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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Bypass Unified Access Procedure.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “and/or” in page 1, line 9. For clarity, it is suggested to use of word instead mathematical operator “/” (e.g., instead of “A and/or B”, preferred language is “at least one of A or B”).
Claim 8 recites “and/or” in page 2, line 8. For clarity, it is suggested to use of word instead mathematical operator “/” (e.g., instead of “A and/or B”, preferred language is “at least one of A or B”).
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claim 1. Therefore, the apparatus, applicable to “A repeater, a receiver (of the repeater which receive SIB1 transmitted by a network device), a processor circuitry (of the repeater which control to not apply to a UAC procedure)” must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim 1. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 –
(a)(1) 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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WON (US 20210352570; cited by the IDS on 3/4/2025).
Regarding Claim 1, WON discloses an access control apparatus, applicable to a repeater (see FIG. 2; IAB-node; see ¶0024; The IAB-node is functioning as a relay device to communicate between the base station and the UE. The IAB-node can also be a UE), 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. 2; IAB-donor; see ¶¶0023, 0025; IAB donor/eNode B transmits SIB1 towards IAB node), the SIB1 including an access control parameter (see FIG. 2; IAB-node; see ¶0025; SIB1 is received by the relay device which includes an access control parameter. (IAB-MT ignores traditional cell barring indications (e.g., cellBarred in MIB, cellReservedForOperatorUse, and cellReservedForOtherUse in SIB1))); and processor circuitry (see FIG. 3; Processor Circuitry-22/32; see ¶0029) configured to control to not apply to a unified access control procedure which is performed by using the access control parameter (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 not performed while using the access control parameter).
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 an access category (see ¶0026; The UAC assigns a categorization for each access attempt).
Regarding Claim 5, WON discloses wherein the repeater is a network controlled repeater (see FIG. 2; see ¶0023; The IAB nodes/repeaters/UEs are controlled by the network).
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; 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); 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 (See FIG. 4; step-406; see ¶0041, 0045, 0047; The upper (NAS) layer assigns an access category and access ID mapped to a new RRC establishment cause or an existing RRC establishment cause).
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; RRC layer establishment is set using access identity and access category).
Regarding Claim 10, WON discloses wherein the RRC layer of the repeater determines an establishment cause or a resume cause corresponding to the access category (see FIG. 4; Step- 406; see ¶, 0041; The RRC layer establishment is set using access category and access identity).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WON (US 20210352570) 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 device which includes an access control parameter. (“IAB-MT ignores traditional cell barring indications (e.g., cellBarred in MIB, cellReservedForOperatorUse, and cellReservedForOtherUse in SIB1)”)).
Although WON discloses having the access control parameter, WON doesn’t explicitly discloses “the access control parameter including UAC-BarringInfoSetList”.
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 system of WON, so that it would improve system performance (Talebi Fard, see ¶0248).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WON (US 20210352570) in view LG Electronics (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #110-e, R2-2006161, provided in IDS).
Regarding Claim 7, WON discloses processor circuitry (see FIG. 3; step-22/32; ¶0027) handles access category (see FIG. 4; Step- 406; see ¶¶0026, 0041; “UAC does not only handle potential access barring, but also assigns a categorization for each access attempt).
Although WON discloses access category, WON doesn’t explicitly discloses selecting “0 as an access category”.
LG Electronics discloses the processor circuitry selects 0 as an access category (§ 2.2; Table 5.3.13; “Select ‘0’ as the Access Category” (in table 5.3.13)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select 0 as an access category as taught by LG Electronics, in the system of WON, so that it would resolve UAC skipping should be effectively realized by AS or NAS (LG Electronics, § 2.2).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WON (US 20210352570) in view of OHLSSON (US 20220174464).
Regarding Claim 8, WON discloses the processor circuitry (see FIG. 3; step-22/32; ¶0027) does not determine an access category (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).
Although WON discloses not determining an access category, WON doesn’t explicitly disclose setting a resume cause and an establishment cause as an emergency situation.
OHLSSON discloses the processor circuitry (see FIG. 3; WD-22; Processing circuitry-84; see ¶0086; The WD/UE work as a relay/repeater device (also see ¶0060)) sets a resume cause and an establishment cause as an emergency situation (see FIG. 15; see ¶0012; The wireless device (WD) indicates an emergency situation for setting a RRC resume cause and a RRC establishment cause).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not determine an access category, and set a resume cause and an establishment cause as an emergency situation as taught by OHLSSON, in the system of WON, so that it would improve wireless devices configured to select a network supporting emergency services (OHLSSON, see ¶0012).
Claims 11, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WON (US 20210352570) in view of KIM (US 20200178343).
Regarding Claim 11, WON discloses wherein a layer of the repeater provides an establishment cause (see FIG 4; step-406; see ¶0041; IAB provides RRC establishment cause using access identity and access category).
Although WON disclosed a layer of the repeater providing an establishment cause, WON doesn’t explicitly disclose “an upper layer of the repeater providing an establishment cause/response to a lower layer of the repeater”.
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 UE).
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 system of WON, 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 ID).
Although WON discloses not providing an access category and an access ID, WON doesn’t explicitly disclose upper layer of the repeater and the lower layer of the repeater.
KIM discloses wherein the upper layer of the repeater provides information to the lower layer of the repeater (see ¶¶0780, 0811; Upper layer relay UE provides establishment cause/response to the lower layer relay UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not provide an access category and an access ID from the upper layer of the repeater to the lower layer of the repeater as taught by KIM, in the system of WON, so that it would improve RRC connection request procedure of a remote UE (KIM, see ¶0005).
Regarding Claim 13, WON discloses wherein the UE has a NAS layer (see ¶0036; UE has NAS layer).
Although WON discloses a NAS layer, WON doesn’t explicitly disclose “the upper layer of the repeater is a NAS layer”.
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 UE/repeater (see also ¶780)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use NAS layer as the upper layer of the repeater as taught by KIM, in the system of WON, so that it would improve RRC connection request procedure of a remote UE (KIM, see ¶0005).
Regarding Claim 14, WON discloses an RRC layer (see ¶0038; “The RRC layer assigns AS-originated Access Category for IAB-MT access”).
Although WON discloses a RRC layer, WON doesn’t explicitly disclose “the lower layer of the repeater is a RRC layer”.
KIM 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))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use RRC layer as the lower layer of the repeater as taught by KIM, in the system of WON, so that it would improve RRC connection request procedure of a remote UE (KIM, see ¶0005).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Abedini (US 11563482) FIG. 1-8.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mominur Rashid whose telephone number is (571)272-0535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7 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 Ian N Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. 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.
Mominur Rashid Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2469
/MOMINUR RASHID/Examiner, Art Unit 2469
/Ian N Moore/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2469