 16. The network device of claim 14,
wherein the first information indicates that the terminal device corresponding to the second terminal type is allowed to access the cell (Mu, 0075: In embodiments of the disclosure, the parameter related to the access control of the second type of terminal is a parameter configured to indicate an access permission status of the second type of terminal. 0086: In an implementation, in response to the access configuration for the second type of terminal being valid, it is determined to indicate that the second type of terminal is allowed to access the cell.). and
enables the terminal device with the second terminal type to determines that the terminal device is allowed to access the cell (Mu, 0086: In an implementation, in response to the access configuration for the second type of terminal being valid, it is determined to indicate that the second type of terminal is allowed to access the cell.)
Re. Claim 18. Mu teaches claim 14,
Further components of claim 18 perform the same steps as claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5).
Re. Claim 19. Mu teaches claim 14
Further components of claim 19 perform the same steps as claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6).
Re. Claim 20. Mu teaches claim 19.
Further components of claim 20 perform the same steps as claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7).
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 4, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu in view of Yuan et al. (US 2024/0137885), Yuan hereinafter.
Re. Claim 4. Mu teaches claim 1,
Yet, Mu does not teach wherein the terminal device with the first terminal type has a Timing Advance (TA) pre- compensation capability, and the terminal device with the second terminal type has no TA pre- compensation capability; or
However, in the related art, Yuan teaches wherein the terminal device with the first terminal type has a Timing Advance (TA) pre- compensation capability (Yuan, 0037: Specifically, type 1 UE can refer to a UE with capability of timing advance (TA) pre-compensation and type 2 UE can refer to a UE without capability of TA pre-compensation.), and
the terminal device with the second terminal type has no TA pre- compensation capability (Yuan, 0037: Specifically, type 1 UE can refer to a UE with capability of timing advance (TA) pre-compensation and type 2 UE can refer to a UE without capability of TA pre-compensation.); or
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Mu with the mechanism for separate PRACH resource configuration for when UEs with and without timing advance pre-compensation capability co-exist in the same cell. The resulting invention would provide for properly setting preamble timing window for non-terrestrial networks supporting UEs with and without timing advance pre-compensation (Yuan, 0059).
Re. Claim 11, Mu teaches claim 8.
Further components of claim 11 perform the same steps as claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4).
Re. Claim 17, Mu teaches claim 14.
Further components of claim 17 perform the same steps as claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASON H MORSE whose telephone number is (571)270-5235. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:00 Mon.-Thurs., Fri. varies.
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, Rebecca Song can be reached at (571) 270-3667. 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.
/C.H.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2417
/REBECCA E SONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2417
Prosecution Insights