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 Remarks/Comments
Status of Claims as of Non-Final Rejection mailed June 26, 2026
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 15 and 17-19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (US 20230180110 A1, equivalent to WO 2021/230726 cited in IDS received February 15, 2024) in view of JIA (US 20240373338 A1). Claim 11-13 were 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 JIA (US 20240373338 A1).
Applicants’ Response to the Non-Final Rejection
Responsive to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicants have amended each of independent claim(s) 1, 11, and 15. Claim 1, has been amended to at least recite a limitation, “…when a bandwidth of the resource allocation exceeds a supported frequency bandwidth of the apparatus, treat or consider the cell as barred…”, this limitation being similar to features that were recited in claim 5, claim 5 has been cancelled. Claim 15 has been amended to recite, “…when a bandwidth of the resource allocation within a supported bandwidth of the user equipment, signal in the system information block whether access to the apparatus is allowed”, this limitation being similar to features recited in claim 18, claim 18 has been cancelled. Claim(s) 11 has been amended similarly to that of claim 1. Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 17 and 19 are pending.
Current Status of the Claims
Responsive to the amendments to claim(s) 1 and 15, the rejection(s) of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 15 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (US 20230180110 A1, equivalent to WO 2021/230726 cited in IDS received February 15, 2024) in view of JIA (US 20240373338 A1) are withdrawn. However, the amendments made to claim 15, have raised antecedent basis issues, see the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, below. Responsive to the amendment of claim 11 a new ground of rejections has been made further relying on BLACKPIN (US 20230075586 A1) necessitated by amendments to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the resource allocation". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim(s) 17 and 19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of dependency on claim 15, and further due to not resolving the antecedent basis issue of claim 15. Note that although the limitation, “resource allocation”, does not have sufficient antecedent basis, if this limitation were replaced with, “the frequency domain resource assignment field” it would resolve the antecedent basis issue. Thus, for the purposes of examination claim 15, will be examined as,
“15. (Currently Amended) 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; allow the user equipment on the cell by scheduling at least one system information block; set, in a master information block, an intra-frequency reselection indication based on whether intra-frequency selection or intra-frequency reselection is allowed; and determine that the intra-frequency reselection in the master information block was ignored; and when a bandwidth of the frequency domain resource assignment field is within a supported bandwidth of the user equipment, signal in the system information block whether access to the apparatus is allowed.”
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 11-13 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 JIA (US 20240373338 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 that an intra-frequency selection is allowed “…[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.”),(BLACKPIN [Table 6] teaches where when a bandwidth of a resource allocation, IFRI_SIB, exceeds a supported bandwidth of the apparatus, the bandwidth supported by the terminal, treat or consider the cell as barred).
Blackpin differs from claim 11, in that Blackpin is silent on where the apparatus is further caused to determine that the intra-frequency selection is allowed regardless of what is signaled in the master information block; and 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.
JIA (US 20240373338 A1) teaches a feature for cell access that involves determining that intra-frequency selection/reselection is allowed regardless of what is signaled in a master information block; and ignoring cell-barred information in the master information block (“[0117] As shown above, when the repeater receives the MIB message, it ignores the field “cellBarred” in the MIB message and directly considers the cell as being not barred, and/or, ignore the field “intraFreqReselection” in the MIB message and directly considers the cell or a cell at the same frequency as the cell with ranking high as being barred or as being considered as being barred. The cell at the same frequency as the cell is not barred, or, in other words, it may be considered as a candidate cell in cell reselection. [0118] It should be noted that in the cell reselection procedure, when the cell state is “barred” or the cell state is processed as it is “barred”, in a case where the repeater may acquire a current cell state (not because it is unable to acquire that the cell is processed as the cell state is “barred”), the repeater ignores the field “intraFreqReselection” in the MIB message (regardless of whether the field is set to be allowed), and if a reselection criterion is satisfied, the repeater may select another cell at the same frequency.”).
Thus based upon the teachings of JIA 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, by adopting features seen in the wireless access feature of JIA, such as where the apparatus is further caused to determine that the intra-frequency selection is allowed regardless of what is signaled in the master information block; and where the apparatus is further caused to ignore cell-barred information in a master information block, and consequently arrive at claim 11. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a benefit of more flexible access to a cell.
In regards to claim(s) 12, BLACKPIN (US 20230075586 A1) in view of JIA 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 (SEE BLACKPIN, “[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.”).
In regard(s) claim 13, BLACKPIN in view of JIA suggest 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. BLACKPIN is silent on where the apparatus is further caused to ignore the intra-frequency reselection indication contained in the master information block.
JIA (US 20240373338 A1) teaches a feature for cell access that involves determining that intra-frequency selection/reselection is allowed regardless of what is signaled in a master information block; ignoring cell-barred information in the master information block, and ignoring the intra-frequency reselection indication within the master information block, (“[0117] As shown above, when the repeater receives the MIB message, it ignores the field “cellBarred” in the MIB message and directly considers the cell as being not barred, and/or, ignore the field “intraFreqReselection” in the MIB message and directly considers the cell or a cell at the same frequency as the cell with ranking high as being barred or as being considered as being barred. The cell at the same frequency as the cell is not barred, or, in other words, it may be considered as a candidate cell in cell reselection. [0118] It should be noted that in the cell reselection procedure, when the cell state is “barred” or the cell state is processed as it is “barred”, in a case where the repeater may acquire a current cell state (not because it is unable to acquire that the cell is processed as the cell state is “barred”), the repeater ignores the field “intraFreqReselection” in the MIB message (regardless of whether the field is set to be allowed), and if a reselection criterion is satisfied, the repeater may select another cell at the same frequency.”).
Thus based upon the teachings of JIA 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, by adopting features seen in the wireless access feature of JIA to arrive at 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, and consequently arrive at the apparatus of claim 13. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a benefit of more flexible access to a cell.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, and 9 are allowed.
Claim(s) 15, 17, and 19 would be allowable if claim 15 were rewritten or amended in the manner previously suggested to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
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