Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/420,605

METHOD FOR ACCESS CONTROL, RELAY TERMINAL AND NETWORK DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 23, 2024
Examiner
KAO, JUTAI
Art Unit
2473
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
531 granted / 664 resolved
+22.0% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
698
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.1%
-35.9% vs TC avg
§103
58.1%
+18.1% vs TC avg
§102
18.5%
-21.5% vs TC avg
§112
13.1%
-26.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 664 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Claim Objections Claims 1-8, 13-15 and 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: text spacing formatting issues. The following shows several claims having missing spacing in between words: “applied to a relay terminal,comprising” in line 1 of claim 1; “barredindication” in line 2 of claim 2; “method of claim 2,wherein” in line 1 of claim 3; “method of claim 3,wherein” in line 1 of claim 4; “terminaltypes” in line 4 of claim 4; “method of claim 1,wherein” in line 1 of claim 5; “method of claim 5,wherein” in line 1 of claim 6 “atleast” in line 2 of claim 6; “method of claim 6,wherein” in line 1 of claim 7; “method of claim 7,wherein” in line 1 of claim 8; “A relay terminal,comprising:” in line 1 of claim 13; “A network device,comprising” in line 1 of claim 14; “network device of claim 15,wherein” in line 1 of claim 15; “network device of claim 16,wherein” in line 1 of claim 17; “terminaltypes” in line 4 of claim 17; “network device of claim 14,wherein” in line 1 of claim 18; “atleast” in line 2 of claim 19; “network device of claim 19,wherein” in line 1 of claim 20. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 currently recites “wherein the first terminal is at least one of a reduced capability (RedCap) terminal or a non-RedCap terminal” Since a terminal can only be either a RedCap terminal or a non-RedCap terminal, claim 10 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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. Claim(s) 1-4, 10-11 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ishii (US 2022/0110047). Ishii discloses the following features. Regarding claim 1, a method for access control, applied to a relay terminal (see relay node 24 in Fig. 8), comprising: receiving first information sent by a network device (see cell barring information 52 sent by the wireless access node 22 in Fig. 8), wherein the first information is used for barring access of a first terminal, or the first information is used for allowing the access of the first terminal (see “the cell barring information message 52 indicates that the respective IAB-relay node 24 or user equipment 30 is barred for the cell in which the cell barring information message 52 is transmitted by parent node 22” recited in paragraph [0090]; Table 1 in paragraph [0088] and Table 8 in paragraph [0098] also shows that the cellBarred information may indicate “barred, notBarred”); and broadcasting second information to a remote terminal, wherein the second information is determined according to the first information (see “The wireless terminal of Example Embodiment 9, wherein the cell barring information is broadcasted as one or more parts of system information” recited in paragraph [0178]; and “Example Embodiment 9: A wireless terminal…the wireless terminal processing a terminal type being either a user equipment (UE) or a relay node…receive cell barring information from the wireless access node” in paragraph [0175], such that the wireless terminal in embodiment may be a relay node (such as the relay node 24 in Fig. 8) that broadcasts the cell barring information while receiving cell barring information 52 from the wireless access node 22 in Fig. 8). Regarding claim 2, wherein the first information comprises at least one cell barred indication (see cell barring information message 52 in Fig. 8), the at least one cell barred indication in the first information is used for barring the access of the first terminal, or the at least one cell barred indication in the first information is used for allowing the access of the first terminal (see “determine based on the cell barring information whether or not the wireless terminal treats a cell served by the wireless access node as a candidate during cell selection and cell reselection procedure” recited in paragraph [0175]). Regarding claim 3, wherein the at least one cell barred indication in the first information corresponds to at least one cell (see “If the barring status indicates that the cell is restricted, e.g., barred, the wireless terminal may consider that this cell is not suitable for camping and look for other cells. Otherwise, the terminal may camp on the cell” recited in paragraph [0087]). Regarding claim 4, wherein for each of the at least one cell, different cell barred indications in at least one cell barred indication corresponding to the cell corresponds to first terminals of different terminal types (see “wherein the cell barring information indicates first cell status dedicated for the wireless terminal of the terminal type being a UE and second cell status dedicated for the wireless terminal of the terminal type being a relay node, each of the first cell status and the second cell status being used to determine whether or not camping on a cell served by the wireless access node is allowed (not barred) or not (barred)” recited in paragraph [0175]). Regarding claim 10, wherein the first terminal is at least one of a RedCap terminal or a non-RedCap terminal (this claim does not provide any patentable limitation as a terminal can only be a RedCap or a non-RedCap terminal). Regarding claim 11, wherein the terminal types are distinguished by at least one of a transmission rate, a number of receiving antennas, a number of transmitting antennas, a maximum bandwidth, a supported frequency range, or a terminal scenario (see “wherein the cell barring information indicates first cell status dedicated for the wireless terminal of the terminal type being a UE and second cell status dedicated for the wireless terminal of the terminal type being a relay node, each of the first cell status and the second cell status being used to determine whether or not camping on a cell served by the wireless access node is allowed (not barred) or not (barred)” recited in paragraph [0175]; wherein whether terminal type being a terminal or a relay node is considered as the claimed “terminal scenario”). Regarding claim 13, a relay terminal (see relay node 24 in Fig. 8), comprising: a receiver (see receiver circuitry 68 in Fig. 8) configured to receive first information sent by a network device (see cell barring information 52 sent by the wireless access node 22 in Fig. 8), wherein the first information is used for barring access of a first terminal, or the first information is used for allowing the access of the first terminal (see “the cell barring information message 52 indicates that the respective IAB-relay node 24 or user equipment 30 is barred for the cell in which the cell barring information message 52 is transmitted by parent node 22” recited in paragraph [0090]; Table 1 in paragraph [0088] and Table 8 in paragraph [0098] also shows that the cellBarred information may indicate “barred, notBarred”); and a transmitter (see “transmitter circuitry 67 in Fig. 8) configured to broadcast second information to a remote terminal, wherein the second information is determined according to the first information (see “The wireless terminal of Example Embodiment 9, wherein the cell barring information is broadcasted as one or more parts of system information” recited in paragraph [0178]; and “Example Embodiment 9: A wireless terminal…the wireless terminal processing a terminal type being either a user equipment (UE) or a relay node…receive cell barring information from the wireless access node” in paragraph [0175], such that the wireless terminal in embodiment may be a relay node (such as the relay node 24 in Fig. 8) that broadcasts the cell barring information while receiving cell barring information 52 from the wireless access node 22 in Fig. 8). Regarding claim 14, a network device (see wireless access node 22 in Fig. 8), comprising: a transmitter (see transmitter circuitry 42 in Fig. 8) configured to send first information to a relay terminal (see relay node 24 in Fig. 8), wherein the first information is used for barring access of a first terminal, or the first information is used for allowing the access of the first terminal (see “the cell barring information message 52 indicates that the respective IAB-relay node 24 or user equipment 30 is barred for the cell in which the cell barring information message 52 is transmitted by parent node 22” recited in paragraph [0090]; Table 1 in paragraph [0088] and Table 8 in paragraph [0098] also shows that the cellBarred information may indicate “barred, notBarred”) Regarding claim 15, wherein the first information comprises at least one cell barred indication (see cell barring information message 52 in Fig. 8), the at least one cell barred indication in the first information is used for barring the access of the first terminal, or the at least one cell barred indication in the first information is used for allowing the access of the first terminal (see “determine based on the cell barring information whether or not the wireless terminal treats a cell served by the wireless access node as a candidate during cell selection and cell reselection procedure” recited in paragraph [0175]). Regarding claim 16, wherein the at least one cell barred indication in the first information corresponds to at least one cell (see “If the barring status indicates that the cell is restricted, e.g., barred, the wireless terminal may consider that this cell is not suitable for camping and look for other cells. Otherwise, the terminal may camp on the cell” recited in paragraph [0087]). Regarding claim 17, wherein for each of the at least one cell, different cell barred indications in at least one cell barred indication corresponding to the cell corresponds to first terminals of different terminal types (see “wherein the cell barring information indicates first cell status dedicated for the wireless terminal of the terminal type being a UE and second cell status dedicated for the wireless terminal of the terminal type being a relay node, each of the first cell status and the second cell status being used to determine whether or not camping on a cell served by the wireless access node is allowed (not barred) or not (barred)” recited in paragraph [0175]). 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. 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. Claim(s) 5-9 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Liu (US 2023/0199622). Ishii discloses the features as shown above. Ishii does not disclose the following features: regarding claims 5 and 18, wherein in response to the first information comprising at least one resource pool indication for the first terminal, the first information is used for allowing the access of the first terminal; and in response to the first information comprising no at least one resource pool indication for the first terminal, the first information is used for barring the access of the first terminal; regarding claims 6 and 19, wherein the at least one resource pool indication information corresponds to at least one cell; regarding claims 7 and 20, wherein for each of the at least one cell, different resource pool indications in at least one resource pool indication corresponding to the cell correspond to first terminals of different terminal types; regarding claim 8, wherein resource pools corresponding to different terminal types do not overlap with each other in at least one of time domain or frequency domain; Regarding claim 9, wherein the first terminal comprises a RedCap terminal and a non-RedCap terminal, a resource pool for the RedCap terminal does not overlap with a resource pool for the non-RedCap terminal in at least one of the time domain or the frequency domain; Liu discloses the following features. Regarding claims 5 and 18, wherein in response to the first information comprising at least one resource pool indication for the first terminal, the first information is used for allowing the access of the first terminal (see “A second bit state of the two bits indicates that access of the first terminal device is allowed, and the first terminal device receives information based on the first resource. A third bit state of the two bits indicates that access of the first terminal device is allowed, and the first terminal device receives information based on the second resource. A fourth bit state of the two bits indicates that access of the first terminal device is allowed, and the first terminal device receives information based on the third resource” recited in paragraph [0019]); and in response to the first information comprising no at least one resource pool indication for the first terminal, the first information is used for barring the access of the first terminal (see “A first bit state of the two bits indicates that access of the first terminal device is not allowed” recited in paragraph [0019]; wherein the first bit state does not indicate a resource pool for the terminal and bars the access of the terminal; the second, third and fourth bit state each indicates a different resource pool to the terminal and allows access of the terminal). Regarding claims 6 and 19, wherein the at least one resource pool indication information corresponds to at least one cell (see cell in Fig. 1 or see “the network device may indicate, based on the MIB information, that the terminal device is barred from accessing the cell” recited in paragraph [0112], “resource allocation for the terminal devices in the cell” in paragraph [0134] and other similar recitation throughout the document indicating that the access barring information being information for accessing a cell). Regarding claims 7 and 20, wherein for each of the at least one cell, different resource pool indications in at least one resource pool indication corresponding to the cell correspond to first terminals of different terminal types (see “the network device may indicate, by using the at least one piece of first information, whether access of a first-type terminal device is allowed and/or whether access of a second-type terminal device is allowed” recited in paragraph [0077]). Regarding claim 8, wherein resource pools corresponding to different terminal types do not overlap with each other in at least one of time domain or frequency domain (see “…time division multiplexing, frequency division multiplexing, or code division multiplexing. Alternatively, the first resource is different from the second resource, and a resource element in the first resource is completely independent of a resource element in the second resource” recited in paragraph [0143]). Regarding claim 9, wherein the first terminal comprises a RedCap terminal and a non-RedCap terminal (see “the first terminal device belongs to a first-type terminal device whose capability is reduced. The second terminal device is a conventional terminal device” recited in paragraph [0220]; and see “REDCAP terminal device” recited in paragraph [0123]), a resource pool for the RedCap terminal does not overlap with a resource pool for the non-RedCap terminal in at least one of the time domain or the frequency domain (see “…time division multiplexing, frequency division multiplexing, or code division multiplexing. Alternatively, the first resource is different from the second resource, and a resource element in the first resource is completely independent of a resource element in the second resource” recited in paragraph [0143]; and see “the network device may indicate, by using the at least one piece of first information, whether access of a first-type terminal device is allowed and/or whether access of a second-type terminal device is allowed” recited in paragraph [0077]; wherein different types of terminals are separately access restricted (paragraph [0077]) and assigned different resources (paragraph [0019] and [0077]) that may be non-overlapping (paragraph [0143])). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current application to modify the system of Ishii using features, as taught by Liu, in order to resolve a problem in the conventional technology that a network device cannot flexibly indicate one or more types of terminal devices to access a cell or be barred from accessing the cell (see paragraph [0004] of Liu). Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kimba Dit Adamou (US 2023/0217464). Ishii discloses the features as shown above. Ishii does not disclose the following features: regarding claim 12, wherein the first information is used for controlling the first terminal to perform at least one of processing to a network through an Uu interface, or accessing to the relay terminal through a proximity communication (PC5) interface (paragraph [0175] of Ishii as shown above shows that the wireless terminal may be a relay node that must communicates with the wireless access node via a network access interface and communicates with a terminal via a D2D interface but not indicate that these interfaces are the claimed Uu interface and PC5 interface). Kimba Dit Adamou discloses the following features. Regarding claim 12, wherein the first information is used for controlling the first terminal to perform at least one of processing to a network (paragraph [0175] of Ishii as shown above shows that the wireless terminal may be a relay node that must communicates with the wireless access node via a network access interface and communicates with a terminal via a D2D interface) through an Uu interface, or accessing to the relay terminal through a proximity communication (PC5) interface (see Fig. 7, wherein the interface between the gNB and the relay terminal being an Uu interface and the interface between the relay terminal and the remote terminal being a PC5 interface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current application to modify the system of Ishii using features, as taught by Kimba Dit Adamou, to support interface according to 5G NR (see paragraph [0003] and [0037] of Kimba Dit Adamou). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUTAI KAO whose telephone number is (571)272-9719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-17:00 EST. 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, Kwang Yao can be reached at (571)272-3182. 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. /JUTAI KAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 23, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598566
IAB Timing Delta MAC CE Enhancement for Case #6 Timing Support
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12574971
PRIORITY HANDLING FOR A RANDOM ACCESS MESSAGE THAT INCLUDES A PREAMBLE AND A PAYLOAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12556434
UPLINK SOUNDING REFERENCE SIGNAL (SRS) TRANSMISSION IN CARRIER AGGREGATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12557056
METHOD FOR TIMING SYNCHRONIZATION, TERMINAL DEVICE, AND NETWORK DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12550185
CONFLICT AVOIDANCE BETWEEN RANDOM ACCESS MESSAGES AND OTHER TRANSMISSIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+17.6%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 664 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month