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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/1/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final action on 2/18/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amended title (filed on 5/18/2026) has been accepted and entered into the record.
Claim objections, on claims 3 and 8 are withdrawn since they are being amended accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to IDS (February 17, 2026), examiner has already considered and provided a copy of said IDS along with the acknowledgment in Miscellaneous communication (2/20/2026). Thus, the issue is now moot.
Applicant’s argument with respect to drawing objection, see page 6-7 filed on 5/18/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of drawings have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejection of claim(s) 1-4, 6-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “an access control apparatus applicable to a network-controlled repeater (NCR), the apparatus comprising:
…control to not apply, to the NCR,..” in lines 1-2, 7. [Emphasis added]
In view of the preamble, the claim is an “access control apparatus” claim, and NCR is an “applicable”1 component in lines 1-2. Yet, the body of the claim recites a processor of an access control apparatus which controls, to not apply to the NCR. Thus, it is unclear whether such “control” step is occurring in “NCR” or “Access control Apparatus” since according to the preamble “NCR” is merely an applicable component.
Claim 6 recites, “… wherein in case of a first condition being satisfied, the processor skips over the unified access control procedure;
the first condition comprises:
when initiating an RRC connection establishment procedure, an upper layer provides an access category and one or more access IDs when requesting establishment of RRC connection…” in lines 1-6.
There are two “when” clauses in this claim. Thus, the above limitations can be constructed in three (3) different ways:
1st claim Construction:
when initiating an RRC connection establishment procedure, an upper layer provides an access category AND
one or more access IDs when requesting establishment of RRC connection…”
2nd claim construction:
when initiating an RRC connection establishment procedure, an upper layer provides an access category and one or more access IDs
In this option, “when requesting establishment of RRC connection” is a run-on sentence.
3rd claim construction:
an upper layer provides an access category and one or more access IDs when requesting establishment of RRC connection
In this option, “when initiating an RRC connection establishment procedure” is a run-on sentence.
Thus, it is unclear which claim construction should be applied, and the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of the rejection, examiner will interpret these claims as best understood.
Claims 2-4, 7-14 are also rejected since they are dependent on rejected independent claim 1 set forth above.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WON (US 20210352570; cited by the IDS on 3/4/2025) in view of Li (US 2024/0284504).
Regarding Claim 1, WON discloses an access control apparatus, applicable to a network- repeater (see FIG. 1-2; Relay/IAB node is functioning as a relay device to communicate between IAB donor/network node and the UE; see ¶¶22, 24), the apparatus comprising:
a receiver (see FIG. 3; communication interface 26/36; See ¶0031) configured to receive SIB1 transmitted by a network device (see FIG. 1-2; receives SIB1 transmits from IAB donor/network node; see ¶¶0023, 0025), the SIB1 including an access control parameter (see FIG. 2; SIB1 includes an access control/barring indications/parameter(s)2; see¶¶22-26)); and
processor circuitry (see FIG. 3; Processor Circuitry-22/32; see ¶0029) configured to:
repeat signals between the network device and a UE (see FIG. 1-2; repeat to communicate between IAB donor/network node and UE; see ¶¶21,22, 24)
control to not apply, to the network repeater, to a unified access control procedure by using the access control parameter of the SIB1 (see FIG. 1-2, ignores Unified Access control (UAC) processor to Relay/IAB node by ignoring traditional cell an access control/barring indications/parameter(s); see ¶¶0025-26 ).
Although WON discloses a network- repeater repeat signals between the network device and a UE and control to the network repeater as set forth above, WON does not explicitly disclose a network “controlled” repeater (NCR) and control to a network “controlled” repeater. [Emphasis added]
However, Li teaches an access control apparatus applicable to a network-controlled repeater (NCR) (see FIG. 1, 4, Network-controlled Repeater, Smart Node (SN), or IAB3) comprising:
a processor (see FIG. 4, processor 400; ¶77 ) amplify signals between the network device and a UE (see FIG. 1, 4, perform amplify-and-forward operation between BS4 and UE5; see ¶¶ 5-7, 38) and control to the NCR (see FIG. 6, control Network-controlled Repeater, Smart Node (SN), or IAB; see ¶¶ 5-8, 81; also see FIG. 2A, 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a network “controlled” repeater (NCR) and control to a network “controlled” repeater as taught by Li in the system of WON , so that it would improve coverage and efficient amplify-and-forward operation; see Li ¶¶5, 7.
Regarding Claim 2, WON discloses wherein the processor circuitry (see FIG. 3; Processor Circuitry-22/32; ¶0027) is further configured to control to skip over the unified access control procedure (see ¶0025; IAB-node ignores traditional cell barring indications (e.g., cellBarred in MIB, cellReservedForOperatorUse, and cellReservedForOtherUse in SIB1) and the UAC procedure does not apply to IAB nodes. This denotes UAC procedure is skipped).
Regarding Claim 3, WON discloses wherein the access control parameter is associated with at least one of an access category (see ¶0026; The UAC assigns a categorization for each access attempt).
Regarding Claim 6, WON discloses wherein in case of a first condition being satisfied, the processor skips over the unified access control procedure (see ¶0025; when a new RRC establishment cause or an existing RRC establishment cause (i.e. 1st condition), relay/IAB nodes ignores UAC process; also see ¶¶ 40-43, Tables A, E ); the first condition comprises:
when initiating an RRC connection establishment procedure, an upper layer provides an access category (see Tables B, B-1, C, access category; see pages 4-10) and one or more access IDs (see Tables A, E, F; access identities, see pages 4,11-12) when requesting establishment of RRC connection (See FIG. 4; step-406;; when establishing RRC connection, the upper (NAS) layer assigns an access category and access identities mapped to a new RRC establishment cause or an existing RRC establishment cause; see ¶0041-0047, 49-51).
Regarding Claim 7, WON discloses the processor circuitry selects 0 as an access category (see Table B, C, setting Access category as “0” for MT_acc, See Table B-1, setting Access category as “0” for MT signaling resulting from paging, Table E, E-1, F, F-1, F-2, setting Access category as “0” for mt-access; pages 5-12; see ¶40).
Regarding Claim 8, WON discloses the processor circuitry is configured to perform at least one of:
not determining an access category (see ¶40; when access category is set to Y (Y=0) there is no determining/processing for access category (e.g. allow access); see Table B, B-1, C, Table E-1, Table F, Table F1-F2; Y=0, Table B-1, Access category =0).
Regarding Claim 9, WON discloses wherein an RRC layer of the repeater determines an access category and one or more access IDs (see FIG. 4; Step- 406; see ¶0041; The RRC layer of repeater/IAB node determine/process by using access identities and access category; also see Tables B, B-1, C, access category; see pages 4-10; see Tables A, E, F; access identities, see pages 4,11-12 ).
Regarding Claim 10, WON discloses wherein the RRC layer of the repeater determines an establishment cause corresponding to the access category (see FIG. 4; Step- 406; Table B-C (see pages 5-8; The RRC layer of repeater/IAB node determine/process the establishment cause for access category (e.g. Cattery 2 (emergency, category 4 (MO MMTel voice call), category 5 (MO MMTel video call), etc.; see ¶¶ 26, 0041; also see Table E-F).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WON (US 20210352570) in view of Li, and further in view of Talebi Fard (US 20240129794).
Regarding Claim 4, WON discloses SIB1 including the access control parameter (see ¶0025; SIB1 is received by the relay/IAB device which includes an access control parameter such as cellBarred in MIB, cellReservedForOperatorUse, and cellReservedForOtherUse in SIB1))).
Although the combined WON and Li discloses having the access control parameters, WON doesn’t explicitly discloses the access control parameter including one of “ UAC-BarringInfoSetList”. [Emphasis added]
Talebi Fard discloses the access control parameter including one of UAC-BarringInfoSetList (see ¶0316; SIB1 comprises UAC-BarringInfoSetList which comprises list of access control parameter sets).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have access control parameter including UAC “BarringInfoSetList” as taught by Talebi Fard, in the combined system of WON and Li, so that it would improve system performance (Talebi Fard, see ¶0248).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WON (US 20210352570) in view of Li and further in view of KIM (US 20200178343).
Regarding Claim 11, WON discloses an upper layer of the repeater provides an establishment cause to another layer (see Table B &C, upper layer of the Repeater/IAB node’s access category 10 provide RRC establishment cause/rule to another layer ) and a lower layer of the repeater receive an establishment cause (see Table B &C, lower layer of the Repeater/IAB node’s access category 0 provide RRC establishment cause/rule to another layer; see pages 5, 7-8, 10; also see FIG 4; step-406; see ¶0041 ).
Although the combined system of WON and Li disclosed a l discloses an upper layer of the repeater provides an establishment cause to another layer and a lower layer of the repeater receive an establishment cause as set forth above, WON doesn’t explicitly disclose “an upper layer “providing cause” to a lower layer. [Emphasis added]
KIM discloses an upper layer of the repeater provides an establishment cause/response to a lower layer of the repeater (see ¶¶0780, 0811; Upper layer relay UE provides establishment cause/response to the lower layer relay equipment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an establishment cause from the upper layer of the repeater to the lower layer of the repeater as taught by KIM, in the combined system of WON and Li, so that it would improve RRC connection request procedure of a remote UE (KIM, see ¶0005).
Regarding Claim 12, WON discloses the repeater does not provide an access category and access ID (see ¶0025; “The UAC procedure does not apply to IAB nodes”. This denotes when UAC procedure is not applied there is no need for access category and access identity). In particular, WON further discloses the upper layer of repeater does not provide an access category and access ID to lower layer of the reporter (Table B-C, in Rules/cause (e.g. 2, 4) there the upper layer does not provide an access category and access identity to lower layer; see pages 5, 7-8, 10).
Regarding Claim 13, WON discloses the upper layer of the repeater is a NAS layer (see Table B,C: Repeater/IAB’s upper lawyer has NAS configuration; see pages 5,7, 8, and 10: also see ¶0036). KIM discloses wherein the upper layer of the repeater is a NAS layer (see FIG. 4; see ¶0138; NAS layer is the upper layer of the RRC layer for a relay equipment/repeater (see also ¶780)).
Regarding Claim 14, WON discloses the lower layer of the repeater is a RRC layer (Table B,C: Repeater/IAB’s lower lawyer process RRC establish cause since it is RRC layer; see pages 5,7, 8, and 10: also see ¶0038; RRC layer assigns AS-originated Access Category for IAB-MT access). KIM also discloses wherein the lower layer of the repeater is a RRC layer (see FIG. 4; see ¶0138; RC layer is the lower layer of the RRC layer under the NAS layer for a relay UE/repeater (see also ¶780)).
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 Ian N Moore whose telephone number is (571)272-3085. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Deborah J Reynolds can be reached at 571-272-0734. 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.
IAN N. MOORE
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2469
/Ian N Moore/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 Applicable= capable of or suitable for being applied; Id. at APPLICABLE Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
2 cellBarred in MIB, cellReservedForOperatorUse, and cellReservedForOtherUse
3 IAB=Integrated Access and Backhaul
4 BS= Base Station
5 UE=User Equipment
