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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are deemed unpersuasive.
As shown in Wallentin’s Fig. 12 (Wallentin et al. (US 2021/0266817, “Wallentin”)), while the barring timer is running, the UE determines at step 150 whether the barring-information-change criterion is fulfilled. If the criterion is not fulfilled, the UE returns to step 130 and the barring timer continues to run. If the criterion is fulfilled, the UE stops the barring timer at step 160 and alleviates barring at step 140. Wallentin as cited [0121 and Fig. 12] expressly identifies, in one embodiment, the UE’s performance of cell reselection as the barring-information-change criterion. Thus, Wallentine determines, based on the cell-reselection alternative recited in claim 1, whether to stop the access-control-barring state.
Applicant’s assertion that Wallentin does not separately evaluate the outcome of reselection is not commensurate with claim 1. Claim 1 does not require determining whether the pre-selection and post-reselection cells are the same or different. Those requirements are separately recited in claims 2 and 3.
Applicant has not presented separate arguments directed to claim 2. To the extent applicant’s arguments concerning claim 1 are considered applicable to claim 2, they are unpersuasive.
Wallentin expressly teaches that barring timers are stopped when the UE performs cell reselection because the UE has moved to a “new cell”. Wallentin further describes cell reselection in terms of a “new cell” and distinguishes the new cell from the cell associated with stored system information before reselection. Accordingly, Wallentin teaches determining that the results of cell reselection is residence in a new/current cell different from the cell in which the UE resided before reselection.
Wallentin also teaches that, when the cell-reselection criterion is fulfilled, the UE stops any running barring timers and alleviates barring. Thus, Wallentin teaches the limitations of claim 2, including stopping the access-control-barring state in response to the different-cell results of the cell reselection.
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments overall are deemed unpersuasive, and the previous rejections are hereby maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 16-18 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Wallentin et al. (US 2021/0266817, “Wallentin”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Wallentin unless otherwise mentioned.
Wallentin comprises the following features:
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 1, an access control method, performed by a terminal, comprising:
determining that the terminal is in an access control barring state ([0118 and Fig. 12] “In step 110, the UE performs an access barring check using a determined access category,”), and
determining, based on a selection result of a cell selection, a cell reselection, a relay reselection or a relay selection, whether to stop the access control barring state ([0121 and Fig. 12] “If barring timer is still running, the UE checks whether the barring information change criteria is fulfilled at step 150. In a particular embodiment, the barring information change criteria is defined as: “the UE is triggered to acquire SIB1 in a currently camped/serving cell.”. In another particular embodiment, the barring information change criteria is defined as: “the UE performs cell re-selection”).
Regarding claim 9, it is a terminal claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations, “a processor; and a memory having a computer program” (See Fig. 16 for 320 “Processing Circuitry” and Fig. 17 “415 Memory, 421 Storage Medium”), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, it is a non-transitory CRM claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations, “having instructions” ([0151] “non-transitory device readable and/or computer-executable memory devices that store information, data, and/or instructions that may be used by processing circuitry 370.”), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claims 2, 12 and 18, the access control method of claim 1, the terminal of claim 9 and the non-transitory CRM of claim 11, respectively, wherein determining, based on the selection result of the cell selection, the cell reselection, the relay reselection or the relay selection, whether to stop the access control barring state comprises:
determining that the selection result is that a cell resided by the terminal before the terminal performs the cell selection, the cell reselection, the relay reselection or the relay selection is different from a current cell resided by the terminal after the terminal performs the cell selection, the cell reselection, the relay reselection or the relay selection, and stopping the access control barring state ([0068] “it is specified that barring timers are stopped when the UE performs cell reselection. This is because, the new cell may have different barring conditions”).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the access control method of claim 1 and the terminal of claim 9, respectively, wherein the cell reselection is initiated by any one of:
an initiation of an access layer condition of the terminal in an idle state; or an inactive state (These alternatives are not examined.); or
an initiation of reconstruction ([0228] “the change in barring information is determined based on at least one of performing cell re-selection, receiving a paging message containing system information modification; acquiring a SIB1 in a currently camped/serving cell, and performing a handover from a source cell to a target cell.”).
Regarding claims 7, 17 and 22, the access control method of claim 1, the terminal of claim 9 and the non-transitory CRM of claim 11, respectively,
wherein the access control barring state is controlled by a timer T390 ([0119 and Fig. 12] “In step 120, the UE 102 then starts the barring timer, such as [T30x] or T390”),
wherein a duration in which the T390 is operated corresponds to the access control barring state, the access control barring state is stopped correspondingly when the T390 is stopped ([0120 and Fig. 12] “In step 130, the UE 102 checks if the barring timer is still running or if it has expired. If it expired, the UE goes to step 140 where barring is alleviated for the access category.”), and the access control barring state is maintained correspondingly when the T390 is not stopped ([0121 and Fig. 12] “If barring timer is still running, the UE checks whether the barring information change criteria is fulfilled at step 150.”).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 13 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallentin et al. (US 2021/0266817, “Wallentin”) in view of Verger et al. (US 2014/0018075, “Verger”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Wallentin unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 19, it is noted that while disclosing satisfying criteria for access barring, Wallentin does not specifically teach about maintaining access barring in a same cell. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Verger as follows;
the access control method of claim 2, the terminal of claim 12 and the non-transitory CRM of claim 18, respectively, further comprising:
determining that the selection result is that the cell resided by the terminal before the terminal performs the cell selection, the cell reselection, the relay reselection or the relay selection is same as the current cell resided by the terminal, and maintaining the access control barring state ([Verger, 0084] “if no other cells supporting another RAT supported by the UE are found (block 428, no), then the UE may stay in the current cell and respect access barring (block 432).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Wallentin by using the features of Verger in order to effectively manage and control traffic and resource allocation such that “Various method and apparatus embodiments for forcing cell or radio access technology reselection responsive to access barring” [Verger, 0007].
Claim(s) 4, 14 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallentin et al. (US 2021/0266817, “Wallentin”) in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0084835, “Wang”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Wallentin unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 4, 14 and 20, it is noted that while disclosing satisfying criteria for access barring, Wallentin does not specifically teach about selecting a cell through a relay. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Wang as follows;
the access control method of claim 1, the terminal of claim 9 and the non-transitory CRM of claim 11, respectively, wherein the cell reselection comprises: performing the cell reselection by connecting to a network device through a relay corresponding to the terminal ([Wang, 0057] “in accordance with the above access restriction configuration information, if the remote UE101 belongs to remote UEs that cannot access the network via the relay UE102, then the remote UE101 cannot create a D2D connection with relay UE102 and cannot access the network via the relay UE102.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Wallentin by using the features of Wang in order to effectively control access of a remote UE such that “a method and device for controlling a remote UE to access to the network” [Wang, 0005].
Claim(s) 5, 15 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallentin et al. (US 2021/0266817, “Wallentin”) in view of Thyagarajan et al. (US 2018/025505, “Thyagarajan”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Wallentin unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 5, 15 and 21, it is noted that while disclosing satisfying criteria for access barring, Wallentin does not specifically teach about relay reselction. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Thyagarajan as follows;
the access control method of claim 1, the terminal of claim 9 and the non-transitory CRM of claim 11, respectively, wherein the relay reselection or the relay selection comprises:
performing the relay reselection by connecting to a network device through a relay corresponding to the terminal ([Thyagarajan, 0093] “For remote UE 208 served by eNB 204 via the relay UE 212, two factors can affect the remote decision of UE 208 to select another relay or cell, specifically, the PC5 link's quality and the relay UE's Uu link quality.”); or
performing the relay selection by connecting to a network device without using a relay corresponding to the terminal (This alternative is not examined.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Wallentin by using the features of Thyagarajan in order to effectively control access of a remote UE such that “Based on the determined network coverage status and selection of a relay UE, the remote UE is controlled by the eNB for the relay UE discovery and selection either directly or via the relay UE” [Thyagarajan, Abstract].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry H. Kim whose telephone number and email address are as follows; 571-272-5009, harry.kim2@uspto.gov.
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 at 571-272-3123.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from www.uspto.gov. For questions or assistance, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights