DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
Claim 1, 4-8,10-11 and 14-21 remain pending in the application. The Applicant amended claims and add new claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection of claim 1,4-8,10-11 and 14-21 under 35 USC § 103 as unpatentable is maintained.
Regard to the Remarks A on page 8, Applicant argues that, Decarreau does not teach feature of claim 1 "determining a capability of the first cell based on the first message". Applicant state that the teaching of Decarreau on paragraph [0102] “The information indicative of whether a first cell supports the user equipment may be received by a UE reading system information, for example a System Information Block (SIB) or any other suitable information broadcast or block. Information indicative of whether a first cell supports the user equipment may indicate whether the cell supports a particular category of UE. The information may, for example, comprise a bit and/or or a flag, such as a bit and/or a flag in a SIB, and/or may comprise any other suitable element for conveying the information." is fundamentally different from the claimed limitation.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Decarreau does teaches this feature of the claims. By definition from application’s specification on paragraph [0160] “For an intra-frequency reselection mechanism, the current standard has agreed to add, to the SIB1, an intra-frequency reselection indication specific to the terminal device with the reduced capability (RedCap specific IFRI).” Decarreau further discloses that “ the UE may receive a HANDOVER FROM UTRAN COMMAND message. Before performing RA, a UE may read the SIBs of target cells. For example, prior to making a Random Access (RA) to an LTE cell, a UE, for example a Cat. 0 UE, may read the relevant System Information Block (SIB) to determine if the cell supports that category of UE." See Decarreau, paragraph [0103].
The combination of Decarreau and Babaei as cited in previous Office Action still read on the amended claims 1, and 10. See detailed U.S.C 103 rejections below.
Regard to the Remarks B on page 9, Applicant argues that, Babaei Does Not Cure the Deficiencies of Decarreau. Applicant state that Babaei measurement configuration parameters are used for a measurement procedure and measurement reporting-they are not used to determine whether a target cell supports serving the first type of terminal device based on a handover message. Babaei does not teach “determining the capability of a target cell from a handover command, nor does Babaei teach that the first information comprises an intra-frequency reselection indication or a cell bar indication.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Babaei does teach “ determining whether to access the first cell based on the capability of the first cell.” In paragraph [0128] Babaei discloses “Based on the one or more TCI states indicated to the UE, the UE may determine a downlink receive beam and receive downlink transmissions using the receive beam. In case of a beam correspondence, the UE may determine a spatial domain filter of a transmit beam based on spatial domain filter of a corresponding receive beam.”
Regard to the Remarks C on page 9: Claim 3, 9, and 13 are canceled. The features of the claims are incorporated into claim 1, 8, and 11.
Regard to the Remarks D on page 10: Applicant argues that, Babaei does not teach feature of claim 8, which recites “the first information comprises: an intra-frequency reselection indication corresponding to the first type of terminal device or a cell bar indication corresponding to the first type of terminal device”. Applicant state that, Babaei does not teach that the handover response message carries first information comprising an intra-frequency reselection indication or a cell bar indication.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Babaei does teach the handover response message carries first information comprising an intra-frequency reselection indication or a cell bar indication. Babaei on paragraph [0172] discloses the intra-freqency measurement “ In an example, intra-frequency neighbor (cell) measurements and inter-frequency neighbor (cell) measurements may be defined as follows: SSB based intra-frequency measurement: a measurement is defined as an SSB based intra-frequency measurement provided the center frequency of the SSB of the serving cell and the center frequency of the SSB of the neighbor cell are the same, and the subcarrier spacing of the two SSBs may also be the same.”.
Furthermore, as mentioned above on (4). Decarreau also discloses the “an intra-frequency reselection indication corresponding to the first type of terminal device or a cell bar indication corresponding to the first type of terminal device” in SIB1.
The combination of Decarreau and Babaei as cited in previous Office Action still read on the amended claims 8. See detailed U.S.C 103 rejections below.
Regard to dependent claims: 5, 6, 10, 15, and 16: Applicant’s argument with respect to the rejection of the claims have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, rejection is made in view of Decarreau and Babaei as cited in previous Office Action still read on the amended claims. Subsequently the dependent claims are rejected as stated below in detail.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over DECARREAU et al. (hereinafter “Decarreau”, US2017/0201915) in view of Babaei (hereinafter “Babaei”, US2021/0235339).
Regarding claims 1, and 11, Decarreau discloses a method and an apparatus, comprising:
one or more processors (i.e., The embodiments of this invention may be implemented by computer software executable by a data processor of the mobile device, such as in the processor entity, or by hardware, or by a combination of software and hardware. As described in paragraph [0118]); and
one or more memories coupled to the one or more processors and storing programming instructions for execution by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to perform a method comprising: (i.e., The software may be stored on such physical media as memory chips, or memory blocks implemented within the processor. As described in paragraph [0119]).
receiving a first message from a first access network device, wherein the first message indicates to hand over the first terminal device to a first cell, and the first cell corresponds to a second access network device; (i.e., The UE may receive a handover (HO) command from a node such as a RNC and/or base station of the source network to handover to the target cell. As described in paragraph [0101]);
determining a capability of the first cell based on the first message, wherein determining the capability of the first cell based on the first message comprises:
in response to the first message carrying first information, determining that the first cell supports serving the first type of terminal device: (i.e., The information indicative of whether a first cell supports the user equipment may be received by a UE reading system information, for example a System Information Block (SIB) or any other suitable information broadcast or block. Information indicative of whether a first cell supports the user equipment may indicate whether the cell supports a particular category of UE. The information may, for example, comprise a bit and/or or a flag, such as a bit and/or a flag in a SIB, and/or may comprise any other suitable element for conveying the information. As described in paragraph [0102]).
or in response to the first message not carrying the first information, determining that the first cell does not support serving the first type of terminal device, (i.e., For example, the UE may receive a HANDOVER FROM UTRAN COMMAND message. Before performing RA, a UE may read the SIBs of target cells. For example, prior to making a Random Access (RA) to an LTE cell, a UE, for example a Cat. 0 UE, may read the relevant System Information Block (SIB) to determine if the cell supports that category of UE. If the cell does not support the category of UE, UE does not perform RA and goes to idle mode. If the cell does support the category of UE, the UE begins a RA process for starting a connection procedure to the cell. In the example of FIG. 4, if the LTE Cells support Cat. 0 UE, the UE may perform RA. If the LTE Cells do not indicate the support of Cat. 0 UE, the UE does not perform RA, may go into idle mode, and therefore ignores a handover command. As described in paragraph [0103]).
wherein the first information indicates that the first cell supports serving the first type of terminal device, and wherein the first information comprises: an intra-frequency reselection indication corresponding to the first type of terminal device or a cell bar indication corresponding to the first type of terminal device, (i.e., The information may, for example, comprise a bit and/or or a flag, such as a bit and/or a flag in a SIB, and/or may comprise any other suitable element for conveying the information. As described in paragraph [0102]);
For example, prior to making a Random Access (RA) to an LTE cell, a UE, for example a Cat. 0 UE, may read the relevant System Information Block (SIB) to determine if the cell supports that category of UE. As described in paragraph [0103].
Decarreau discloses all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose:
wherein the capability of the first cell is whether the first cell supports serving a first type of terminal device, the first terminal device belongs to the first type of terminal device, and the first type of terminal device is a terminal device with a reduced capability; and
determining whether to access the first cell based on the capability of the first cell.
In a similar endeavor, Babaei discloses:
wherein the capability of the first cell is whether the first cell supports serving a first type of terminal device, the first terminal device belongs to the first type of terminal device, and the first type of terminal device is a terminal device with a reduced capability; (i.e., The handover request message may comprise a first information element. A value of the first information element may indicate that the handover request is for a wireless device of a first type. For example, the first information element may indicate that the handover request is for a wireless device with reduced capability. As described in paragraph [0228]). and
determining whether to access the first cell based on the capability of the first cell. (i.e., For example, the base station may determine one or more transmission configuration indication (TCI) states and may indicate the one or more TCI states to the UE (e.g., using RRC signaling, a MAC CE and/or a DCI). Based on the one or more TCI states indicated to the UE, the UE may determine a downlink receive beam and receive downlink transmissions using the receive beam. As described in paragraph [0128]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Babaei into the invention of Decarreau in order to improve communication performance of the novel terminal device.
Regarding claim 4, and 14, Decarreau and Babaei disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above.
Decarreau further discloses wherein determining, based on the capability of the first cell, whether to access the first cell comprises:
in response to the first cell supporting serving the first type of terminal device, accessing the first cell. (i.e., After receiving the information, if the first information indicates that the first cell supports the user equipment, a connection procedure to the first cell is started., As described in paragraph [0101]).
Regarding claim 5, and 15, Decarreau and Babaei disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above.
Decarreau further discloses: wherein determining, based on the capability of the first cell, whether to access the first cell comprises: in response to the first cell not supporting serving the first type of terminal device, performing a radio resource control (RRC) connection re-establishment procedure. (i.e FIG. 6 shows a timing diagram of a method wherein an aborted connection procedure, such as RA procedure, to a cell, for example eNB B, has taken place. That is, a UE has ignored a handover command and has gone to idle mode because it received an indication that it was not supported by a cell. A UE may connect to a second cell, such as eNB A, that supports the category of UE. As described in paragraph [0106]).
Regarding claim 6, and 16, Decarreau and Babaei disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above.
Decarreau further discloses: wherein determining, based on the capability of the first cell, whether to access the first cell comprises:
in response to the first cell not supporting serving the first type of terminal device, establishing a radio resource control (RRC) connection to a second cell, wherein an access network device corresponding to the second cell is different from the access network device corresponding to the first cell. (i.e., When sending RRCconnectioncomplete message to eNB A, the UE may indicate that it has previously aborted a RA because the target cell did not support Category 0 UE. The UE may indicate the Cell ID of the aborted RA to eNB A. As described in paragraph [0107]).
Regarding claim 7, and 17, Decarreau and Babaei disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above.
Decarreau further discloses wherein determining, based on the capability of the first cell, whether to access the first cell comprises:
in response to the first cell not supporting serving the first type of terminal device, entering an RRC idle state. (i.e.,. If the UE is Cat. 0 and does not find the indication, it goes to idle mode and does not perform the handover. As described in paragraph [0104]).
Regarding claim 8, Babaei disclose: A method, applied to a second access network device, and the method comprises:
receiving a handover request message from a first access network device; (i.e., The first base station may start the Handover preparation procedure based on transmitting a handover request message to the second base station. As described in paragraph [0227]).
And sending a handover response message to the first access network device, wherein in response to the second access network device supporting serving a first type of terminal device, the handover response message carries first information, or in response to the second access network device does not supporting serving the first type of terminal device, the handover response message does not carry the first information, (i.e., The second base station may transmit a handover request acknowledge message to the first base station in response to the handover request message. As described in paragraph [0240]).
wherein the first information indicates that the second access network device supports serving the first type of terminal device. (i.e., The handover request message may comprise a first information element. A value of the first information element may indicate that the handover request is for a wireless device of a first type. For example, the first information element may indicate that the handover request is for a wireless device with reduced capability. As described in paragraph [0228]).
wherein the first type of terminal device is a terminal device with a reduced capability. (i.e., The handover request message may comprise a first information element. A value of the first information element may indicate that the handover request is for a wireless device of a first type. For example, the first information element may indicate that the handover request is for a wireless device with reduced capability. As described in paragraph [0228]).
Babaei discloses all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose:
wherein the first information comprises: an intra-frequency reselection indication corresponding to the first type of terminal device or a cell bar indication corresponding to the first type of terminal device
In a similar endeavor, Decarreau discloses:
wherein the first information comprises: an intra-frequency reselection indication corresponding to the first type of terminal device or a cell bar indication corresponding to the first type of terminal device. (i.e., The information may, for example, comprise a bit and/or or a flag, such as a bit and/or a flag in a SIB, and/or may comprise any other suitable element for conveying the information. As described in paragraph [0102]);
For example, prior to making a Random Access (RA) to an LTE cell, a UE, for example a Cat. 0 UE, may read the relevant System Information Block (SIB) to determine if the cell supports that category of UE. As described in paragraph [0103].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Babaei into the invention of Decarreau in order to improve communication performance of the novel terminal device.
Regarding claim 10, Decarreau and Babaei disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above.
Babaei further discloses: wherein before sending the first information to the first access network device, the method further comprises:
determining that a first terminal device is the first type of terminal device; (i.e., The handover request message may comprise a first information element. A value of the first information element may indicate that the handover request is for a wireless device of a first type. As described in paragraph [0228].
Or determining that the first terminal device is the first type of terminal device and that a radio access technology standard supported by the first access network device is higher than long term evolution (LTE).
Regarding claim 18, Decarreau and Babaei disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above.
Decarreau further discloses: wherein the first information is information specific to the first type of terminal device and broadcast by the second access network device based on system information, and the first message carries the information specific to the first type of terminal device and is from the second access network device to indicate a capability of the second access network device. (i.e., The information indicative of whether a first cell supports the user equipment may be received by a UE reading system information, for example a System Information Block (SIB) or any other suitable information broadcast or block. As described in paragraph [0102].)
Regarding claim 19, Decarreau and Babaei disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above.
Decarreau further discloses:
wherein the first message is a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message. (i.e., For example, the UE may receive a HANDOVER FROM UTRAN COMMAND message. It may include the LTE message: RRCConnectionReconfiguration. As described in paragraph [0105].)
Regarding claim 20, Decarreau and Babaei disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above.
Decarreau further discloses: further comprising: indicating a first cause value to a new cell during or after a random access procedure, wherein the first cause value indicates that the first terminal device initiates the RRC connection re-establishment procedure because a target cell to which the first terminal device is handed over does not support serving the first type of terminal device. (i.e., In a method such as the one shown in the timeline of FIG. 6, a Cat. 0 UE may abort a RA procedure to eNB B because it does not support Cat. 0 UE. The UE may perform a RA procedure to eNB A that supports Cat. 0 UE. When sending RRCconnectioncomplete message to eNB A, the UE may indicate that it has previously aborted a RA because the target cell did not support Category 0 UE. The UE may indicate the Cell ID of the aborted RA to eNB A. As described in paragraph [0107].)
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over DECARREAU et al. (hereinafter “Decarreau”, US2017/0201915) in view of Babaei (hereinafter “Babaei”, US2021/0235339), and further in view of Ke et al. (Hereinafter “Ke”, US 20210289579.)
Regarding claim 21, Decarreau and Babaei disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose:
wherein in response to the first cell not supporting serving the first type of terminal device, the first terminal device does not record information about a handover to the first cell in a handover failure report.
In a similar endeavor, Ke discloses:
wherein in response to the first cell not supporting serving the first type of terminal device, the first terminal device does not record information about a handover to the first cell in a handover failure report. (i.e., The non-handover way does not require the UE to perform neighbor cell measurement and a measurement report, which can implement save energy, and cannot lose data when the UE becomes unreachable. As described in paragraph [0122].)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Ke into the invention of Decarreau and Babaei in order to improve communication performance of the novel terminal device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M. VO whose telephone number is (571)272-9854. The examiner can normally be reached T-F; 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 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 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.
/Eric M. Vo/ Examiner, Art Unit 2644
/KATHY W WANG-HURST/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights