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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the claims received on 7/21/2026.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP 2111.05 "Functional and nonfunctional descriptive material" explains: “The first step of the printed matter analysis is the determination that the limitation in question is in fact directed toward printed matter. "Our past cases establish a necessary condition for falling into the category of printed matter: a limitation is printed matter only if it claims the content of information. See In re DiStefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848, 117 USPQ2d 1265, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” In this case, the independent claims recite: “receiving SCG access barring information”, where claimed "SCG" is the content of information in the claimed "information" received; therefore, this limitation comprises printed matter. MPEP 2111.05 also explains: “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. However, where the printed matter and product do not depend upon each other, no functional relationship exists. For example, in a kit containing a set of chemicals and a printed set of instructions for using the chemicals, the instructions are not related to that particular set of chemicals. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1339, 70 USPQ2d at 1864.” In this case, the independent claims recite limitations after the step of "receiving SCG access barring information", which don't distinguish between MCG access barring information or SCG access barring information. The claimed operations take place regardless of which type of access barring information is received. Therefore, this printed matter comprises nonfunctional descriptive material, and, the claim fails to establish a functional relationship between the printed matter and the claimed product; therefore, the printed matter does not have weight. However, the Examiner's recommendations below provide a way to provide patentable weight to the printed matter. The independent claims are interpreted as follows:
1. A method in a wireless communication device configured in dual connectivity with a master cell group, MCG, controlled by a master node, MN, and a secondary cell group, SCG, controlled by a secondary node, SN (the preamble doesn't have weight. MPEP 2111.02 "Effect of Preamble"), to perform access barring check, the method comprising:
receiving SCG (claimed "SCG" doesn't limit the claims) access barring information (interpreted as any access barring information);
identifying an access attempt;
determining an access category for the access attempt; and
performing an access barring check for the access attempt using the access category determined and access barring information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Examiner's Recommendations
The following are suggestions for the Applicants to overcome the rejections in the current office action; however, an additional search would be required in order to determine allowability. The disclosure enables this suggestion in Fig. 11 and par. 123 of the specification:
1. (Currently Amended) A method in a wireless communication device configured in dual connectivity with a master cell group, MCG, controlled by a master node, MN, and a secondary cell group, SCG, controlled by a secondary node, SN, to perform access barring check, the method comprising:
sending, by the SN, a resource status update to the MN;
identifying, by the MN, based on the resource status update, a load condition of the SN;
determining, by the MN, based on the load condition, MCG access barring information and SCG access barring information;
sending, by the MN to by the wireless communication device, MCG access barring information and SCG access barring information;
identifying, by the wireless communication device, an access attempt;
determining, by the wireless communication device, an access category for the access attempt; and
performing, by the wireless communication device, based on the access category determined, the MCG access barring information, and the SCG access barring information, an access barring check for the access attempt
17. (Currently Amended) A wireless communication device configured in dual connectivity with a master cell group, MCG, controlled by a master node, MN, and a secondary cell group, SCG, controlled by a secondary node, SN, to perform access barring check, the wireless communication device comprising:
processing circuitry; and
memory coupled with the processing circuitry, wherein the memory includes instructions that when executed by the processing circuitry causes the communication device to:
send, by the SN, a resource status update to the MN;
identify, by the MN, based on the resource status update, a load condition of the SN;
determine, by the MN, based on the load condition, MCG access barring information and SCG access barring information;
send, by the MN to by the wireless communication device, MCG access barring information and SCG access barring information;
identify, by the wireless communication device, an access attempt;
determine, by the wireless communication device, an access category for the access attempt; and
perform, by the wireless communication device, based on the access category determined, the MCG access barring information, and the SCG access barring information, an access barring check for the access attempt
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 1, a method claim, is the broadest independent claim. Claim 1 requires the following limitations:
A UE is in dual connectivity with a master node which controls a master cell group, and with a secondary node which controls a secondary cell group.
The UE receives access barring information.
The barring information is for the secondary cell group.
The UE identifies an access attempt.
The UE determines an access category for the access attempt.
The UE receives access barring information.
The UE performs, based on the access category and the access barring information, an access barring check.
The best reference for this claim is described as follows:
Adjakple et al (publication number 20200221369), hereinafter Adjakple, teaches (please refer to Fig. 2, 3) a UE which receives, from a base station, a configuration of access categories and access barring information for each access category. The UE recognizes a trigger for the UE to initiate access to the base station. Based on the received information, the UE performs a barring check to determine whether to initiate access or not. Adjakple meets almost the entirety of independent claims 1, 17.
Regarding claim 11, Adjakple teaches determining to initiate setup of a new service or session corresponding to an access category for which the wireless communication device does not currently have any service or session established, because in Adjakple Fig. 3, the UE doesn't have a session established yet. However, Adjakple falls short of determining whether the access category is barred for a primary cell, PCell, or for a secondary primary cell, PSCell, via the steps required by claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Adjakple teaches determining to initiate setup of a new service or session corresponding to an access category for which the wireless communication device does not currently have any service or session established, because in Adjakple Fig. 3, the UE doesn't have a session established yet. However, Adjakple falls short of determining whether access for the access category is barred for a secondary primary cell, PSCell, or for a primary cell, PCell, and indicating, by the UE, through signaling or via a PCell or via a master cell group, that the service or session is barred for the UE.
Therefore, in view of their respective base claims, the further limitations of the above-mentioned claims in combination with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art.
There is no new ground of rejection
The instant office action doesn't add any new grounds of rejection. According to MPEP 706.07(a), guidance in determining what constitutes a new ground of rejection is best provided by MPEP § 1207.03(a); and according to MPEP § 1207.03(a):
I. Factual situations that constitute a new ground of rejection are as follows:
1. Changing the statutory basis of rejection from 35 U.S.C. 102 to 35 U.S.C. 103.
2. Changing the statutory basis of rejection from 35 U.S.C. 103 to 35 U.S.C. 102, based on a different teaching.
3. Citing new calculations in support of overlapping ranges.
4. Citing new structure in support of structural obviousness.
5. Pointing to a different portion of the claim to maintain a "new matter" rejection.
II. Factual situations that do not constitute a new ground of rejection are as follows:
1. Citing a different portion of a reference to elaborate upon that which has been cited previously.
2. Changing the statutory basis of rejection from 35 U.S.C. 103 to 35 U.S.C. 102, but relying on the same teachings.
3. Relying on fewer than all references in support of a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, but relying on the same teachings.
4. Changing the order of references in the statement of rejection, but relying on the same teachings of those references.
5. Considering, in order to respond to applicant’s arguments, other portions of a reference submitted by the applicant.
Based on the factual situations listed in MPEP 1207.03(a), the instant office action doesn't add any new grounds of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with regards to claims and rejection analysis have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicants argue, on page 9, last par. to page 10, 2nd par., that Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, a method in a wireless communication device "configured in dual connectivity with a master cell group, MCG, controlled by a master node, MN, and a secondary cell group, SCG, controlled by a secondary node, SN," the method comprising "receiving SCG access barring information" and "performing an access barring check for the access attempt using the access category determined and access barring information." Independent claim 17 recites a corresponding wireless communication device that is caused to "receive SCG access barring information" and "perform an access barring check." The Office Action acknowledges that Adjakple does not teach "a master cell group, MCG, controlled by a master node, MN, and a secondary cell group, SCG, controlled by a secondary node, SN, to perform access barring check" (see Office Action, pg. 14), and relies on Cheng for the dual-connectivity architecture and for the recited SCG access barring information. Cheng, however, does not disclose receiving SCG access barring information. Cheng is directed to resuming communications after a UE leaves an RRC inactive state, and its disclosure regarding the secondary cell group concerns the storage, validation, and resumption of a "lower layer SCG configuration"-not access barring information for the SCG. For example, Cheng describes that the UE "may validate the stored lower-layer SCG configuration" and, in a Msg3 of a RACH procedure, "may indicate whether the stored lower-layer SCG configuration can be resumed for DC communications" (Cheng, [0130]), and that the master node "may transmit a lower-layer SCG configuration for second base station 105-b to UE 115-a in the Msg4 of the RACH procedure" (Cheng, [0133]). None of this concerns access barring information for the SCG.
Examiner’s response to Argument 1: The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ argument, because in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the claims don't exclude a reference which would teach the argued features such as "the UE may validate the stored lower-layer SCG configuration" or, in a Msg3 of a RACH procedure, "may indicate whether the stored lower-layer SCG configuration can be resumed for DC communications". In contrast with the Applicants arguments, Cheng teaches: A method in a wireless communication device configured in dual connectivity (Cheng [0006] UE operates in a DC configuration with a master node (MN) and a secondary node (SN). [0118] In reference to Fig. 2: UE 115-a communicates using a DC configuration; UE simultaneously communicates with first base station 105-a and second base station 105-b) with a master cell group, MCG, controlled by a master node, MN, and a secondary cell group, SCG, controlled by a secondary node, SN (Cheng [0118], [0120] In a DC deployment: First base station 105-a is the MN and provides a set of serving cells forming an MCG. First base station 105-a transports messages for the MCG. Second base station 105-b is the SN and provides a set of serving cells forming an SCG, and second base station 105-b transports messages for the SCG), the method comprising: receiving SCG access barring information (Cheng [0107] UE 115 receives SIB2, which contains RRC configuration information related to cell barring. [0131] and Fig. 3: Msg4 of the RACH procedure is from a base station to a UE [0133] First base station 105-a transmits SCG configuration for second base station 105-b to UE 115-a in the Msg4 of the RACH procedure. Based on this SCG configuration, UE 115-a performs a RACH procedure with second base station 105-b. It would have been obvious to include cell barring information in the SCG configuration sent to the UE in Msg 4).
Argument 2: Applicants argue, on page 10, 3rd par., to page 11, 1st par. that the sole reference to barring anywhere in Cheng appears in a description of the contents of a system information block, which states that "SIB2 may contain RRC configuration information related to random access channel (RACH) procedures, paging, physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), power control, sounding reference signal (SRS), and cell barring" (Cheng, [0107]). This passage lists "cell barring" only as one of several generic items of system information; it does not associate cell barring with the secondary cell group, and it does not disclose SCG access barring information as recited. Cheng accordingly does not teach "receiving SCG access barring information." The Office Action appears to recognize this gap. In combining the references, the Office Action states that "[i]t would have been obvious to include cell barring information in the SCG configuration sent to the UE in Msg4" (see Office Action, pg. 15). Neither Adjakple nor Cheng, however, discloses including access barring information in the SCG configuration. Adjakple' s access barring procedure does not involve any secondary cell group; rather, Adjakple describes a single network indicating, by system information, whether an access category is barred (Adjakple, [0153]-[0154]). Cheng's SCG configuration is a lower-layer configuration used to In re: Pontus W ALLENTIN et al. resume communications, and Cheng does not describe including any access barring information within it. The proposed modification is therefore supplied by the rejection itself rather than by any teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the cited references.
Examiner’s response to Argument 2: The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ argument, because in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, claimed "SCG" doesn't limit the claims. In contrast with the Applicants arguments, Cheng teaches: A method in a wireless communication device configured in dual connectivity (Cheng [0006] UE operates in a DC configuration with a master node (MN) and a secondary node (SN). [0118] In reference to Fig. 2: UE 115-a communicates using a DC configuration; UE simultaneously communicates with first base station 105-a and second base station 105-b) with a master cell group, MCG, controlled by a master node, MN, and a secondary cell group, SCG, controlled by a secondary node, SN (Cheng [0118], [0120] In a DC deployment: First base station 105-a is the MN and provides a set of serving cells forming an MCG. First base station 105-a transports messages for the MCG. Second base station 105-b is the SN and provides a set of serving cells forming an SCG, and second base station 105-b transports messages for the SCG), the method comprising: receiving SCG access barring information (Cheng [0107] UE 115 receives SIB2, which contains RRC configuration information related to cell barring. [0131] and Fig. 3: Msg4 of the RACH procedure is from a base station to a UE [0133] First base station 105-a transmits SCG configuration for second base station 105-b to UE 115-a in the Msg4 of the RACH procedure. Based on this SCG configuration, UE 115-a performs a RACH procedure with second base station 105-b. It would have been obvious to include cell barring information in the SCG configuration sent to the UE in Msg 4).
Argument 3: Applicants argue, on page 11, 2nd to 3rd par., that moreover, the stated motivation does not support the proposed combination. The Office Action relies on Cheng's objective of resuming communications "more efficiently" after a period of inactivity (see Office Action, pp. 15-16, citing Cheng, [0004], [0008]). That objective is directed to efficiently resuming a previously established SCG configuration; it provides no reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate per-access-category barring information into the SCG. Cheng's rationale for resuming a stored configuration is unrelated to the claimed receipt of SCG access barring information and the performance of an access barring check on that basis. Accordingly, the combination of Adjakple and Cheng fails to disclose or suggest at least "receiving SCG access barring information" as recited in independent claim 1 and as correspondingly recited in independent claim 17. Independent claims 1 and 17 are therefore patentable over the cited art, and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 and 17 is respectfully requested.
Examiner’s response to Argument 3: The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ argument, because in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine the references would be that in dual connectivity (DC) and CA configurations, a UE may simultaneously connect to and communicate with a network using multiple cells. In some cases, the UE may resume communications with one or more of the cells after a period of inactivity. Techniques to more efficiently resume communications between the UE and network are desired (Cheng [0004]); also in order to enable the UE to efficiently resume communications with the one or more cells with minimized signaling after exiting the inactive communication state (Cheng [0008]). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Argument 4: Applicants argue, on page 11, 4th par., that Claim 10 is patentable. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 citing Adjakple in view of Cheng, and further in view of Harada (see Office Action, pg. 24). Harada is cited only for "using the SCG access barring information to determine whether network-triggered SCG activation is barred" (see Office Action, pp. 24-25), and is not relied upon to cure the deficiencies of Adjakple and Cheng set forth above with respect to base claim 1. Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and is therefore patentable for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Examiner’s response to Argument 4: The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ argument, because in response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Harada teaches using the SCG access barring information to determine whether network-triggered SCG activation is barred (Harada [0039] and [0046]: In FIG. 3 step S1, the base station 10 transmits configuration using RRC signaling to the terminal 20. The RRC signaling includes information indicating SCG activation or SCG deactivation and information indicating whether network-triggered SCG activation or SCG deactivation is enabled.)
Claim Objections
Claims 13-16, 23-24 are objected to due to an incorrect status identifier. Claims 13-16, 23-24 should be identified as "withdrawn", "withdrawn— currently amended", or canceled. Appropriate correction is required.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Kim et al (publication number 2020/0351754), hereinafter Kim, teaches how a mobile device decides whether it is allowed to start a network access attempt in a 5G/NR or LTE-style system. The network broadcasts a system information block (SIB) that includes barring settings organized by access category. The phone looks up, based on information from the SIB, the access category for the next attempt, finds the matching barring information, and uses that information to decide whether to proceed or wait. This decision is called an "access barring check". In Kim's solution, several access categories can share the same barring settings, which reduces the amount of broadcast data needed. If the access is allowed, the device can continue with connection setup, such as sending a connection establishment message.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Joint Inventors, Common Ownership Presumed
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
Test for Obviousness
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-9, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adjakple (publication number 2020/0221369), hereinafter Adjakple, and further in view of Cheng et al (publication number Cheng 2024/0032135), hereinafter Cheng.
Adjakple uses the following terminology and acronyms:
[0059] wireless transmit/receive units (WTRUs); radio access network (RAN); public switched telephone network (PSTN); user equipment (UE).
[0172] [0256] and Fig.3: UE-AS is the UE Access Stratum (AS); UE-NAS is UE Non-Access Stratum (NAS).
[0131] Access Class Control according to TS 22.011 divides UEs into allocated populations (0-9) and special categories (11-15), so-called access classes. All UEs are members of one out of ten randomly allocated mobile populations (e.g., access Classes 0 to 9). UEs may be members of one or more out of 5 special categories (e.g., access Classes 11 to 15) which are allocated to specific high priority users.
[0148], [0149], TABLE 1: The core network configures access categories in the UE. This configuration includes mapping rules using SIM-stored Access Class(es) (0-15). The access category is dependent on Access Class, Slice, Application and Call Type.
[0210] Radio Resource Control (RRC).
Regarding claim 1, Adjakple teaches a method in a wireless communication device configured in dual connectivity to perform access barring check (Adjakple Fig. 3 represents a method where a UE performs access barring check in block 6. [0118], [0123]: UE in dual connectivity), the method comprising:
receiving access barring information (Adjakple [0148] At step 1 of Fig. 3, the core network configures access categories in the UE. [0153] At step 5 the RAN sends via system information an access control barring indication as to whether an access category is barred or not, using a barring probability factor and barring time);
identifying an access attempt (Adjakple [0129] Access Class control method in the mobile terminal: before a mobile terminal sends the connection request to the base station, the mobile terminal identifies the type of call and determines whether the connection request for the call should be barred. [0154] At step 6 of Fig. 3, before making an access attempt, the AS layer in the UE uses the determined access category to perform an access barring check);
determining an access category for the access attempt (Adjakple Fig. 3 and [0150] At step 2, a trigger to access the network occurs in the NAS layers in the UE. [0151] At step 3, the NAS determines the access category for this particular access trigger, based on the UE configuration in step 1.); and
performing an access barring check for the access attempt using the access category determined and access barring information (Adjakple Fig. 3 and [0154] At step 6 of Fig. 3, before making an access attempt, the AS layer in the UE uses the determined access category to perform an access barring check to check whether the particular access category is barred.)
Adjakple does not explicitly teach: "a master cell group, MCG, controlled by a master node, MN, and a secondary cell group, SCG, controlled by a secondary node, SN, to perform access barring check".
Cheng uses the following terms and acronyms:
[0005] Master cell group (MCG); secondary cell group (SCG); dual connectivity (DC); multi-radio access technology-dual connectivity (MR-DC); carrier aggregation (CA); user equipment (UE); radio resource control (RRC).
[0006] master node (MN); secondary node (SN).
[0072] The term “cell” refers to a logical communication entity used for communication with a base station 105 (e.g., over a carrier). Therefore, the base station controls the cell.
[0118] In reference to Fig. 2: First base station 105-a is the master node (MN) which provides coverage to first cell 205-a, which is a PCell in the DC deployment. Second base station 105-b is the secondary node (SN) which provides coverage to a secondary cell 205-b, which is the PSCell in the DC deployment. Each base station 105-a, b uses additional SCells. Cells controlled by the MN form a master cell group (MCG) and cells controlled by the SN form a secondary cell group (SCG).
Cheng teaches:
A method in a wireless communication device configured in dual connectivity (Cheng [0006] UE operates in a DC configuration with a master node (MN) and a secondary node (SN). [0118] In reference to Fig. 2: UE 115-a communicates using a DC configuration; UE simultaneously communicates with first base station 105-a and second base station 105-b) with a master cell group, MCG, controlled by a master node, MN, and a secondary cell group, SCG, controlled by a secondary node, SN (Cheng [0118], [0120] In a DC deployment: First base station 105-a is the MN and provides a set of serving cells forming an MCG. First base station 105-a transports messages for the MCG. Second base station 105-b is the SN and provides a set of serving cells forming an SCG, and second base station 105-b transports messages for the SCG), the method comprising:
receiving SCG access barring information (Cheng [0107] UE 115 receives SIB2, which contains RRC configuration information related to cell barring. [0131] and Fig. 3: Msg4 of the RACH procedure is from a base station to a UE [0133] First base station 105-a transmits SCG configuration for second base station 105-b to UE 115-a in the Msg4 of the RACH procedure. Based on this SCG configuration, UE 115-a performs a RACH procedure with second base station 105-b. It would have been obvious to include cell barring information in the SCG configuration sent to the UE in Msg 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Adjakple, by enabling the UE to operate in a DC configuration with a master node (MN) and a secondary node (SN), and the base station to send a Msg4 including SCG configuration for the secondary node to the UE for the UE to perform a RACH procedure with the SN, and to include barring information in a Msg4 or another message sent on the downlink to the UE, as suggested by Cheng, because in dual connectivity (DC) and CA configurations, a UE may simultaneously connect to and communicate with a network using multiple cells. In some cases, the UE may resume communications with one or more of the cells after a period of inactivity. Techniques to more efficiently resume communications between the UE and network are desired (Cheng [0004]); also in order to enable the UE to efficiently resume communications with the one or more cells with minimized signaling after exiting the inactive communication state (Cheng [0008]). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 2, Adjakple teaches further comprising determining the outcome of the access barring check (Adjakple Fig. 2 diamond-shaped box represents a barring evaluation determining one of two outcomes: either a connection request, or the connection request is barred. [0210] executing, based on determining that the access attempt is not barred, a Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection establishment procedure. Fig. 29 and [0218] At step 6 if the access is barred, the procedure ends.)
Regarding claim 3, Adjakple teaches further comprising: responsive to an outcome of the access barring check being to allow the access attempt, proceeding with the access attempt; and responsive to the outcome of the access barring check being to bar the access attempt, not proceeding with the access attempt (Adjakple Fig. 2 diamond-shaped box represents a barring evaluation determining one of two outcomes: either a connection request, or the connection request is barred. [0210] executing, based on determining that the access attempt is not barred, a Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection establishment procedure. Fig. 29 and [0218] At step 6 if the access is barred, the procedure ends.)
Regarding claim 4, Adjakple teaches wherein receiving the SCG access barring information (Adjakple [0148] At step 1 of Fig. 3, the core network configures access categories in the UE. [0153] At step 5 the RAN sends via system information an access control barring indication as to whether an access category is barred or not, using a barring probability factor and barring time) comprises receiving unified access control barring information (Adjakple [0146] The RAN2 working group of 3GPP is considering a unified access control framework, where each UE will evaluate whether or not it is allowed to access the network based on access barring configuration information signaled by the network).
Regarding claim 5, Adjakple teaches wherein receiving the SCG access barring information (Adjakple [0148] At step 1 of Fig. 3, the core network configures access categories in the UE. [0153] At step 5 the RAN sends via system information an access control barring indication as to whether an access category is barred or not, using a barring probability factor and barring time) comprises receiving access barring information via dedicated radio resource control, RRC, signalling from the MN (Adjakple [0189] In an example, the UE may be configured by the radio access network (e.g. gNB) with the access categories through dedicated RRC signaling.).
Regarding claim 6, Adjakple teaches wherein receiving the SCG access barring information comprises receiving the access barring information via system information transmitted from the SN (Adjakple [0148] At step 1 of Fig. 3, the core network configures access categories in the UE. [0153] At step 5 the RAN sends via system information an access control barring indication as to whether an access category is barred or not, using a barring probability factor and barring time).
Regarding claim 7, Adjakple teaches further comprising: obtaining MCG access barring information (Adjakple [0148] At step 1 of Fig. 3, the core network configures access categories in the UE. [0153] At step 5 the RAN sends via system information an access control barring indication as to whether an access category is barred or not, using a barring probability factor and barring time).
Adjakple does not explicitly teach: "determining whether to use the SCG access barring information or MCG access barring information in the access attempt".
Cheng teaches: determining whether to use the SCG access barring information or MCG access barring information in the access attempt (Cheng [0130] UE 115-a initiates a RACH procedure by transmitting a Msg1. After receiving a Msg2, UE 115-a validates the stored lower-layer SCG configuration, based on the validity timer and threshold IEs. Subsequently, in a Msg3 of the RACH procedure, the UE indicates whether or not the stored lower-layer SCG configuration can be resumed for DC communications with second base station 105-b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Adjakple, by enabling the UE to validate the stored lower-layer SCG configuration, based on the validity timer and threshold IEs, and to send a Msg3 of the RACH procedure indicating whether or not the stored lower-layer SCG configuration can be resumed for DC communications with second base station, as suggested by Cheng, because in dual connectivity (DC) and CA configurations, a UE may simultaneously connect to and communicate with a network using multiple cells. In some cases, the UE may resume communications with one or more of the cells after a period of inactivity. Techniques to more efficiently resume communications between the UE and network are desired (Cheng [0004]); also in order to enable the UE to efficiently resume communications with the one or more cells with minimized signaling after exiting the inactive communication state (Cheng [0008]). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 8, Adjakple teaches wherein performing an access barring check (Adjakple Fig. 3 and [0154] At step 6 of Fig. 3, before making an access attempt, the AS layer in the UE uses the determined access category to perform an access barring check to check whether the particular access category is barred) comprises applying MCG access barring information or SCG access barring information based on a type of the access attempt (Adjakple [0194] If the access attempt is not allowed, further access attempts of the same type may then be barred for a time period. Table 1 relates call type with access class – therefore, the barring information is based also on call type).
Regarding claim 9, Adjakple teaches wherein identifying an access attempt (Adjakple [0129] Access Class control method in the mobile terminal: before a mobile terminal sends the connection request to the base station, the mobile terminal identifies the type of call and determines whether the connection request for the call should be barred. [0154] At step 6 of Fig. 3, before making an access attempt, the AS layer in the UE uses the determined access category to perform an access barring check) comprises mapping the access attempt onto one of access categories and access identities (Adjakple [0159] Access category mapping rules to combinations of attributes such as event type, applications, services, slice, call type, device category, QoS Classification Index (QCI), QoS Flow. [0192] All possible combination of the attributes (e.g. Access Class, Slice, Application, OS, Call Type, Traffic Flow or Packet Flow, Service Data Flow, QoS Flow, QCI, Subscription Profile, etc.) of an access category may be enumerated and mapped to an access category value or access category identifier.).
Regarding claim 17, Adjakple teaches a wireless communication device configured in dual connectivity to perform access barring check (Adjakple Fig. 3 represents a method where a UE performs access barring check in block 6. [0118], [0123]: UE in dual connectivity), the wireless communication device comprising:
processing circuitry (Adjakple [0073] FIG. 1B is a block diagram of a WTRU 102; processor 118); and
memory coupled with the processing circuitry (Adjakple [0073] FIG. 1B WTRU 102; processor 118; non-removable memory 130; removable memory 132), wherein the memory includes instructions that when executed by the processing circuitry (Adjakple [0116] computer executable instructions, e.g., program code, stored on a computer-readable storage medium which instructions, when executed by a processor 118…) causes the communication device to:
receive access barring information (Adjakple [0148] At step 1 of Fig. 3, the core network configures access categories in the UE. [0153] At step 5 the RAN sends via system information an access control barring indication as to whether an access category is barred or not, using a barring probability factor and barring time);
identify an access attempt (Adjakple [0129] Access Class control method in the mobile terminal: before a mobile terminal sends the connection request to the base station, the mobile terminal identifies the type of call and determines whether the connection request for the call should be barred. [0154] At step 6 of Fig. 3, before making an access attempt, the AS layer in the UE uses the determined access category to perform an access barring check);
determine an access category for the access attempt (Adjakple Fig. 3 and [0150] At step 2, a trigger to access the network occurs in the NAS layers in the UE. [0151] At step 3, the NAS determines the access category for this particular access trigger, based on the UE configuration in step 1.); and
perform an access barring check for the access attempt using the access category determined and access barring information (Adjakple Fig. 3 and [0154] At step 6 of Fig. 3, before making an access attempt, the AS layer in the UE uses the determined access category to perform an access barring check to check whether the particular access category is barred.)
Adjakple does not explicitly teach: "a master cell group, MCG, controlled by a master node, MN, and a secondary cell group, SCG, controlled by a secondary node, SN, to perform access barring check".
Cheng teaches:
A method in a wireless communication device configured in dual connectivity (Cheng [0006] UE operates in a DC configuration with a master node (MN) and a secondary node (SN). [0118] In reference to Fig. 2: UE 115-a communicates using a DC configuration; UE simultaneously communicates with first base station 105-a and second base station 105-b) with a master cell group, MCG, controlled by a master node, MN, and a secondary cell group, SCG, controlled by a secondary node, SN (Cheng [0118], [0120] In a DC deployment: First base station 105-a is the MN and provides a set of serving cells forming an MCG. First base station 105-a transports messages for the MCG. Second base station 105-b is the SN and provides a set of serving cells forming an SCG, and second base station 105-b transports messages for the SCG), the method comprising:
receiving SCG access barring information (Cheng [0107] UE 115 receives SIB2, which contains RRC configuration information related to cell barring. [0131] and Fig. 3: Msg4 of the RACH procedure is from a base station to a UE [0133] First base station 105-a transmits SCG configuration for second base station 105-b to UE 115-a in the Msg4 of the RACH procedure. Based on this SCG configuration, UE 115-a performs a RACH procedure with second base station 105-b. It would have been obvious to include cell barring information in the SCG configuration sent to the UE in Msg 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Adjakple, by enabling the UE to operate in a DC configuration with a master node (MN) and a secondary node (SN), and the base station to send a Msg4 including SCG configuration for the secondary node to the UE for the UE to perform a RACH procedure with the SN, and to include barring information in a Msg4 or another message sent on the downlink to the UE, as suggested by Cheng, because in dual connectivity (DC) and CA configurations, a UE may simultaneously connect to and communicate with a network using multiple cells. In some cases, the UE may resume communications with one or more of the cells after a period of inactivity. Techniques to more efficiently resume communications between the UE and network are desired (Cheng [0004]); also in order to enable the UE to efficiently resume communications with the one or more cells with minimized signaling after exiting the inactive communication state (Cheng [0008]). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 18, Adjakple teaches determining the outcome of the access barring check (Adjakple Fig. 2 diamond-shaped box represents a barring evaluation determining one of two outcomes: either a connection request, or the connection request is barred. [0210] executing, based on determining that the access attempt is not barred, a Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection establishment procedure. Fig. 29 and [0218] At step 6 if the access is barred, the procedure ends.)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adjakple, in view of Cheng, and further in view of Harada et al (publication number 2024/0090054), hereinafter Harada.
Regarding claim 10, Adjakple teaches wherein performing the access barring check (Adjakple Fig. 3 and [0154] At step 6 of Fig. 3, before making an access attempt, the AS layer in the UE uses the determined access category to perform an access barring check to check whether the particular access category is barred).
Adjakple as modified does not explicitly teach: "using the SCG access barring information to determine whether network-triggered SCG activation is barred."
Harada teaches using the SCG access barring information to determine whether network-triggered SCG activation is barred (Harada [0039] and [0046]: In FIG. 3 step S1, the base station 10 transmits configuration using RRC signaling to the terminal 20. The RRC signaling includes information indicating SCG activation or SCG deactivation and information indicating whether network-triggered SCG activation or SCG deactivation is enabled.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Adjakple as modified, by enabling the base station to transmit configuration information using RRC signaling which indicates SCG activation or SCG deactivation and information indicating whether network-triggered SCG activation or SCG deactivation is enabled, as suggested by Harada, in order to develop a technique for improving reliability of communication control by a network in a wireless communication system (Harada [0009]). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
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 extension fee 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 RONALD EISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3334. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Tuesday from 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kathy Wang-Hurst, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats see MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/RONALD EISNER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights