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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Babaei fails to teach or suggest a first base station comprising a
network communicator configured to receive, from a second base station, an Xn setup
request message including information indicating that a cell of the second base station
supports a Reduced Capability (RedCap) user equipment, wherein the information
indicating that the cell supports the RedCap user equipment includes first information
indicating whether or not the RedCap user equipment equipped with a single receive
branch is allowed to access the cell and second information indicating whether or not
the RedCap user equipment equipped with two receive branches is allowed to access
the cell, as recited by claim 1.
The Applicant is reminded that structure defines how an apparatus differs from prior art apparatuses and when no difference in structure is defined, the assumption is made that the prior art structure meets the limitations.
The Examiner will not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582-1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336,1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have otherwise been obvious). See also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (nonprecedential), aff’d, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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, 3-4, 6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Babaei US Patent Pub. No.: 2021/0235339 A1, hereinafter, ‘Babaei’.
Consider Claim 1 and as applied to the method of Claim 6, Babaei teaches first base station, comprising: a network communicator configured to receive, from a second base station, an Xn setup request message including information indicating that a cell of the second base station supports a Reduced Capability (RedCap) user equipment (see at least 0257 – “In an example, a first base station may receive an application protocol message (e.g., an Xn Setup message) from a second base station. The application protocol message may comprise one or more information elements indicating information about wireless devices of the first type (e.g., reduced capability wireless devices)…” – see also 0298, 0346-0347 and 0349). wherein the information indicating that the cell supports the RedCap user equipment includes first information indicating whether or not the RedCap user equipment equipped with a single receive branch is allowed to access the cell and second information indicating whether or not the RedCap user equipment equipped with two receive branches is allowed to access the cell (e.g., see at least 0349 –“In an example embodiment, the first information, indicated by the one or more information elements of the application protocol message received by the first base station from the second base station at 3910, may indicate that the second base station admits wireless devices of the first type on a cell of the second base station”.- see pabilities in at least 0306- reduced number of antennas ), wherein the information indicating that the cell supports the RedCap user equipment includes first information indicating whether or not the RedCap user equipment equipped with a single receive branch is allowed to access the cell and second information indicating whether or not the RedCap user equipment equipped with two receive branches is allowed to access the cell ( as noted in the arguments above – this limitation merely describes information. However, the information is not an active step that furthers the function of the structure – the citation is an equivalent description of the information as bet understood by the Examiner) (e.g., see at least 0349 –“In an example embodiment, the first information, indicated by the one or more information elements of the application protocol message received by the first base station from the second base station at 3910, may indicate that the second base station admits wireless devices of the first type on a cell of the second base station”.- see capabilities in at least 0306- reduced number of antennas ).
Consider Claims 3 and 8, Babaei teaches the claimed invention comprising a controller configured to determine a target of a handover of the RedCap user equipment on a basis of at least one of the information indicating that the cell supports the RedCap user equipment, the first information, and the second information (e.g., see at least 0310 – “In an example, the handover request message may comprise an information element indicating a global identifier of the first cell of the second base station. The second base station may determine the target cell at the second base station for handover that the handover request is used for”).
Consider Claims 4 and 9, Babei teaches wherein the network communicator is configured to transmit an Xn setup response message to the second base station, and whether or not a cell of the first base station supports the RedCap user equipment is indicated on a basis of whether or not information indicating that the cell of the first base station supports the RedCap user equipment is included in the Xn setup response message (e.g., see at least 0346 and 0352).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei US Patent Pub. No.: 2021/0235339 A1, hereinafter, ‘Babaei’ in view of Centonza et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2022/0287134, hereinafter, ‘Centonza’.
Consider Claims 5 and 10, Babaei teaches in 0214 “The purpose of the Xn Setup procedure may be to exchange application-level configuration data needed for two NG-RAN nodes to interoperate correctly over the Xn-C interface”. Babaei does not teach wherein the network communicator is configured to transmit, to the second base station, a configuration update message including information indicating that a cell of the first base station supports the RedCap user equipment.
However, in analogous art, Centonza teaches “the purpose of the … Configuration Update procedure is to update application level configuration data needed for eNB and en-gNB to interoperate correctly over the X2 interface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Babaei to include wherein the network communicator is configured to transmit, to the second base station, a configuration update message including information indicating that a cell of the first base station supports the RedCap user equipment for the purpose of updating application level configuration data as suggested by Centonza.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights