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 1/10/2024.
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).
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.
Telephone Election
During a telephone conversation with Ms. Lynne Borchers, Reg. No. 49,090, on 12/16/2025, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, formed by claims 1-12, 17-18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 13-16, 23-24 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Requirement for Unity of Invention
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475(c).
Restriction Requirement in National Stage Applications Submitted Under 35 U.S.C. 371
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group Descriptions:
Group I
Group II
Claims 1-12, 17-18, directed to par. 120-125 of the specification in reference to Fig. 17, classified as H04W48/10. Description:
A method in a user equipment (UE) for checking whether an access attempt needs to be barred or not.
Claims 13-16, 23-24, directed to par. 135-136 of the specification in reference to Fig. 21, classified as H04W48/02. Description:
A method in a 5G node-B (gNB) for generating secondary cell group (SCG) access barring rules and sending them to a UE.
Claim limitations, highlighting differences between the groups:
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:
receiving SCG 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.
Claim limitations, highlighting differences between the groups:
13. (Currently Amended) A method by a network node to perform access barring, the method comprising:
generating secondary cell group, SCG, access barring information; and
sending the SCG access barring information towards a user equipment, UE, configured in dual connectivity using the network node as a secondary node, SN.
I. Group I, formed by claims 1-12, 17-18, directed to par. 120-125 of the specification in reference to Fig. 17, classified as H04W48/10. The claims of Group I are focused on a method in a user equipment (UE) for checking whether an access attempt needs to be barred or not. Group I lacks unity with the remaining group, because Group I requires at least the following features not required by the remaining group: 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.
II. Group II, formed by claims 13-16, 23-24, directed to par. 135-136 of the specification in reference to Fig. 21, classified as H04W48/02. The claims of Group II are focused on a method in a 5G node-B (gNB) for generating secondary cell group (SCG) access barring rules and sending them to a UE. Group II lacks unity with the remaining group, because Group II requires at least the following features not required by the remaining group: generating secondary cell group, SCG, access barring information; and sending the SCG access barring information towards a user equipment, UE, configured in dual connectivity using the network node as a secondary node, SN.
Therefore, there is no single general inventive concept.
Lack of Unity - Reasons Why Inventions Lack Unity
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Group I requires at least the following features not required by the remaining groups: 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.
Group II requires at least the following features not required by the remaining groups: generating secondary cell group, SCG, access barring information; and sending the SCG access barring information towards a user equipment, UE, configured in dual connectivity using the network node as a secondary node, SN.
Same or Corresponding Technical Feature Lacking Among Groups
Groups I, II lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature.
An argument frequently seen is that treatment of Unity of Invention at the National Stage would be bound by the action issued by the International Search Authority; however, that argument is not correct, and is not supported by the MPEP. A lack of unity action may be made at the National Stage, even when no such indication was made during the international phase; please refer to MPEP 1893.03(d) and 37 C.F.R. 1.499 “Unity of invention during the national stage”: If the examiner finds that a national stage application lacks unity of invention under § 1.475, the examiner may in an Office action require the applicant in the response to that action to elect the invention to which the claims shall be restricted. Such requirement may be made before any action on the merits but may be made at any time before the final action at the discretion of the examiner. Review of any such requirement is provided under §§ 1.143 and 1.144.
Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered
The information disclosure statement filed on 1/10/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because NPL reference number 4 is missing a date. See MPEP 609.04(a), Content Requirements for an Information Disclosure Statement. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any resubmission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing elements will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings Objected To
The drawings are objected to because Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art--. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Illustration of "Prior Art"
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled "Replacement Sheet" in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. In this case, par, 3 of the specification states: " Figure 1 illustrates different types of available overload control mechanisms that may be used and are exemplified in Figure 1 as function of the system load." Therefore, Fig. 1 represents prior art.
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
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