DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment submitted on February 26, 2026.
Claims, 1-16 are now currently pending in the present application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 10, has been amended and Examiners claimed objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 15 and 16, has been amended and Examiners claimed objection has been withdrawn.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-8 and 13-16, are rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #113 R2-2100636, hereinafter 3GPP1) in view of 3GPP (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #97 R2-1702970, hereinafter 3GPP2).
Consider Claim 1, discloses a method to regulate access of a device of reduced capability type, designated as reduced capability device (RCD), having specific hardware and configuration characteristics and adapted to connect, via an operator (0), to a new radio communication network comprising several tracking areas having cells (TAC) on different frequency bands (f1, f2), said method comprising the steps of, during an access routine of the reduced capability device (RCD) in a tracking area, for the reduced capability device (RCD):
receiving (S2') system information (SIB) from the target cell (TACl1), said system information (STIB) comprising prerequisites in terms of hardware and configuration characteristics, frequency ranges (f1, f2) of the cells present in this tracking area and services requested, (Section 2 page 2 & 3, the UE could check for permission or barring status from broadcasted system information blocks(cells). Permission or barring can be based on one or more of the following six RedCap capabilities: 20MHz bandwidth (any RedCap), 1 Receive antenna, 2 Receive antennas, HD-FDD (not capable of FD-FDD), Modulation - Max. capability DL QAM 64 and 20MHz bandwidth limit after initial access (not 40MHz). Given that a network might have different RedCap barring for each subscription category that means there are at most 18 (6 capabilities x 3 subscription types) combinations to indicate. This could be a bit mask of 18 bits. This information is transmitted to the UE, by disclosing the number of bits used for this. This means that this information is transmitted to the UEs in system information).
determining (S3) access restrictions depending on: the prerequisites received in the system information (SIB), the reduced capability device's own specific hardware and configuration characteristics, the frequency ranges (f1, f2) available in the tracking area, the services requested, (Section 2 page 2, Since no single initial access procedure will fit all MNO needs, flexibility of allowing a variety of options for what a network will require RedCap devices to do for initial access is needed. Network operators can then decide which trade-offs are acceptable to them. The first step in a RedCap device accessing a network should be for a UE to determine access/barring status, where a UE determines access/barring based on its supported RedCap capabilities).
restricting (S4) access requests (MSG1(RDCc)) and reselections according to the determined access restrictions. (Section 2 page 2, After determining that access is permitted, the UE next determines the configured early capability indication policy options from: Msg 1, 3, or 5 where the UE determines the policy at least based on its supported BW, #ant, modulation, and/or duplexing modes).
3GPP1 discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach sending (S1) an attachment request (MSG1/3 or R(TAU)) to a target cell (TAC
PNG
media_image1.png
14
5
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) of the tracking area.
However, 3GPP2 teaches sending (S1) an attachment request (MSG1/3 or R(TAU)) to a target cell (TAC
PNG
media_image1.png
14
5
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) of the tracking area (section 2 paragraph 2 line 1-4, the MSG3 based SI request approach is shown in Figure 2. In the UL grant received in the random access response corresponding to the PRACH preamble transmitted by UE, UE sends system information request message. The information about the SIB(s) needed by UE is included in system information request message).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, to modify by incorporating a method to regulate access of a device of reduced capability type where the system information (SI) is transmitted to the UE of 3GPP1 to include a way to provide System Information (SI) being sent to the UE in an alternative way of 3GPP2. The motivation to so would be to develop a method that would effectively supports the demand System Information (SI) request that is widely used in 5G wireless communication networks.
Consider Claim 4, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the system information (SIB(O)) is operator dependent. (Section 2 line 1-3, Since no single initial access procedure will fit all MNO needs, flexibility of allowing a variety of options for what a network will require RedCap devices to do for initial access is needed. Network operators can then decide which trade-offs are acceptable to them).
Consider Claim 5, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the system information (SIB) is tracking area dependent. (Section 2 line 4-8, the first step in a RedCap device accessing a network should be for a UE to determine access/barring status, where a UE determines access/barring based on its supported RedCap capabilities. After determining that access is permitted, the UE next determines the configured early capability indication policy options from: Msg 1, 3, or 5 where the UE determines the policy at least based on its supported BW, #ant, modulation, and/or duplexing modes).
Consider Claim 6, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the attachment request (MSG1/3(REDCAP)) during the initial access routine signals the reduced capability type for the reduced capability device (RCD). (Section 2 line 6-8, After determining that access is permitted, the UE next determines the configured early capability indication policy options from: Msg 1, 3, or 5 where the UE determines the policy at least based on its supported BW, #ant, modulation, and/or duplexing modes).
Consider Claim 7, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein cell re-selection (ReSEL) performed by the reduced capability device (RCD) to an inter-frequency cell in said tracking area, after determination of the access restrictions for this tracking area, is conducted in accordance to the determined access restrictions for said tracking area. (Section 2 page 2, After determining that access is permitted, the UE next determines the configured early capability indication policy options from: Msg 1, 3, or 5 where the UE determines the policy at least based on its supported BW, #ant, modulation, and/or duplexing modes).
Consider Claim 8, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, specific hardware and configuration characteristics being a single antenna implementation or half-duplex implementation for at least a given range of frequency, the prerequisites exclude such an hardware and configuration characteristics for at least one available range of frequency (f1 ,f2), the determined access restrictions thus preventing any access request or later cell re-selection of the reduced capability device in said available range of frequency. (Section 2.1 line 4-8, the UE could check for permission or barring status from broadcasted system information blocks(cells). Permission or barring can be based on one or more of the following six RedCap capabilities, 20MHz bandwidth (any RedCap), 1 Receive antenna, 2 Receive antennas. Section 2 line 1-3, Since no single initial access procedure will fit all MNO needs, flexibility of allowing a variety of options for what a network will require RedCap devices to do for initial access is needed. Network operators can then decide which trade-offs are acceptable to them).
Consider Claim 13, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, the access routine being an initial routine and the reduced capability device being Rel.17 compliant, the messages msg l and msg3 are used for the steps of the method in the initial access routine. (Section 1 paragraph 2 line 1-3, UE capabilities are sent in msgS during the initial access process. If a network allows RedCap devices, any reduced capabilities not reported until message 5 will require the network to treat all UEs as if they have these reduced capabilities. Section 2 .2 line 1-3, If the UE is not barred, it next needs to determine from broadcasted system information which RedCap UE capability indication method needs to be used. There needs to be information broadcasted in SI to indicate to UEs what capability information they need to signal and in which message (1, 3 or 5) and what resources or bits to use to signal capability).
Consider Claim 14, discloses a reduced capability device (RCD) having specific hardware and configuration characteristics and adapted to connect, via an operator (O), to a communication network comprising several tracking areas having cells (TAC), said reduced capability device (RCD) being adapted to, during access routine of the reduced capability device (RCD) in a tracking area:
receiving (S2') system information (SIB) from the target cell (TAC1), said system information (SIB) comprising prerequisites in terms of hardware and configuration characteristics, frequency ranges (f1, f2) of the cell present in this tracking area and services requested, (Section 2 page 2 & 3, the UE could check for permission or barring status from broadcasted system information blocks(cells). Permission or barring can be based on one or more of the following six RedCap capabilities: 20MHz bandwidth (any RedCap), 1 Receive antenna, 2 Receive antennas, HD-FDD (not capable of FD-FDD), Modulation - Max. capability DL QAM 64 and 20MHz bandwidth limit after initial access (not 40MHz). Given that a network might have different RedCap barring for each subscription category that means there are at most 18 (6 capabilities x 3 subscription types) combinations to indicate. This could be a bit mask of 18 bits. This information is transmitted to the UE, by disclosing the number of bits used for this. This means that this information is transmitted to the UEs in system information).
determining (S3) access restrictions depending on: the prerequisites received in the system information (SIB), the reduced capability device's own specific hardware and configuration characteristics, the frequency ranges (f1, f2) available in the tracking area, the services requested, (Section 2 page 2, Since no single initial access procedure will fit all MNO needs, flexibility of allowing a variety of options for what a network will require RedCap devices to do for initial access is needed. Network operators can then decide which trade-offs are acceptable to them. The first step in a RedCap device accessing a network should be for a UE to determine access/barring status, where a UE determines access/barring based on its supported RedCap capabilities).
restricting (S4) access requests (MSGI(RDCc)) and reselections according to the determined access restrictions. (Section 2 page 2, After determining that access is permitted, the UE next determines the configured early capability indication policy options from: Msg 1, 3, or 5 where the UE determines the policy at least based on its supported BW, #ant, modulation, and/or duplexing modes.
3GPP1 discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach sending (S1) an attachment request (MSG1/3 or R(TAU)) to a target cell (TAC
PNG
media_image1.png
14
5
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) of the tracking area.
However, 3GPP2 teaches sending (S1) an attachment request (MSG1/3 or R(TAU)) to a target cell (TAC
PNG
media_image1.png
14
5
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) of the tracking area (section 2 paragraph 2 line 1-4, the MSG3 based SI request approach is shown in Figure 2. In the UL grant received in the random access response corresponding to the PRACH preamble transmitted by UE, UE sends system information request message. The information about the SIB(s) needed by UE is included in system information request message).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, to modify by incorporating a method to regulate access of a device of reduced capability type where the system information (SI) is transmitted to the UE of 3GPP1 to include a way to provide System Information (SI) being sent to the UE in an alternative way of 3GPP2. The motivation to so would be to develop a method that would effectively supports the demand System Information (SI) request that is widely used in 5G wireless communication networks.
Consider Claim 15, discloses a base station configured to provide a tracking area cell (TAC1) of a new radio communication network operated by an operator (O), said tracking area cell (TAC1) having system information (SIB) comprising prerequisites in terms of hardware and configuration characteristics, frequency ranges (f1, f2) of cells present in this tracking area and services requested, said system information (SIB) being to be sent, after reception of an attachment request (MSG1/3 or R(TAU)) from a reduced capability device (RCD), during access routine of the reduced capability device (RCD) with the tracking area cell (TAC), to regulate access of reduced capability devices having specific hardware and configuration characteristics and adapted to connect to the tracking area cell (TAC), said access regulation being managed by the reduced capability device (RCD) by determining access restrictions based on the prerequisites in the sent system information (SIB), on the reduced capability device's own specific hardware and configuration characteristics, on the frequency ranges (f1, f2) available in the tracking area, on the services requested. (Section 2 page 2 & 3, the UE could check for permission or barring status from broadcasted system information blocks(cells). Permission or barring can be based on one or more of the following six RedCap capabilities: 20MHz bandwidth (any RedCap), 1 Receive antenna, 2 Receive antennas, HD-FDD (not capable of FD-FDD), Modulation - Max. capability DL QAM 64 and 20MHz bandwidth limit after initial access (not 40MHz). Given that a network might have different RedCap barring for each subscription category that means there are at most 18 (6 capabilities x 3 subscription types) combinations to indicate. This could be a bit mask of 18 bits. This information is transmitted to the UE, by disclosing the number of bits used for this. This means that this information is transmitted to the UEs in system information).
Consider Claim 16, discloses a base station configured to send a system information block (SIB) comprising prerequisites in terms of hardware and configuration characteristics, frequency ranges (f1, f2) of cells present in this tracking area and services requested, said system information block (SIB) being managed in a tracking area cell (TAC1) of a new radio communication network operated by an operator (0), said system information block (SIB) being further to be sent, after reception of an attachment request (MSG1/3 or R(TAU)) from a reduced capability device (RCD), during access routine of the reduced capability device (RCD) with the tracking area cell (TAC1), to regulate access of the reduced capability device (RCD) having, on its side, specific hardware and configuration characteristics and adapted to connect to the tracking area cell (TAC1), said access regulation being managed by the reduced capability device (RCD) itself by determining access restrictions based on the prerequisites in the system information block (SIB), on the reduced capability device's own specific hardware and configuration characteristics, on the frequency ranges (f1, f2) available in the tracking area, on the services requested. (Section 2 page 2 & 3, the UE could check for permission or barring status from broadcasted system information blocks(cells). Permission or barring can be based on one or more of the following six RedCap capabilities: 20MHz bandwidth (any RedCap), 1 Receive antenna, 2 Receive antennas, HD-FDD (not capable of FD-FDD), Modulation - Max. capability DL QAM 64 and 20MHz bandwidth limit after initial access (not 40MHz). Given that a network might have different RedCap barring for each subscription category that means there are at most 18 (6 capabilities x 3 subscription types) combinations to indicate. This could be a bit mask of 18 bits. This information is transmitted to the UE, by disclosing the number of bits used for this. This means that this information is transmitted to the UEs in system information).
Claims 2-3 and 10-12, are rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #113 R2-2100636, hereinafter 3GPP1) and 3GPP (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #97 R2-1702970, hereinafter 3GPP2) in view of 3GPP (3GPP TS 23.501 V15.12.0 (2020-12), hereinafter 3GPP3).
Consider Claim 2, 3GPP1 and 3GPP2 discloses the claimed invention in the limitations noted above but fails to teach the method according to claim 1, wherein, the access routine being a tracking area update routine of the reduced capability device (RCD) triggered by a change of tracking area, by an expiration of a tracking area update timer or by a tracking area update request received from the communication network, the attachment request is a tracking area update request (R(TAU)).
However, 3GPP3 teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein, the access routine being a tracking area update routine of the reduced capability device (RCD) triggered by a change of tracking area, by an expiration of a tracking area update timer or by a tracking area update request received from the communication network, the attachment request is a tracking area update request (R(TAU)), (section 5.4.4.1 page 67 line 3-9, If the UE's NG-RAN UE Radio Capability information changes while in CM-IDLE state, the UE shall perform the Registration procedure with the Registration type set to Mobility Registration Update indicating "UE Radio Capability Update". When the AMF receives Mobility Registration Update Request with "UE Radio Capability Update", it shall delete any UE Radio Capability information that it has stored for the UE. If the trigger to change the UE's NG-RAN UE Radio Capability information happens when the UE is in CM-CONNECTED state, the UE shall first enter CM-IDLE state and then perform the Registration procedure with the Registration type set to Mobility Registration Update indicating "UE Radio Capability Update").
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, Clams 2 to modify by incorporating a method to regulate access of a device of reduced capability type where the system information (SI) is transmitted to the UE of 3GPP1 to combine a way to provide System Information (SI) being sent to the UE in an alternative way of 3GPP2 using 5QI standards of 3GPP3. The motivation to so would be to develop a method that would effectively supports the demand System Information (SI) request that is widely used in 5G wireless communication networks.
Consider Claim 3, 3GPP1 and 3GPP2 discloses the claimed invention in the limitations noted above but fails to teach the method according to claim 2, wherein the tracking area update routine indicates whether a clarification (CLA?) is further required.
However, 3GPP3 teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the tracking area update routine indicates whether a clarification (CLA?) is further required (section 5.4.4.1 page 67 line 12-15, If the AMF sends N2 REQUEST (i.e. INITIAL CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST or UE RADIO CAPABILITY CHECK REQUEST) message to NG-RAN without UE Radio Capability information in that message and there is no UE Radio Capability information available in RAN, this triggers the RAN to request the UE Radio Capability from the UE and to upload it to the AMF in the N2 UE RADIO CAPABILITY INFO INDICATION message.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, Clam 3 to modify by incorporating a method to regulate access of a device of reduced capability type where the system information (SI) is transmitted to the UE of 3GPP1 to combine a way to provide System Information (SI) being sent to the UE in an alternative way of 3GPP2 using 5QI standards of 3GPP3. The motivation to so would be to develop a method that would effectively supports the demand System Information (SI) request that is widely used in 5G wireless communication networks.
Consider Claim 10, 3GPP1 and 3GPP2 discloses the claimed invention in the limitations noted above but fails to teach the method according to claim 1, wherein prerequisites include services among the followings: non-real-time services, data services, no voice services, seldom voice services, seldom video services, healthcare services, Point-of-Sale POS services, services classified by a 5QI table as specified in a 3GPP Standard.
However, 3GPP3 teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein prerequisites include services among the followings: non-real-time services, data services, no voice services, seldom voice services, seldom video services, healthcare services, Point-of-Sale POS services, services classified by a 5QI table as specified in a 3GPP Standard (Section 5.7.2.1 page 101 line 1-5, A 5QI is a scalar that is used as a reference to 5G QoS characteristics defined in clause 5.7.4, i.e. access node-specific parameters that control QoS forwarding treatment for the QoS Flow (e.g. scheduling weights, admission thresholds, queue management thresholds, link layer protocol configuration, etc.). Standardized 5QI values have one-to-one mapping to a standardized combination of 5G QoS characteristics as specified in Table 5.7.4-1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, Clam 10 to modify by incorporating a method to regulate access of a device of reduced capability type where the system information (SI) is transmitted to the UE of 3GPP1 to combine a way to provide System Information (SI) being sent to the UE in an alternative way of 3GPP2 using 5QI standards of 3GPP3. The motivation to so would be to develop a method that would effectively supports the demand System Information (SI) request that is widely used in 5G wireless communication networks.
Consider Claim 11, 3GPP1 and 3GPP2 discloses the claimed invention in the limitations noted above but fails to teach the method according to claim 1, wherein prerequisites include QoS class below one QoS class as specified in a 3GPP Standard.
However, 3GPP teaches to teach the method according to claim 1, wherein prerequisites include QoS class below one QoS class as specified in a 3GPP Standard (section 5.7.1.4 page 97 line 8-12, When the UE informs the network about the number of supported Packet Filters for signalled QoS rules for the PDU Session (during the PDU Session Establishment procedure or using the PDU Session Modification procedure as described in clause 5.17.2.2.2 after the first inter-system change from EPS to 5GS for a PDU Session established in EPS and transferred from EPS with N26 interface), the SMF shall ensure that the sum of the Packet Filters used by all signalled QoS rules for a PDU Session does not exceed the number indicated by the UE. See Figure 5.7.1.5-1: The principle for classification and User Plane marking for QoS Flows and mapping to AN Resources).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, Clam 11 to modify by incorporating a method to regulate access of a device of reduced capability type where the system information (SI) is transmitted to the UE of 3GPP1 to combine a way to provide System Information (SI) being sent to the UE in an alternative way of 3GPP2 using 5QI standards of 3GPP3. The motivation to so would be to develop a method that would effectively supports the demand System Information (SI) request that is widely used in 5G wireless communication networks.
Consider Claim 12, 3GPP1 and 3GPP2 discloses the claimed invention in the limitations noted above but fails to teach the method according to claim 1, wherein prerequisites include slices/applications to which the service is to be allocated.
However, 3GPP3 teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein prerequisites include slices/applications to which the service is to be allocated (section 5.7.4 page 106 line 1-5, Standardized 5QI values are specified for services that are assumed to be frequently used and thus benefit from optimized signalling by using standardized QoS characteristics. Dynamically assigned 5QI values (which require a signalling of QoS characteristics as part of the QoS profile) can be used for services for which standardized 5QI values are not defined. The one-to-one mapping of standardized 5QI values to 5G QoS characteristics is specified in table 5.7.4-1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, Clam 12 to modify by incorporating a method to regulate access of a device of reduced capability type where the system information (SI) is transmitted to the UE of 3GPP1 to combine a way to provide System Information (SI) being sent to the UE in an alternative way of 3GPP2 using 5QI standards of 3GPP3. The motivation to so would be to develop a method that would effectively supports the demand System Information (SI) request that is widely used in 5G wireless communication networks.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. More Specifically, reference 3GPP1 and reference 3GPP2 fail to disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein, specific hardware and configuration characteristics of an NR REDCAP device being a N multi-antenna implementation device for at least a given range of frequencies, where for normal devices M is a mandatory number of antennas, and N being such that N<M/2, the prerequisites exclude such an hardware and configuration characteristics for at least one available range of frequency, the determined access restrictions thus preventing any access request or later reselection of the reduced capability device (RCD) in said available range of frequency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 26, 2025, with respect to claims 1-16 have been fully considered by Examiner but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed February 26, 2026, with respect to admended independent claims 1, 14, 15 & 16 have been fully considered by Examiner but they are not persuasive.
With regards to applicant’s argument (Remarks pages 8-10) Applicant discloses that 3GPP1 teaches: "First, the UE could check for permission or barring status from broadcasted system information blocks." .However, 3GPP1 is silent as to the content of these system information blocks. In particular, 3GPP1 does not teach or suggest that "said system information (SIB) comprising cells present in this tracking area" (emphasis added; i.e. frequency ranges (f1, f2) of the different cells present in this tracking). Applicant also states that 3GPP1 does not teach or suggest this tracking-area-specific structuring of frequency-related prerequisites). However, Examiner respectfully disagrees as 3GPP1 does disclose in (Discussion 2 page 2 & 3, the UE could check for permission or barring status from broadcasted system information blocks(cells). Permission or barring can be based on one or more of the following six RedCap capabilities: 20MHz bandwidth (any RedCap), 1 Receive antenna, 2 Receive antennas, HD-FDD (not capable of FD-FDD), Modulation - Max. capability DL QAM 64 and 20MHz bandwidth limit after initial access (not 40MHz). Given that a network might have different RedCap barring for each subscription category that means there are at most 18 (6 capabilities x 3 subscription types) combinations to indicate. This could be a bit mask of 18 bits. This information is transmitted to the UE, by disclosing the number of bits used for this. This means that this information is transmitted to the UEs in system information). In addition 3GPP1 also teaches in (Discussion 2 page 2, the first step in a RedCap device accessing a network should be for a UE to determine access/barring status, where a UE determines access/barring based on its supported RedCap capabilities. After a UE has synchronized to a band on a network (e.g. UE has successfully decoded SSBs-synchronization signal blocks and decoded minimum system information) it will check for barring). When interpreting the claims with broadest interpretation Examiner equates “system information blocks” with “system information of cells” as recited in independent claims 1, 14, 15 & 16. Thereby, 3GPP1 teaches providing the system information (SIB) that varies by tracking area to reflect differing frequency.
As a result, the claims are written such that they read upon the cited references.
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 MICHELE CAMILLE DOUGLAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeanette J Parker can be reached at 571-270-3647. 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.
/MICHELE C DOUGLAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights