DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remark
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 07/13/26.
a. Independent claims have been amended.
b. Claims 19, 25, 28, and 34 have been canceled.
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 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.
Claims 18, 20-24, 26, 27, 29-33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2023/0071260, “Kim”) in view of Agiwal (US 2024/0388998, “Agiwal”).
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses a communication method performed by a reduced capability (RedCap) user equipment (UE), or a chip in a RedCap UE, comprising:
- receiving a master information block (MIB), wherein a cellBarred field in the MIB indicates whether a cell is barred (See 4A-01 Fig.4 and ¶.144, the reduced capability terminal receives a MIB with a first information indicating whether or not the cell is barred set to notBarred);
- in response to the cellBarred field in the MIB indicating the cell is not barred (See ¶.92, the RedCap UE determines that the current cell is not barred if all of the following conditions are satisfied; See ¶.144, the MIB with a first information indicating the cell is barred set to notBarred) and a system information block 1 (SIB 1) not comprising a RedCap specific intraFreqReselection (IFRI) field (See ¶.95, the absence of IFRI_SIB1 means that the corresponding cell does not consider the operation of the RedCap UE; See ¶.109, Table #7, ‘It is determined that RedCap is not supported in the corresponding frequency;
[AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
214
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See ¶.112, alternatively, If IFRI_SIB1 is preconfigured to be considered as Allowed when UE has received SIB1 from the base station but IFRI_SIB1 is not included, IFRI_SIB1 is considered as Allowed), determining that the RedCap UE or the chip is allowed to perform an intra-frequency reselection operation (See ¶.68, in steps 3A-15, the RedCap UE receives SIB1. The RedCap UE stores the acquired SIB1. SIB1 includes ServingCellConfigCommon, which is common configuration information of a serving cell, and a second intraFreqReselection. The second intraFreqReselection is defined as enumerated with one of Allowed and notAllowed. It is also called IFRI_SIB; See ¶.93-94, <Cell Allowance Conditions> [0094] 0: The received MIB's cellBarred is set to notBarred; See ¶.109 and Table #7, the RedCap UE may be given two IFRI parameters: IFRI_MIB and IFRI_SIB1. RedCap UE considers two parameters and determines whether to allow intra-frequency reselection as shown in the table #7; See ¶.112, alternatively, If IFRI_SIB1 is preconfigured to be considered as Allowed when UE has received SIB1 from the base station but IFRI_SIB1 is not included, IFRI_SIB1 is considered as Allowed), wherein the SIB 1 is received after the MIB (See 3A-13 & 3A-15 Fig.3, receiving SIB1 after receiving MIB; See 4A-03 Fig.4, receiving the SIB 1 after receiving the MIB); and
- wherein the RedCap specific intraFreqReselection field indicates whether the RedCap UE or the chip is allowed to perform the intra-frequency reselection operation (See 3A-15 Fig.3 and ¶.68, in steps 3A-15, the RedCap UE receives SIB1. The RedCap UE stores the acquired SIB1. SIB1 includes ServingCellConfigCommon, which is common configuration information of a serving cell, and a second intraFreqReselection. The second intraFreqReselection is defined as enumerated with one of Allowed and notAllowed. It is also called IFRI_SIB; See ¶.109 and Table #7, the RedCap UE may be given two IFRI parameters: IFRI_MIB and IFRI_SIB1. RedCap UE considers two parameters and determines whether to allow intra-frequency reselection as shown in the table #7; See ¶.112, alternatively, If IFRI_SIB1 is preconfigured to be considered as Allowed when UE has received SIB1 from the base station but IFRI_SIB1 is not included, IFRI_SIB1 is considered as Allowed).
Kim discloses that the RedCap terminals have a bandwidth of 20 MHz, a transmission/reception speed of several tens of Mbps, and two or less Rx processing units (i.e. one or two Rx branches) (Kim, See ¶.46). Agiwal further explicitly discloses the newly added limitations “wherein the RedCap UE with 1 Rx branch or with 2 Rx branches” (Agiwal, See ¶.72, a RedCap specific IFRI (Intra frequency reselection indication) is specified in SIB1. IFRI for RedCap UEs in SIB1 is common for UEs with 1 Rx or 2 Rx branches).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “wherein the RedCap UE with 1 Rx branch or with 2 Rx branches” as taught by Agiwal into the system of Kim, so that it provides a way of applying the method for RedCap UEs to be common for UEs with 1 Rx or 2 Rx branches (Agiwal, See ¶.72).
Regarding claim 20, Kim and Agiwal disclose “in response to the cellBarred field in the MIB indicating the cell is not barred, and the SIB 1 comprising the RedCap specific intraFreqReselection field, determining whether the RedCap UE or the chip is allowed to perform the intra-frequency reselection operation based on the RedCap specific intraFreqReselection field (Kim, ¶.149 and Table #7); wherein the RedCap UE is a RedCap UE with the 1 Rx branch, and a RedCap specific cellBarred field in the SIB 1 indicates the RedCap UE with the 1 RX branch is not allowed to camp on the cell (Agiwal, 115 Fig.1, ‘Is the intraFreqReslecction field in acquired SIB1?’ -> ‘yes’ or ‘no’; See 225 Fig.2; See 120 Fig.1, ‘Does the UE support only one RX?’; See 150 Fig.1; See 240 Fig.2; See ¶.20-22, UE is a redcap UE with one RX chain and a bar_1Rx field in the SIB1 is set to barred or in case that the UE is a redcap UE with two RX chains and a bar_2Rx field in the SIB1 is set to barred, identifying the intra frequency reselection field in the SIB1; and in case that the cell operates in a licensed spectrum, based on the intra frequency selection field set to not allowed, excluding the cell and another cell on the same frequency as a candidate for cell reselection for predetermined duration).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “wherein the RedCap UE is a RedCap UE with the 1 Rx branch, and a RedCap specific cellBarred field in the SIB 1 indicates the RedCap UE with the 1 RX branch is not allowed to camp on the cell” as taught by Agiwal into the system of Kim, so that it provides a way of excluding the cell and another cell on the same frequency as a candidate for cell reselection for predetermined duration (Agiwal, See ¶.20).
Regarding claim 21, Kim and Agiwal disclose “in response to the cellBarred field in the MIB indicating the cell is not barred, and the SIB 1 comprises the RedCap specific intraFreqReselection field, determining whether the RedCap UE or the chip is allowed to perform the intra-frequency reselection operation based on the RedCap specific intraFreqReselection field (Kim, ¶.149 and Table #7); wherein the RedCap UE is a RedCap UE with the 2 Rx branches, and a RedCap specific cellBarred field in the SIB 1 indicates the RedCap UE with 2RX branches is not allowed to camp on the cell (Agiwal, See 140 Fig.1, ‘Is the bar_2RX field in acquired SIB1 set to barred?’; See 150 Fig.1, ‘not allowed’; See 260 & 24 Fig.2).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 20.
Regarding claim 22, Kim discloses “the RedCap UE is in a radio resource control (RRC) idle mode or in an RRC inactive mode (See ¶.37, support of UEs in RRC_INACTIVE state).”
Regarding claim 23, Kim discloses “in response to that the cellBarred field in the MIB indicates the cell is barred, determining by the RedCap UE or the chip that the cell is barred (See ¶.1-7, table #6, “successful reception of MIB with cellBarred set to Barred then the current cell is considered a barred cell”).”
Regarding claim 24, it is a method claim performed by a network device corresponding to the method claim 18 performed by a reduced capability UE and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 26, it is a claim corresponding to the claim 22 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 27, it is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 18, except the limitations “a process or an interface (See Fig.5A-B)” and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claims 29-32, they are claims corresponding to claims 20, 21, 22, & 23, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Regarding claim 33, it is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 24, except the limitations “a process or an interface (See Fig.5A-B)” and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 35, it is a claim corresponding to the claim 26 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At pages 7-8, with respect to claim 1, applicant argues that “Kim does not disclose the claimed two-condition rule recited in the independent claims. For example, claim 18 requires that, "in response to that the cellBarred field in the MIB indicates the cell is not barred, and a system information block 1 (SIB 1) does not comprise a RedCap specific intraFreqReselection field," the RedCap UE or chip determines that it "is allowed to perform an intra-frequency reselection operation," with SIB1 being received after the MIB. Thus, claim 18 does not merely require receiving a MIB or receiving SIB1. It requires the specific result of determining that intra-frequency reselection is allowed in response to the recited circumstance in which the MIB cellBarred field indicates not barred and the subsequently received SIB1 does not comprise the RedCap-specific intraFreqReselection field.” by asserting that;
“Kim's Figure 4 disclosure confirms that Kim does not teach what the claims require. In Figure 4, step 4A-01, the reduced capability terminal receives, in a first NR cell, "a master information block with a first information indicating whether or not the cell is barred set to notBarred" and information corresponding to where SIB1 is scheduled. In step 4A-03, the terminal receives SIB1. In step 4A-05, the terminal determines a second IFRI, and in step 4A-07, the terminal performs cell selection or reselection according to that determination. Kim then expressly states that, "[i]f the second IFRI is not included in the SIB1, the reduced capability terminal considers that the second IFRI is set to notAllowed and excludes the second NR cell of the same frequency as the first NR cell from cell reselection candidates." Kim, Fig. 4, steps 4A-01, 4A-03, 4A-05, 4A-07. Accordingly, for the same circumstance relied upon by the Office Action-MIB indicating notBarred and SIB1 lacking the SIB1 IFRI-Kim does not determine that intra- frequency reselection is allowed. Kim instead treats the missing SIB1 IFRI as notAllowed and excludes same-frequency cells from reselection candidates. Kim's Table 7 confirms the same distinction. Table 7 identifies IFRI_MIB and IFRI_SIB1 values and the resulting RedCap UE operation. For the row in which IFRI_MIB is "Allowed" and IFRI_SIB1 is "Not Present," Table 7 states that "IFRI_SIB1 is considered as NotAllowed" and notes that "[i]t is determined that RedCap is not supported in the corresponding frequency." Kim, Table 7. Table 7 repeats the same "Not Present" rule when IFRI_MIB is "Not Allowed": "IFRI_SIB1 is considered as NotAllowed," and "[i]t is determined that RedCap is not supported in the corresponding frequency." Thus, Kim's tabulated rule is the opposite of the claimed rule. Kim does not disclose that absence of the RedCap-specific intraFreqReselection field in SIB1, together with a not-barred MIB cellBarred indication, results in an allowed intra-frequency reselection determination.”
In reply, the limitations “in response to that the cellBarred field in the MIB indicates the cell is not barred, and a system information block 1 (SIB 1) does not comprise a RedCap specific intraFreqReselection field” explicitly read on:
¶.[0066] of Kim discloses “the MIB includes cellBarred, which is 1-bit information indicating whether or not the cell is barred. cellBarred indicates either barred or notBarred. The UE uses cellBarred to determine whether to bar the cell.” [emphasis added].
¶.[0093] of Kim discloses “<Cell Allowance Conditions> [0094] 0: The received MIB's cellBarred is set to notBarred.” [emphasis added].
¶.[0112] of Kim discloses “If the RedCap UE receives IFRI_MIB but does not receive IFRI_SIB1, it determines IFRI_SIB1 by distinguishing whether SIB1 reception has failed or IFRI_SIB1 is not included in SIB1. If the reception of SIB1 is unsuccessful, the UE considers that IFRI_SIB1 is the same as IFRI_MIB. If SIB1 is received but IFRI_SIB1 is not included, the UE considers that IFRI_SIB1 is a predetermined value. This is because, since cells of the same frequency in the same region are highly likely to be configured identically, if IFRI_SIB1 is not provided in the current cell, it is highly likely that IFRI_SIB1 is not provided in other cells as well. Alternatively, If IFRI_SIB1 is preconfigured to be considered as Allowed when UE has received SIB1 from the base station but IFRI_SIB1 is not included, IFRI_SIB1 is considered as Allowed.” [emphasis added].
At pages 9-11, with respect to claims 20, 21, 29, and 30, applicant argues that “Agiwal does not make up for the shortcomings. The Office Action relies on Agiwal for RedCap-specific barring fields for 1 Rx and 2 Rx RedCap UEs, including bar_1RX and bar_2RX fields in SIB1. Agiwal's cited Figure 1 disclosure addresses a 1 RX UE for which a bar_1RX field in SIB1 is set to barred, and a 2 RX UE for which a bar_2RX field in SIB1 is set to barred. Agiwal then describes considering the cell barred and, when the intraFreqReselection field in SIB1 is set to not allowed, barring the frequency. Agiwal, Fig. 1, operations 120-150. Agiwal's Figure 2 disclosure similarly addresses 1 RX and 2 RX RedCap UE barring using bar_1RX and bar_2RX fields and frequency barring or non-barring depending on additional conditions. Agiwal, Fig. 2, operations 225-260. These disclosures concern RedCap-specific cell barring and frequency- barring behavior. They do not teach modifying Kim's express missing-SIB1-IFRI rule so that absence of the RedCap-specific intraFreqReselection field in SIB1 produces an allowed intra- frequency reselection determination under the claimed not-barred MIB condition.”
In reply, in other words, as described in para.[0112], Kim discloses and/or suggests that the RedCap UE receives IFRI_MIB and SIB1, but if IFRI_SIB1 is not included, the UE considers that IFRI_SIB1 is a predetermined value. Alternatively, If IFRI_SIB1 is preconfigured to be considered as Allowed when UE has received SIB1 from the base station, but IFRI_SIB1 is not included, IFRI_SIB1 is considered as Allowed.”[emphasis added]. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jung H Park whose telephone number is 571-272-8565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM-3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/JUNG H PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights