Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to a communication made on June 30, 2026.
This application has been reassigned to a new examiner, please see the end of this action for contact information.
Claims 2-3, 7-8, 13-14, 18-19, and 22-23 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9-12, 15-17, 20, and 24-25 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments received June 30, 2026 have been considered and are persuasive. However, a new grounds of rejection has been provided and has been necessitated by the amendments (that went beyond the scope of what had previously been presented in claim 2).
Claim Interpretation
Claim 20 recites:
20. A network device, configured to implement the cell reselection method of claim 9, comprising: a processor; and a memory, configured to store instructions executable by the processor.
This claim is being addressed as an independent claim that incorporates limitations by reference (see MPEP §2175.05(f)). However the language is bring incorporated into the preamble, not the body of claim 20. As result, they are presented as a field of us or intended use of the claimed network device (see MPEP §2111.02(II)). They were grouped with claim 9 in the rejection below, however the BRI of claim 20 does not require the elements of claim 9, only a processor and a memory, configured to store instructions executable by the processor”. The examiner encourages applicant to positively recite the method steps of claim 9 in claim 20, either by requiring the instruction to operate the method of claim 9, or by explicitly including the steps in the body of the claim, if not the BRI of claim 20 will continue to not include the scope of the method of claim 9 since they are only included in the preamble and not being given patentable weight.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9-12, 15-17, 20, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih et al (US 2021/0127325, hereinafter “Shih”) in view of Sharma et al (US 2022/0256416, hereinafter “Sharma”)
Regarding claims 1, 12, 20, and 24, Shih teaches a cell reselection method, performed by a specified user equipment (UE), comprising:
determining a cell barred identifier in a master information block (MIB) indicating access barred (¶¶65, 70, 73-74 and 78, wherein the UE can receive an MIB and look at the IE cell barred information to determine if the cell is identified as “barred”),
determining that a cell reselection operation is to be performed according to the cell barred identifier in the MIB (¶¶76-78, wherein the UE can be legacy or support NPN, if its NPN supported it knows it has to further look to the SIB to determine if the cell is a candidate for reselection); and
performing the cell reselection operation according to a cell reselection identifier for the specified UE in a system information block (SIB) (¶¶76-78, wherein the UE can look at the SIB information, identify it’s specific ID matches the SIB information and treats the cell as a candidate cell for cell reselection).
However, Shih doesn’t explicitly indicate that the MIB has a cell reselection identifier in the MIB indicating cell reselection allowed;
and that determining whether a cell reselection operation is to be performed according to a cell reselection identifier in the MIB.
Sharma teaches a cell reselection process that includes the UE receiving a MIB and SIB and determines whether the cell can be reselected based upon information in both (see ¶84-86), wherein Sharma further indicates that the MIB includes an ID that the cell is a NPN cell and can support reselection for specific NPN UEs (see ¶86).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the application to use Sharma’s suggestion to include in the MIB in Shih an indication that can be used by NPN UE’s that the cell is a NPN cell (Sharma, ¶86), that would inform those NPN UE’s that they must further consult the SIB to determine whether the cell is a candidate for UEs, thus making reselection easier for NPN UEs, while also ensure the cell properly bars legacy UEs.
Regarding claims 9 and 25, Shih teaches a cell reselection method, performed by a network device, comprising:
sending a master information block (MIB) and a system information block (SIB),
wherein the MIB comprises a cell reselection identifier indicating cell reselection allowed(¶¶65, 70, 73-74 and 78, wherein the UE can receive an MIB and look at the IE cell barred information to determine if the cell is identified as “barred”), and
a system information block the SIB comprising comprises a cell reselection identifier for a specified UE (¶¶76-78, wherein the UE can look at the SIB information, identify it’s specific ID matches the SIB information and treats the cell as a candidate cell for cell reselection), and
the SIB and the MIB is used for the specified UE to determine that a cell reselection operation is to be performed according to the cell barred identifier, and to perform the cell reselection operation according to the cell reselection identifier in the SIB when a cell barred identifier in the MIB indicates access barred (¶73-78, wherein a NPN UE can still look to the SIB to determine if it identifier an ID that matches the UE even when the MIB indicates the cell is barred, if the ID matches, the UE can consider the cell a candidate for reselection).
However, Shih doesn’t explicitly indicate that the MIB has a cell reselection identifier in the MIB indicating cell reselection allowed;
and that determining whether a cell reselection operation is to be performed according to a cell reselection identifier in the MIB.
Sharma teaches a cell reselection process that includes the UE receiving a MIB and SIB and determines whether the cell can be reselected based upon information in both (see ¶84-86), wherein Sharma further indicates that the MIB includes an ID that the cell is a NPN cell and can support reselection for specific NPN UEs (see ¶86).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the application to use Sharma’s suggestion to include in the MIB in Shih an indication that can be used by NPN UE’s that the cell is a NPN cell (Sharma, ¶86), that would inform those NPN UE’s that they must further consult the SIB to determine whether the cell is a candidate for UEs, thus making reselection easier for NPN UEs, while also ensure the cell properly bars legacy UEs.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Shih, as improved by Sharma, teaches the method of claims 1 and 12, wherein performing the cell reselection operation according to the cell reselection identifier for the specified UE in the SIB comprises:
determining the cell reselection identifier for the specified UE in the SIB indicating cell reselection allowed (¶¶75-78, wherein a UE supporting NPN may compare a specific ID from the SIB to determine if the cell is a candidate for reselection); and
performing the cell reselection operation according to the cell reselection identifier for the specified UE in the SIB (¶¶75-78, wherein the UE will select the best candidate for cell reselection once the candidates are identified).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Shih, as improved by Sharma, teaches the method of claims 1 and 12, wherein the cell reselection identifier in the MIB is a cell reselection identifier for the specified UE (see Sharma, ¶86, wherein the identifier in the MIB can indicate the cell support NPN UEs, thus identified specific UEs that it will support cell reselection).
The teaching of Sharma are combined with Shih under the same rationale as claim 1
Regarding claims 6, and 17, Shih, as improved by Sharma teaches the method of claims 5 and 16, further comprising: determining that no cell reselection identifier for the specified UE is configured in the SIB (Shih, ¶¶77-78, wherein if the specific ID doesn’t match the UE, the UE will not consider the cell a candidate for reselection); and performing the cell reselection operation based on the cell reselection identifier for the specified UE in the MIB (Sharma, ¶¶86 and 97-99, wherein when the SIB indicates that the cell is barred, its not considered a candidate and the UE perform the reselection operation to find the candidate cells and makes a reselection decision).
The teaching of Sharma are combined with Shih under the same rationale as claim 1
Regarding claim 10, Shih, as improved by Sharma, teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the cell reselection identifier in the MIB is a cell reselection identifier for UE (see Sharma, ¶86, wherein the identifier in the MIB can indicate the cell support NPN UEs, thus identified specific UEs that it will support cell reselection).
The teaching of Sharma are combined with Shih under the same rationale as claim 9
Regarding claim 11, Shih, as improved by Sharma, teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the SIB comprises a cell barred identifier indicating access barred (see Sharma, ¶99, wherein the SIB can have separate information about whether or not the cell has barred NPN UEs).
The teaching of Sharma are combined with Shih under the same rationale as claim 9
Listing of Additional Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bai et al (US 2021/0314853) because it discloses reselection operations based upon an MIB’s cell Barred IE.
Sharma et al (US 2022/0303846) because it discloses having NPN UEs in cell reselection.
Ishii et al (US 2023/0262591) because it discloses reselection operations based upon an MIB’s cell Barred IE.
Nam et al (US 2021/0360580) because it discloses cell reselection based on MIB and SIB information.
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 KEVIN T BATES whose telephone number is (571)272-3980. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 5:30 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.
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.
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights