DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-13, 15, and 17-20 have been examined and are pending.
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 Remarks/Arguments
Prior Art Rejection(s)
In the Non-Final Rejection mailed August 28, 2025 the status of the claim(s) in light of the prior art of record was as follow(s): Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KIM (US 20230180110 A1, equivalent to WO 2021/230726 cited in IDS received February 15, 2024). Claim(s) 10 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (US 20230180110 A1) in view of LIU (“US 20210136663 A1”). Claim(s) 13 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLACKPIN (US 20230075586 A1) in view of LI (“US 20230156538 A1”). Claim(s) 14 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLACKPIN (US 20230075586 A1) in view of LIU (“US 20210136663 A1”)
Responsive to the prior art rejection(s) of said claim(s), Applicants have cancelled claim(s) 10, 14, and 16. Independent claim(s) 1, 11, and 15 have been amended. More specifically, claim 1 has been amended to at least include the limitation, “...in response to ignoring cell-barred information in a master information block, allow a reduced capability user equipment on the cell by scheduling the system information block…”. Claim 11 has been amended to at least include the limitation, “…in response to ignoring cell-barred information in the master information block, allow a reduced capability user equipment on the cell by scheduling the system information block”. Claim 15 has been amended to at least include the limitation, “…in response to ignoring cell-barred information in a master information block, allow the user equipment on the cell by scheduling at least one system information block.”. Further responsive to the prior art rejection(s), Applicants have presented arguments in light of the amended claims. While the arguments have been considered, the arguments are not persuasive, as the amendments were not found to be supported by the specification as originally filed, see the 35 USC 112 rejections below. Additionally, alternative interpretations of amended independent claim(s), which are supported by the specification as originally filed, have been taken in order to support a prior art examination of said claims. An alternative for each of the independent claims is shown below (changes are italicized).
Claim 1
1. An apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
acquire system information from a cell, wherein the system information provides a control resource set zero configuration;
monitor a physical downlink control channel based on the control resource set zero configuration;
receive, from the physical downlink control channel, downlink control information that indicates a resource allocation for a system information block; and
determine, from the resource allocation whether the cell is barred, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: ignore cell-barred information in a master information block.
Claim 11
11. An apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
receive an intra-frequency reselection indication contained in a master information block transmitted from a cell;
determine whether an intra-frequency selection or an intra-frequency reselection is allowed or not allowed based on the intra-frequency reselection indication; and
apply an intra-frequency selection or an intra-frequency reselection based on the determination, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: ignore cell-barred information in the master information block.
Claim 15
15. An apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at
least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
transmit, to a user equipment, system information comprising a control resource set zero configuration, wherein the user equipment is a reduced capability user equipment with reduced bandwidth capabilities;
set a frequency domain resource assignment field in a downlink control information based on whether cell access for the user equipment is barred or allowed, or whether the apparatus supports the user equipment;
transmit, to the user equipment, the downlink control information that indicates a resource allocation for a system information block based on the control resource set zero configuration; and allow the user equipment on the cell by scheduling at least one system information block;
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-9, 11-13, 15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1
Referring to the apparatus of claim 1, which has been amended to now recite, “…in response to ignoring cell-barred information in a master information block, allow a reduced capability user equipment on the cell by scheduling the system information block…”. Applicants cite paragraph 38 of the instant application to support said amendment, see the following:
“[0038] In certain example embodiments, the RedCap UE with reduced PDSCH/PUSCH BW support (e.g., support for up to 5MHz PDSCH/PUSCH BW) may ignore cell barred information in the MIB. By ignoring the cell barred information, the NW may be able to allow the RedCap UE on the cell by scheduling SIBs using up to 5 MHz BW. For example, the NW may enable the RedCap UE only cells by RedCap UE ignoring the cell barred information in the MIB. In other example embodiments, the RedCap UE with reduced”
The Instant Application discloses support for a feature where specifically, the network (i.e. NW of paragraph 38) allows the RedCap UE on the cell by scheduling the system information block (i.e. system information block of claim 1, also SIB in paragraph 38). The Instant Application is silent on a user equipment (UE) or any other networking entity performing said feature. The apparatus of claim 1, appears to be directed to at least a UE and more particularly a RedCap UE, because, for one, the apparatus performs features (i.e. refer to claim 1, and to steps to “…acquire system information from a cell…”, “…monitor a physical downlink control channel”, and “…receive, from the physical downlink control channel, downlink control channel information…”) that are directed to a UE, as can be seen in the instant application, which indicates support for this interpretation,
“[0040] FIG. 2 illustrates an example flow diagram of a method, according to certain example embodiments. In an example embodiment, the method of FIG. 2 may be performed by a network entity, or a group of multiple network elements in a 3GPP system, such as LTE or 5G-NR. For instance, in an example embodiment, the method of FIG. 2 may be performed by a UE similar to one of apparatuses 10 or 20 illustrated in FIG. 5.”
Thus claim 1 is not believed to be supported by the Instant Application as originally filed. Claim(s) 2-9 are dependent on claim 1 and by virtue of dependency are also regarded as failing to comply with the written description requirement of the claimed invention.
Claim 11
Claim 11 has been amended a manner similar to that of claim 1, see where it recites, “…in response to ignoring cell-barred information in the master information block, allow a reduced capability user equipment on the cell by scheduling the system information block…”. Applicants cite paragraph 38 of the instant application to support said amendment, see the following:
“[0038] In certain example embodiments, the RedCap UE with reduced PDSCH/PUSCH BW support (e.g., support for up to 5MHz PDSCH/PUSCH BW) may ignore cell barred information in the MIB. By ignoring the cell barred information, the NW may be able to allow the RedCap UE on the cell by scheduling SIBs using up to 5 MHz BW. For example, the NW may enable the RedCap UE only cells by RedCap UE ignoring the cell barred information in the MIB. In other example embodiments, the RedCap UE with reduced”
The Instant Application discloses support for a feature where specifically, the network (i.e. NW of paragraph 38) allows the RedCap UE on the cell by scheduling the system information block (i.e. system information block of claim 11, also SIB in paragraph 38). The Instant Application is silent on a user equipment (UE) or any other networking entity performing said feature. The apparatus of claim 11, appears to be directed to at least a UE and more particularly a RedCap UE, because, for one, the apparatus performs features (i.e. refer to claim 11, and to steps to “…receive an intra-frequency reselection indication contained in a master information block…”, “…determine whether an intra-frequency reselection or an intra-frequency reselection is allowed or not allowed…”, and “…apply an intra-frequency or an intra-frequency reselection based on the determination…”) that are directed to a UE, as can be seen in the instant application, which indicates support for this interpretation,
“[0033] RedCap UEs with a 1 Rx branch and 2 Rx branches may be separately allowed via system information. In addition, half-duplex frequency division duplex (FDD) mode may be allowed via system information. A RedCap specific intra-frequency reselection indicator or indication (IFRI) may be provided in a system information block type 1 (SIB1). However, when SIB1 is absent, the RedCap UEs may not be allowed access. In some examples, information on which frequencies a RedCap UE access is allowed may be provided in system information, and cell barring for RedCap devices may be explicitly indicated over system information in SIB1… [0046] FIG. 3 illustrates an example flow diagram of another method, according to certain example embodiments. In an example embodiment, the method of FIG. 3 may be performed by a network entity, or a group of multiple network elements in a 3GPP system, such as LTE or 5G-NR. For instance, in an example embodiment, the method of FIG. 3 may be performed by a UE similar to one of apparatuses 10 or 20 illustrated in FIG. 5.”
Thus claim 11 is not believed to be supported by the Instant Application as originally filed. Claim(s) 12-13 are dependent on claim 11 and by virtue of dependency are also regarded as failing to comply with the written description requirement of the claimed invention.
Claim 15
Referring to the apparatus of claim 15, which has been amended to now recite, “…in response to ignoring cell-barred information in a master information block, allow a user equipment on the cell by scheduling at least one system information block…”. Applicants cite paragraph 38 of the instant application to support said amendment, see the following:
“[0038] In certain example embodiments, the RedCap UE with reduced PDSCH/PUSCH BW support (e.g., support for up to 5MHz PDSCH/PUSCH BW) may ignore cell barred information in the MIB. By ignoring the cell barred information, the NW may be able to allow the RedCap UE on the cell by scheduling SIBs using up to 5 MHz BW. For example, the NW may enable the RedCap UE only cells by RedCap UE ignoring the cell barred information in the MIB…”
The Instant Application discloses support for a feature where specifically, the UE (i.e. RedCap UE of paragraph 38) ignores the cell-barred information in the master information block. The Instant Application is silent on the network performing said feature. The apparatus of claim 15, appears to be directed to the network because for one, the network performs features (i.e. refer to claim 15, and to steps to “…transmit to a user equipment, system information”, “…transmit, to the user equipment, the downlink control information…” that are directed to the network, as can be seen in the instant application, which indicates support for this interpretation,
“[0049] FIG. 4 illustrates an example of a flow diagram of another method, according to certain example embodiments. In an example embodiment, the method of FIG. 4 may be performed by a network entity, or a group of multiple network elements in a 3GPP system, such as LTE or 5G-NR. For instance, in an example embodiment, the method of FIG. 4 may be performed by a network, cell, gNB, or any other device similar to one of apparatuses 10 or 20 illustrated in FIG. 5.”
Thus claim 15 is not believed to be supported by the Instant Application as originally filed. Claim(s) 17-20 are dependent on claim 15 and by virtue of dependency are also regarded as failing to comply with the written description requirement of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KIM (US 20230180110 A1, equivalent to WO 2021/230726 cited in IDS received February 15, 2024).
In regards to claim 15, KIM (US 20230180110 A1) teaches an apparatus, comprising (KIM teaches an apparatus, base station):
at least one processor; and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at
least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to (See [Par. 17 – Par. 18], “[0018] In a further aspect of the present disclosure, there is provided a base station for 3GPP-based wireless communication. The base station may include: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to…”)
transmit, to a user equipment, system information comprising a control resource set zero configuration, wherein the user equipment is a reduced capability user equipment with reduced bandwidth capabilities; (KIM teaches a base station, cell, transmitting system information, master information block (MIB), the MIB providing a control resource set zero, CORESET-0, configuration to the UE, “[0065] CORESET: A control resource set (CORESET) refers to time/frequency resources on which a NR UE attempts to decode candidate PDCCHs. [0066] CORESET #0: CORESET #0 refers to a CORESET for a Type0-PDCCH CSS set for NR devices (configured by an MIB). [0067] Type0-PDCCH CSS set: The Type0-PDCCH CSS set refers to a search space set in which a NR UE monitors a set of PDCCH candidates for a DCI format with a CRC scrambled by an SI-RNTI. [0068] MO: PDCCH Monitoring Occasion for Type0-PDCCH CSS set [0069] SIB1-R: SIB1-R refers to (additional) SIB1 for reduced capability NR devices. SIB1-R may be generated as a TB different from that of SIB1 and transmitted on a different PDSCH. [0070] CORESET #O-R: CORESET #0 for reduced capability NR devices [0071] Type0-PDCCH-R CSS set: Type0-PDCCH-R CSS set refers to a search space set in which a RedCap UE monitors a set of PDCCH candidates for a DCI format with a CRC scrambled by an SI-RNTI…[0095] System information (SI) is divided into a master information block (MIB) and a plurality of system information blocks (SIBs). The SI except for the MIB may be referred to as remaining minimum system information (RMSI). Details thereof will be described in the following… [0168] The BS may transmit SIB1 to the UE based on the MIB, and the UE may receive SIB1 from the BS based on the MIB (SH204). SIB1 may be transmitted/received based on SIB1-scheduling related information (e.g., CORESET0/CSS configuration for a PDCCH scheduling SIB1) included in the MIB. SIB1 may include information related to availability and scheduling of other SI messages (SIBx, where x>1). As described below, SIB1 may include NR SIB1 or SIB1-R.”);
set a frequency domain resource assignment field in a downlink control information based on whether cell access for the user equipment is barred or allowed, or whether the apparatus supports the user equipment;
transmit, to the user equipment, the downlink control information that indicates a resource allocation for a system information block based on the control resource set zero configuration (KIM teaches where the BS transmits a frequency domain resource assignment field in downlink control information (DCI) based on whether cell access for the UE is barred or allowed or whether the apparatus supports the UE, and transmitting the DCI indicating a resource allocation for a system information block (SIB), based on the CORESET 0, “[0178] For example, to indicate whether the RedCap UE is supported, the corresponding DCI (e.g., DCI format 1_0 with a CRC scrambled by an SI-RNTI for scheduling SIB1(−R)) may include at least one of the following information: [0179] Frequency domain resource assignment—Ceiling [log.sub.2(N.sub.RB.sup.DL,BWP(N.sub.RB.sup.DL,BWP+1)/2)] bits, where, N.sub.RB.sup.DL/BWP is the size of CORESET 0…[0188] As in the example below, (in Rel-17 and later) the RedCap UE may assume that 15 bits of DCI, which are previously used as reserved bits (on a shared spectrum e.g., when not in unlicensed bands), are configured with SIB-R FDRA (e.g., corresponding to X bits of the FDRA field), SIB-R TDRA (e.g., corresponding to Y bits of the TDRA field), and/or reserved bits (15-X-Y bits) in order to interpret/process/decode DCI.”) and allow the user equipment on the cell by scheduling at least one system information block (See Abstract “A terminal for performing an initial cell access, according to an embodiment of the present disclosure, receives a PBCH signal of a first cell via a cell search, receives SIB1-scheduling information on a CSS set related to the PBCH signal, and determines whether to perform a remaining access procedure on the first cell, on the basis of the SIB1-scheduling information, wherein the terminal is a second type terminal in which the capability is reduced to support a bandwidth narrower than that of a first type terminal, and the terminal may determine, as the second type terminal, whether an access to the first cell is allowed, on the basis of the state of a bit reserved so as not to be used by the first type terminal within the SIB1-scheduling information.”).
In regards to claim 19, KIM teaches the apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to:
when cell access is allowed for the user equipment, set one or more reserved bits in the downlink control information; and transmit, to the user equipment via the one or more reserved bits, cell access allowance information (“Example 1-3: Indication of Whether RedCap UE is Supported [0177] The BS may indicate whether a corresponding cell supports RedCap in DCI (e.g., DCI scheduling SIB1(−R)) (see FIG. 10). For example, the BS may indicate whether the cell supports RedCap by setting at least part (e.g., reserved states/bits) of DCI format 1_0 with a CRC scrambled by an SI-RNTI, which is received in a Type0-PDCCH CSS set, to a specific value. If RedCap is supported, additional information for the RedCap UE may be included in the DCI. For example, if the additional information for the RedCap UE is included, it may be interpreted/understood that the RedCap UE is supported.”).
In regards to claim 17, KIM teaches the apparatus according to claim 15, wherein a frequency domain resource assignment in the frequency domain resource assignment field indicates a bandwidth of the resource allocation that is within a supported bandwidth of the user equipment (“[0178] For example, to indicate whether the RedCap UE is supported, the corresponding DCI (e.g., DCI format 1_0 with a CRC scrambled by an SI-RNTI for scheduling SIB1(−R)) may include at least one of the following information: [0179] Frequency domain resource assignment—Ceiling [log.sub.2(N.sub.RB.sup.DL,BWP(N.sub.RB.sup.DL,BWP+1)/2)] bits, where, N.sub.RB.sup.DL/BWP is the size of CORESET 0…[0188] As in the example below, (in Rel-17 and later) the RedCap UE may assume that 15 bits of DCI, which are previously used as reserved bits (on a shared spectrum e.g., when not in unlicensed bands), are configured with SIB-R FDRA (e.g., corresponding to X bits of the FDRA field), SIB-R TDRA (e.g., corresponding to Y bits of the TDRA field), and/or reserved bits (15-X-Y bits) in order to interpret/process/decode DCI.”).
In regards to claim 18, KIM teaches the apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to:
when a bandwidth of the resource allocation is within a supported bandwidth of the user equipment, signal in the system information block whether access to the apparatus is allowed (“[0178] For example, to indicate whether the RedCap UE is supported, the corresponding DCI (e.g., DCI format 1_0 with a CRC scrambled by an SI-RNTI for scheduling SIB1(−R)) may include at least one of the following information: [0179] Frequency domain resource assignment—Ceiling [log.sub.2(N.sub.RB.sup.DL,BWP(N.sub.RB.sup.DL,BWP+1)/2)] bits, where, N.sub.RB.sup.DL/BWP is the size of CORESET 0…[0188] As in the example below, (in Rel-17 and later) the RedCap UE may assume that 15 bits of DCI, which are previously used as reserved bits (on a shared spectrum e.g., when not in unlicensed bands), are configured with SIB-R FDRA (e.g., corresponding to X bits of the FDRA field), SIB-R TDRA (e.g., corresponding to Y bits of the TDRA field), and/or reserved bits (15-X-Y bits) in order to interpret/process/decode DCI.”).
In regards to claim 20, KIM teaches the apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: set, in a master information block, an intra-frequency reselection indication based on whether intra-frequency selection or intra-frequency reselection is allowed “[0261] [Implicit Indication Example] Cell access information for a RedCap device (type) may be transmitted in CORESET #0 scheduling information transmitted in a PBCH payload. In this case, if a CORESET #0(−R) BW is not within a supported range based on the BW supported by the device (type), the RedCap UE may be considered to be barred from a corresponding cell. To this end, details of Example 1-4: Indication of whether RedCap UE is supported in the clause “1. Cell Access of RedCap UE” may be referred. [0262] The above explicit and implicit indication methods may be used simultaneously or in combination. For example, when both the explicit and implicit indication methods are applied, if any one of the methods is barred, the RedCap device (type) may be considered to be barred. This may mean that the explicit indication method takes precedence when applied. Alternatively, this may be in consideration of a case in which the corresponding RedCap device (type) is not supported for other reasons although the RedCap device (type) supports CORESET #0(−R) in terms of the BW… [0271] In the above proposals, when the RedCap device (type) is barred, the RedCap device (type) may stop attempting to access the corresponding cell and continue the cell search operation by changing the frequency. Alternatively, when the RedCap device is barred, the RedCap device may monitor additional information and determine subsequent operations. The additional information may be information such as intraFreqReselection described above. When the highest ranked cell is barred, the UE may attempt to access a new cell within the same frequency if intraFreqReselection is allowed. If the highest ranked cell is not allowed, the UE may attempt access the cell by changing the frequency.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (US 20230180110 A1) in view of LIU (“US 20210136663 A1”)
In regards to claim 1, KIM (US 20230180110 A1) teaches an apparatus, comprising (KIM teaches an apparatus, a UE, that can be either a RedCap UE or a standard, NG UE):
at least one processor; and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to (See [Par. 5 – Par. 15], “[0013] In another aspect of the present disclosure, there is provided a processor-readable storage medium configured to store a program for executing the above-described method….[0014] In another aspect of the present disclosure, there is provided a device for 3GPP-based wireless communication. The device may include: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to…[0015] The device may further include a transceiver configured to transmit and receive a radio signal under control of the processor. The device may be a UE for the 3GPP-based wireless communication.” ):
acquire system information from a cell, wherein the system information provides a control resource set zero configuration (KIM teaches a base station, cell, transmitting system information, master information block (MIB), the MIB providing a control resource set zero, CORESET-0, configuration to the UE, “[0065] CORESET: A control resource set (CORESET) refers to time/frequency resources on which a NR UE attempts to decode candidate PDCCHs. [0066] CORESET #0: CORESET #0 refers to a CORESET for a Type0-PDCCH CSS set for NR devices (configured by an MIB). [0067] Type0-PDCCH CSS set: The Type0-PDCCH CSS set refers to a search space set in which a NR UE monitors a set of PDCCH candidates for a DCI format with a CRC scrambled by an SI-RNTI. [0068] MO: PDCCH Monitoring Occasion for Type0-PDCCH CSS set [0069] SIB1-R: SIB1-R refers to (additional) SIB1 for reduced capability NR devices. SIB1-R may be generated as a TB different from that of SIB1 and transmitted on a different PDSCH. [0070] CORESET #O-R: CORESET #0 for reduced capability NR devices [0071] Type0-PDCCH-R CSS set: Type0-PDCCH-R CSS set refers to a search space set in which a RedCap UE monitors a set of PDCCH candidates for a DCI format with a CRC scrambled by an SI-RNTI…[0095] System information (SI) is divided into a master information block (MIB) and a plurality of system information blocks (SIBs). The SI except for the MIB may be referred to as remaining minimum system information (RMSI). Details thereof will be described in the following… [0168] The BS may transmit SIB1 to the UE based on the MIB, and the UE may receive SIB1 from the BS based on the MIB (SH204). SIB1 may be transmitted/received based on SIB1-scheduling related information (e.g., CORESET0/CSS configuration for a PDCCH scheduling SIB1) included in the MIB. SIB1 may include information related to availability and scheduling of other SI messages (SIBx, where x>1). As described below, SIB1 may include NR SIB1 or SIB1-R.”);
monitor a physical downlink control channel based on the control resource set zero configuration (KIM teaches where the UE monitors a physical downlink control channel, PDCCH scheduling SIB1, based on a CORESET 0/CSS Configuration, “[0168] The BS may transmit SIB1 to the UE based on the MIB, and the UE may receive SIB1 from the BS based on the MIB (SH204). SIB1 may be transmitted/received based on SIB1-scheduling related information (e.g., CORESET0/CSS configuration for a PDCCH scheduling SIB1) included in the MIB. SIB1 may include information related to availability and scheduling of other SI messages (SIBx, where x>1). As described below, SIB1 may include NR SIB1 or SIB1-R.”);
receive, from the physical downlink control channel, downlink control information that indicates a resource allocation for a system information block; and determine, from the resource allocation whether the cell is barred ( KIM teaches receiving from the physical downlink control channel, PDCCH, downlink control information (DCI), that indicates a resource allocation for a system block, and determining, from the resource allocation whether the cell is barred, whether the REDCAP UE is supported, “[0178] For example, to indicate whether the RedCap UE is supported, the corresponding DCI (e.g., DCI format 1_0 with a CRC scrambled by an SI-RNTI for scheduling SIB1(−R)) may include at least one of the following information: [0179] Frequency domain resource assignment—Ceiling [log.sub.2(N.sub.RB.sup.DL,BWP(N.sub.RB.sup.DL,BWP+1)/2)] bits, where, N.sub.RB.sup.DL/BWP is the size of CORESET 0”),
LIU is silent on where the apparatus is further caused to ignore cell-barred information in a master information block. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving the access of a cell. LIU (“US 20210136663 A1”) teaches where a UE is caused to ignore cell-barred information in a master information block (“[0033] In addition, in the embodiments of the present disclosure, the first system message block may be any system message block in system information. In a possible embodiment of the present disclosure, the first system message block may be a Master Information Block (MIB)… [0053] Upon the receipt of the first system message block, when the target parameter is used in both the first protocol release and the second protocol release, the UE with the second protocol release may acquire the target parameter, interpret the target parameter in the interpretation for the second protocol release, and perform a corresponding operation based on the interpreting result. When the target parameter is used in the second protocol release, the UE with the second protocol release may ignore the cell barred indicator in the first system message block, acquire the target parameter, interpret the target parameter in the interpretation for the second protocol release, acquire RMSI based on the interpreting result, and determine whether the UE is allowed to access the cell based on the cell barred indicator in the RMSI.”).
Thus based upon the teachings LIU, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cell access feature of KIM, to arrive wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: ignore cell-barred information in a master information block, thus arriving at claim 1, in order to provide support for cell access to multiple device standards (i.e. first and second protocol releases seen in LIU).
In regards to claim 2, KIM teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the system information is acquired via the master information block of the cell ( “[0168] The BS may transmit SIB1 to the UE based on the MIB, and the UE may receive SIB1 from the BS based on the MIB (SH204). SIB1 may be transmitted/received based on SIB1-scheduling related information (e.g., CORESET0/CSS configuration for a PDCCH scheduling SIB1) included in the MIB. SIB1 may include information related to availability and scheduling of other SI messages (SIBx, where x>1). As described below, SIB1 may include NR SIB1 or SIB1-R.”);
In regards to claim 3, KIM teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: determine a bandwidth of the resource allocation from a frequency domain resource assignment field in the downlink control information (“[0178] For example, to indicate whether the RedCap UE is supported, the corresponding DCI (e.g., DCI format 1_0 with a CRC scrambled by an SI-RNTI for scheduling SIB1(−R)) may include at least one of the following information: [0179] Frequency domain resource assignment—Ceiling [log.sub.2(N.sub.RB.sup.DL,BWP(N.sub.RB.sup.DL,BWP+1)/2)] bits, where, N.sub.RB.sup.DL/BWP is the size of CORESET 0…[0188] As in the example below, (in Rel-17 and later) the RedCap UE may assume that 15 bits of DCI, which are previously used as reserved bits (on a shared spectrum e.g., when not in unlicensed bands), are configured with SIB-R FDRA (e.g., corresponding to X bits of the FDRA field), SIB-R TDRA (e.g., corresponding to Y bits of the TDRA field), and/or reserved bits (15-X-Y bits) in order to interpret/process/decode DCI.”).
In regards to claim 4, KIM teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the bandwidth of the resource allocation is a physical downlink shared channel bandwidth (“[0203] The SIB-R scheduling information may be full resource allocation information, similarly to the FDRA field/TDRA field of DCI format 1_0 with a CRC scrambled by an SI-RNTI. Alternatively, the SIB-R scheduling information may be partial or abbreviated information of the FDRA field/TDRA field of DCI format 1_0 with the CRC scrambled by the SI-RNTI (not to exceed or occupy excessively DCI reserved bits or to reduce DCI overhead). For example, the partial or abbreviated information may be offset information based on the SIB1 scheduling information. For example, the location of a time/frequency resource (e.g., start and/or end) of a PDSCH carrying SIB1-R may be specified by a specific offset (e.g., slot, symbol, RB(s), etc.) that is added/shifted from the start or end of a time/frequency resource of a PDSCH carrying SIB1M the time and/or frequency domain. For example, in this case, the RedCap UE may obtain/determine (additional) SIB1-R scheduling information by referring to time and/or frequency offsets, which are transmitted in the SIB1 scheduling information and reserved bits (some thereof) of DCI.”).
In regards to claim 5, KIM teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: when a bandwidth of the resource allocation is beyond a supported frequency bandwidth of the apparatus, treat or consider the cell as barred (“[0261] [Implicit Indication Example] Cell access information for a RedCap device (type) may be transmitted in CORESET #0 scheduling information transmitted in a PBCH payload. In this case, if a CORESET #0(−R) BW is not within a supported range based on the BW supported by the device (type), the RedCap UE may be considered to be barred from a corresponding cell. To this end, details of Example 1-4: Indication of whether RedCap UE is supported in the clause “1. Cell Access of RedCap UE” may be referred.”).
In regards to claim 6, KIM teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: select a different cell to access when the cell is determined as barred (“[0271] In the above proposals, when the RedCap device (type) is barred, the RedCap device (type) may stop attempting to access the corresponding cell and continue the cell search operation by changing the frequency. Alternatively, when the RedCap device is barred, the RedCap device may monitor additional information and determine subsequent operations. The additional information may be information such as intraFreqReselection described above. When the highest ranked cell is barred, the UE may attempt to access a new cell within the same frequency if intraFreqReselection is allowed. If the highest ranked cell is not allowed, the UE may attempt access the cell by changing the frequency.”)
In regards to claim 7, KIM teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: when a bandwidth of the resource allocation is within a supported frequency bandwidth of the apparatus, determine, based on the system information block, whether access to the cell is allowed or barred (“[0261] [Implicit Indication Example] Cell access information for a RedCap device (type) may be transmitted in CORESET #0 scheduling information transmitted in a PBCH payload. In this case, if a CORESET #0(−R) BW is not within a supported range based on the BW supported by the device (type), the RedCap UE may be considered to be barred from a corresponding cell. To this end, details of Example 1-4: Indication of whether RedCap UE is supported in the clause “1. Cell Access of RedCap UE” may be referred. [0262] The above explicit and implicit indication methods may be used simultaneously or in combination. For example, when both the explicit and implicit indication methods are applied, if any one of the methods is barred, the RedCap device (type) may be considered to be barred. This may mean that the explicit indication method takes precedence when applied. Alternatively, this may be in consideration of a case in which the corresponding RedCap device (type) is not supported for other reasons although the RedCap device (type) supports CORESET #0(−R) in terms of the BW.”).
In regards to claim 8, KIM teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: consider intra-frequency reselection as allowed (“[0271] In the above proposals, when the RedCap device (type) is barred, the RedCap device (type) may stop attempting to access the corresponding cell and continue the cell search operation by changing the frequency. Alternatively, when the RedCap device is barred, the RedCap device may monitor additional information and determine subsequent operations. The additional information may be information such as intraFreqReselection described above. When the highest ranked cell is barred, the UE may attempt to access a new cell within the same frequency if intraFreqReselection is allowed. If the highest ranked cell is not allowed, the UE may attempt access the cell by changing the frequency.”)
In regards to claim 9, KIM teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein when the system information block cannot be acquired, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to:
apply an intra-frequency selection or an intra-frequency reselection based on whether a bandwidth of the resource allocation is beyond a supported frequency bandwidth of the apparatus, or whether the bandwidth of the resource allocation is within the supported frequency bandwidth of the apparatus (“[0261] [Implicit Indication Example] Cell access information for a RedCap device (type) may be transmitted in CORESET #0 scheduling information transmitted in a PBCH payload. In this case, if a CORESET #0(−R) BW is not within a supported range based on the BW supported by the device (type), the RedCap UE may be considered to be barred from a corresponding cell. To this end, details of Example 1-4: Indication of whether RedCap UE is supported in the clause “1. Cell Access of RedCap UE” may be referred. [0262] The above explicit and implicit indication methods may be used simultaneously or in combination. For example, when both the explicit and implicit indication methods are applied, if any one of the methods is barred, the RedCap device (type) may be considered to be barred. This may mean that the explicit indication method takes precedence when applied. Alternatively, this may be in consideration of a case in which the corresponding RedCap device (type) is not supported for other reasons although the RedCap device (type) supports CORESET #0(−R) in terms of the BW… [0271] In the above proposals, when the RedCap device (type) is barred, the RedCap device (type) may stop attempting to access the corresponding cell and continue the cell search operation by changing the frequency. Alternatively, when the RedCap device is barred, the RedCap device may monitor additional information and determine subsequent operations. The additional information may be information such as intraFreqReselection described above. When the highest ranked cell is barred, the UE may attempt to access a new cell within the same frequency if intraFreqReselection is allowed. If the highest ranked cell is not allowed, the UE may attempt access the cell by changing the frequency.”)
Claim 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 being unpatentable over BLACKPIN (US 20230075586 A1, equivalent to KR 102431178 cited in IDS received February 15, 2024) in view of LIU (“US 20210136663 A1”)
In regards to claim 11, BLACKPIN (US 20230075586 A1) teaches an apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to (See where BLACKPIN teaches an apparatus a UE, comprising a processor, a memory storing instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor cause it perform the steps below, “[0157] FIG. 5A is a block diagram illustrating the internal structure of a UE to which the disclosure is applied. [0158] Referring to the diagram, the UE includes a controller 5A-01, a storage unit 5A-02, a transceiver 5A-03, a main processor 5A-04 and I/O unit 5A-05. [0159] The controller 5A-01 controls the overall operations of the UE in terms of mobile communication. For example, the controller 5A-01 receives/transmits signals through the transceiver 5A-03. In addition, the controller 5A-01 writes and reads data in the storage unit 5A-02. To this end, the controller 5A-01 includes at least one processor. For example, the controller 5A-01 may include a communication processor (CP) that performs control for communication and an application processor (AP) that controls the upper layer, such as an application program. The controller controls storage unit and transceiver such that UE operations illustrated in FIG. 3 and FIG. 4A are performed.”)
receive an intra-frequency reselection indication contained in a master information block transmitted from a cell ( “[0063] In a network consisting of a RedCap UE 3A-01, a base station 3A-03 and an AMF 3A-05, the RedCap UE receives system information, determines whether to bar a cell, performs cell reselection, monitors a paging message, selects and applies cell common configuration information and transmits and receives RRC control messages. [0064] In step 3A-11, the RedCap UE camps on a cell managed by the base station by performing cell selection or cell reselection. The RedCap UE selects a cell having a good reception signal from among cells of the highest priority frequency in consideration of cell reselection priority and the like.[0065] In step 3A-13, the RedCap UE receives the MIB in the selected cell. [0066] The MIB includes controlResourceSetZero, which is a 4-bit index indicating the configuration of the first CORESET #0, and controlResourceSetZero, which is a 4-bit index, indicating the configuration of the first SS #0. The UE receives SIB1 by applying the frequency domain and time pattern indicated by the first CORESET #0 and the first SS #0 . [0067] The MIB includes cellBarred, which is 1-bit information indicating whether or not the cell is barred. cellBarred indicates either barred or notBarred. The UE uses cellBarred to determine whether to bar the cell. [0068] The MIB includes a first intraFreqReselection that is 1-bit information for controlling intra-frequency cell reselection. The first intraFreqReselection is defined as Enumerated {allowed, notAllowed}. Also called IFRI_MIB.” );
determine whether an intra-frequency selection or an intra-frequency reselection is allowed or not allowed based on the intra-frequency reselection indication (“…[0068] The MIB includes a first intraFreqReselection that is 1-bit information for controlling intra-frequency cell reselection. The first intraFreqReselection is defined as Enumerated {allowed, notAllowed}. Also called IFRI_MIB.”); and
apply an intra-frequency selection or an intra-frequency reselection based on the determination (“[0111] The RedCap UE applies the received IFRI_SIB1, if both IFRI_MIB and IFRI_SIB1 are received.”), wherein the instructions, w
Blackpin differs from claim 11, in that Blackpin is silent on where the apparatus is further caused to ignore cell-barred information in a master information block. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving the access of a cell. LIU (“US 20210136663 A1”) teaches where a UE is caused to ignore cell-barred information in a master information block (“[0033] In addition, in the embodiments of the present disclosure, the first system message block may be any system message block in system information. In a possible embodiment of the present disclosure, the first system message block may be a Master Information Block (MIB)… [0053] Upon the receipt of the first system message block, when the target parameter is used in both the first protocol release and the second protocol release, the UE with the second protocol release may acquire the target parameter, interpret the target parameter in the interpretation for the second protocol release, and perform a corresponding operation based on the interpreting result. When the target parameter is used in the second protocol release, the UE with the second protocol release may ignore the cell barred indicator in the first system message block, acquire the target parameter, interpret the target parameter in the interpretation for the second protocol release, acquire RMSI based on the interpreting result, and determine whether the UE is allowed to access the cell based on the cell barred indicator in the RMSI.”).
Thus based upon the teachings LIU, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cell access feature of BLACKPIN, to arrive wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: ignore cell-barred information in a master information block, thus arriving at claim 11, in order to provide support for cell access to multiple device standards (i.e. first and second protocol releases seen in LIU).
In regards to claim(s) 12, BLACKPIN (US 20230075586 A1) teaches the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: receive, from the cell, intra-frequency selection information or intra-frequency reselection information (“[0069] In steps 3A-15, the RedCap UE receives SIB1. The RedCap UE stores the acquired SIB1. SIB1 includes ServingCellConfigCommon, which is common configuration information of a serving cell, and a second intraFreqReselection. The second intraFreqReselection is defined as enumerated with one of Allowed and notAllowed. It is also called IFRI_SIB.”).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLACKPIN (US 20230075586 A1) in view of LIU (“US 20210136663 A1”) in view of LI (“US 20230156538 A1”).
In regard(s) claim 13, BLACKPIN is silent on the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to:
ignore the intra-frequency reselection indication contained the master information block. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving the access of a cell. LI (“US 20230156538 A1”) teaches where a UE is caused to ignore an intra-frequency reselection indication contained in a master information block (“[0115] In some embodiments, the above cell information may include an existing second intra-frequency reselection parameter. For example, an information element of the second intra-frequency reselection parameter may be expressed as intraFreqReselection, which is used to indicate whether the terminal equipment is allowed to perform intra-frequency reselection. The second intra-frequency reselection parameter is configured for the first type of non-reduced capability terminal equipment, and the reduced capability terminal equipment may ignore the second intra-frequency reselection parameter when performing cell selection and/or reselection. [0116] In some embodiments, the above cell information may be carried by system information. The system information includes a master information block (MIB) or system information block type 1 (SIB1), or RedCap-specific system information, etc.; that is, the terminal equipment acquires the above cell information via the system information broadcasted by the network device.”).
Thus based upon the teachings LI, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cell access feature of KIM, to arrive at the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: ignore the intra-frequency reselection indication contained the master information block., in order to provide more efficient intra-frequency selection/re-selection support for reduced capacity (REDCAP) UEs.
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 TARELL A HAMPTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7162. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 5712723795. 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.
/TARELL A HAMPTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2476 /AYAZ R SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights