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 9/20/2024 and 6/24/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1–3, 5-7, 9–13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sierra Wireless S.A., “Methods for barring and for capability reporting,” 3GPP R2-2103062, April 2, 2021, hereinafter Sierra.
Regarding Claim 1:
Sierra teaches an access control method, performed by an access network device, comprising (p. 2, § 1, “Permitting Only Certain RedCap UEs,” first paragraph: “The RedCap WID includes an objective where system information shall control RedCap UE’s access to the network including UE Rx branch capability as part of the control”):
sending indication information to a terminal (p. 2, § 1, Proposal 1: “The system information shall indicate whether a RedCap UE with certain capabilities is permitted to access a cell/frequency, with the default (i.e. no indication) to mean the RedCap UE is barred.”; “Detailed Initial access procedure” / “Permission,” first paragraph: “First, the UE checks for permission and UAC barring status from broadcasted system information blocks”),
the indication information indicates whether some first-type terminals are allowed to access a network (p. 3, § 2, “Permission” / “Barring Capability field,” first two entries: “1 bit – 1 Rx barred” and “1 bit – 2 Rx barred”).
Regarding Claim 2: Sierra teaches the method of claim 1.
Sierra teaches wherein the indication information further indicates whether the first-type terminals having a predetermined feature are allowed to access a network (p. 2, § 1, Proposal 1: “The system information shall indicate whether a RedCap UE with certain capabilities is permitted to access a cell/frequency, with the default (i.e. no indication) to mean the RedCap UE is barred”);
the predetermined feature comprises at least one of (p. 2, § 1, “Permitting Only Certain RedCap UEs,” first paragraph: “The RedCap WID includes an objective where system information shall control RedCap UE’s access to the network including UE Rx branch capability as part of the control”):
a number of Rx branches (p. 3, § 2, “Permission” / “Barring Capability field,” first two entries: “1 bit – 1 Rx barred” and “1 bit – 2 Rx barred”);
a structure of an antenna;
a number of multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) layers supportable at most; and
a transmission power level.
Regarding Claim 3: Sierra teaches the method of claim 1.
Sierra teaches wherein an information field of the indication information comprises a first indication field and a second indication field (p. 3, § 2 , “Permission” / “Barring Capability field,” first two entries: “1 bit – 1 Rx barred” and “1 bit – 2 Rx barred”);
the first-type terminals and/or the access network device operate in a first frequency range (FR1) (p. 1, § 1, “Introduction,” UE complexity-reduction feature list: “Reduced bandwidth is 20MHz in FR1 and 100MHz in FR2”; p. 2, § 2, “Permission,” capability list: “20MHz bandwidth (any RedCap)”),
the first indication field indicates whether the first-type terminals having a first number of Rx branches are allowed to access a network (p. 3, § 2 “Permission” / “Barring Capability field”: “1 bit – 1 Rx barred”),
the second indication field indicates whether the first-type terminals having a second number of Rx branches are allowed to access a network (p. 3, § 2, “Permission” / “Barring Capability field”: “1 bit – 2 Rx barred”); or
the first-type terminals and/or the access network device operate in a second frequency range (FR2), the first indication field indicates whether the first-type terminals having a first antenna structure are allowed to access a network, and the second indication field indicates whether the first-type terminals having a second antenna structure are allowed to access a network; or
the first-type terminals and/or the access network device operate in a second frequency range (FR2), the first indication field indicates whether the first-type terminals supporting a first number of MIMO layers at most are allowed to access a network, and the second indication field indicates whether the first-type terminals supporting a second number of MIMO layers at most are allowed to access a network; or
the first-type terminals and/or the access network device operate in a second frequency range (FR2), the first indication field indicates whether the first-type terminals supporting a first transmission power level are allowed to access a network, and the second indication field indicates whether the first-type terminals supporting a second transmission power level are allowed to access a network.
Regarding Claims 5-7, are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 3, where they further limit un-selected option/ alternative.
Regarding Claim 9:
Sierra teaches an access control method, performed by a first-type terminal, comprising (p. 2, § 2, “Discussion,” paragraph beginning “The first step”: “The first step in a RedCap device accessing a network should be for a UE to determine access permission, where a UE determines permission based on its supported RedCap capabilities”):
receiving indication information sent by an access network device (p. 2, § 2 “Detailed Initial access procedure” / “Permission,” first paragraph: “First, the UE checks for permission and UAC barring status from broadcasted system information blocks”),
the indication information indicates whether some first-type terminals are allowed to access a network (p. 2, § 1, Proposal 1: “The system information shall indicate whether a RedCap UE with certain capabilities is permitted to access a cell/frequency, with the default (i.e. no indication) to mean the RedCap UE is barred.”; p. 3, § 2, “Permission” / “Barring Capability field,” first two entries: “1 bit – 1 Rx barred” and “1 bit – 2 Rx barred”).
Regarding Claim 10: Sierra teaches the method of claim 9.
Sierra teaches wherein the indication information further indicates whether the first-type terminals having a predetermined feature are allowed to access a network (p. 2, § 1, Proposal 1: “The system information shall indicate whether a RedCap UE with certain capabilities is permitted to access a cell/frequency, with the default (i.e. no indication) to mean the RedCap UE is barred.”; p. 2, § 2, “Detailed Initial access procedure” / “Permission,” first paragraph: “First, the UE checks for permission and UAC barring status from broadcasted system information blocks”);
the predetermined feature comprises at least one of (p. 2, § 1, “Permitting Only Certain RedCap UEs,” first paragraph: “The RedCap WID includes an objective where system information shall control RedCap UE’s access to the network including UE Rx branch capability as part of the control”):
a number of Rx branches (p. 3, § 2, “Permission” / “Barring Capability field,” first two entries: “1 bit – 1 Rx barred” and “1 bit – 2 Rx barred”);
a structure of an antenna;
a number of multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) layers supportable at most; and
a transmission power level.
Regarding Claim 11: Sierra teaches the method of claim 10.
Sierra teaches determining whether to access a network according to the indication information and a feature of the first-type terminal (p. 2, § 2, “Discussion,” paragraph beginning “The first step”: “The first step in a RedCap device accessing a network should be for a UE to determine access permission, where a UE determines permission based on its supported RedCap capabilities.”; p. 2, § 2, “Detailed Initial access procedure” / “Permission,” first paragraph: “First, the UE checks for permission and UAC barring status from broadcasted system information blocks.”).
Regarding Claim 12: Sierra teaches the method of claim 11.
Sierra teaches determining whether the first-type terminal is a terminal having the predetermined feature according to the indication information and the feature of the first-type terminal (p. 2, § 2, “Discussion,” paragraph beginning “The first step”: “The first step in a RedCap device accessing a network should be for a UE to determine access permission, where a UE determines permission based on its supported RedCap capabilities.”; p. 3, § 2, “Permission” / “Barring Capability field,” first two entries: “1 bit – 1 Rx barred” and “1 bit – 2 Rx barred”):
determining that the indication information indicates that the first-type terminals having the predetermined feature are allowed to access a network, determining that the first-type terminal is a terminal having the predetermined feature, and determining to access a network (p. 3, § 2, “Permission” / “Barring Capability field,” first two entries: “1 bit – 1 Rx barred” and “1 bit – 2 Rx barred”; p. 2, § 2, “Discussion,” paragraph beginning “The first step”: “The first step in a RedCap device accessing a network should be for a UE to determine access permission, where a UE determines permission based on its supported RedCap capabilities.”; p. 2, § 1, Proposal 1: “The system information shall indicate whether a RedCap UE with certain capabilities is permitted to access a cell/frequency, with the default (i.e. no indication) to mean the RedCap UE is barred”);
determining that the indication information indicates that the first-type terminals having the predetermined feature are allowed to access a network, determining that the first-type terminal is not a terminal having the predetermined feature, and determining not to access a network; or
determining that the indication information indicates that the first-type terminals having the predetermined feature are not allowed to access a network, determining that the first-type terminal is a terminal having the predetermined feature, and determining not to access a network; or
determining that the indication information indicates that the first-type terminals having the predetermined feature are not allowed to access a network, determining that the first-type terminal is not a terminal having the predetermined feature, and determining to access a network.
Regarding Claim 13: Sierra teaches the method of claim 9.
Sierra teaches wherein an information field of the indication information comprises a first indication field and a second indication field (p. 3, § 2 “Permission” / “Barring Capability field,” first two entries: “1 bit – 1 Rx barred” and “1 bit – 2 Rx barred”);
the first-type terminals and/or the access network device operate in a first frequency range (FR1) (p. 1, § 1, “Introduction,” UE complexity-reduction feature list: “Reduced bandwidth is 20MHz in FR1 and 100MHz in FR2”; p. 2, § 2, “Permission,” capability list: “20MHz bandwidth (any RedCap)”).
the first indication field indicates whether the first-type terminals having a first number of Rx branches are allowed to access a network (p. 3, § 2 “Permission” / “Barring Capability field”: “1 bit – 1 Rx barred”);
the second indication field indicates whether the first-type terminals having a second number of Rx branches are allowed to access a network (p. 2, § 2, “Detailed Initial access procedure” / “Permission,” first paragraph: “First, the UE checks for permission and UAC barring status from broadcasted system information blocks.”; p. 3, § 2 “Permission” / “Barring Capability field”: “1 bit – 2 Rx barred”); or
the first-type terminals and/or the access network device operate in a second frequency range (FR2), an information field of the indication information comprises a first indication field and a second indication field; the first indication field indicates whether the first-type terminals having a first antenna structure are allowed to access a network; and the second indication field indicates whether the first-type terminals having a second antenna structure are allowed to access a network; or
the first-type terminals and/or the access network device operate in a second frequency range (FR2); an information field of the indication information comprises a first indication field and a second indication field; the first indication field indicates whether the first-type terminals supporting a first number of multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) layers at most are allowed to access a network; and the second indication field indicates whether the first-type terminals supporting a second number of MIMO layers at most are allowed to access a network; or
the first-type terminals and/or the access network device operate in a second frequency range (FR2); an information field of the indication information comprises a first indication field and a second indication field; the first indication field indicates whether the first-type terminals supporting a first transmission power level are allowed to access a network; and the second indication field indicates whether the first-type terminals supporting a second transmission power level are allowed to access a network.
Regarding Claims 15-17, are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 13, where they further limit un-selected option/ alternative.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sierra, in view of Palle Venkata et al. (US 2022/0312298 A1), hereinafter Palle Venkata.
Regarding Claim 4: Sierra teaches the method of claim 1.
Sierra further teaches wherein the first-type terminals and/or the access network device operate in a second frequency range (FR2) (p. 1, § 1, “Introduction,” UE complexity-reduction feature list: “Reduced bandwidth is 20MHz in FR1 and 100MHz in FR2”; p. 2, § 2, “Permission,” capability list: “20MHz bandwidth (any RedCap)”).
Sierra does not explicitly teach an information field of the indication information indicates whether all first-type terminals are allowed to access a network.
Palle Venkata teaches an information field of the indication information indicates whether all first-type terminals are allowed to access a network ([0035] “At 405, the gNB broadcasts system information (SI) including access restrictions in system information block 1 (SIB1).”; [0036] “For example, UEs may simply be classified as either RedCap UEs or non-RedCap UEs. In such embodiments, the SIB1 may include an access restriction that indicates that RedCap UEs are not allowed to access the gNB 120A”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Palle Venkata’s class-wide restriction to Sierra’s FR2 access-control arrangement to avoid requiring the cell to accommodate RedCap devices using different communication parameters (Palle Venkata [0012]).
Claim 14 recites the terminal-receiving counterpart of claim 4 and is rejected under the same reasoning, applying the same access-network-device alternative of “and/or” and the corresponding class-wide access indication.
Claims 21–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sierra in view of Liu et al. (US 2023/0199622 A1), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding Claim 21:
Sierra teaches send indication information to a terminal (p. 2, § 2, “Detailed Initial access procedure,” “Permission”: “First, the UE checks for permission and UAC barring status from broadcasted system information blocks.”).
further teaches the alternative the indication information indicates whether some first-type terminals are allowed to access a network (p. 2, § 1, Proposal 1: “The system information shall indicate whether a RedCap UE with certain capabilities is permitted to access a cell/frequency, with the default (i.e. no indication) to mean the RedCap UE is barred.”; p. 3, § 2, “Barring Capability field”: “1 bit – 1 Rx barred”; “1 bit – 2 Rx barred”).
Sierra does not explicitly teach a memory, having stored therein computer-executable instructions; a processor connected to the memory.
Liu teaches a communication device, comprising ([0089] “this application provides a communication apparatus.”); a memory, having stored therein computer-executable instructions ([0089] “The memory is configured to store a computer program or the instructions.”); a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute the network-device operations ([0089] “The at least one processor is coupled to the memory and the interface circuit.”; “When the at least one processor executes the computer program or the instructions, the communication apparatus performs the method performed by the network device in the foregoing method”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Sierra’s sending operation using Liu’s processor and memory to provide a software implementation suited to the network device’s application and design constraints (Liu [0236]).
Regarding Claim 22: Sierra teaches the method of claim 1.
Sierra does not explicitly teach a non-transitory computer storage medium having stored therein computer executable instructions which are executed by a processor.
Liu teaches the computer-program storage and execution implementation ([0096] “The computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program. When the computer program is run, the methods performed by the network device in the foregoing aspects are implemented.”). further teaches physical storage for the executable program ([0253] “A software module may be located in a mature storage medium in the art, such as a random-access memory, a flash memory, a read-only memory, a programmable read-only memory, an electrically erasable programmable memory, or a register.”; “a processor reads information in the memory and completes the steps in the foregoing methods in combination with hardware of the processor.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store instructions implementing Sierra’s method of claim 1 in Liu’s flash memory for processor execution, allowing the network device to retain and reuse its access-control program (Liu, [0096], [0253]).
Regarding Claim 23: Sierra teaches the method of claim 9.
Sierra does not explicitly teach a memory, having stored therein computer-executable instructions; and a processor, connected to the memory.
Liu teaches a communication device, comprising ([0090] “this application provides a communication apparatus.”); a memory, having stored therein computer-executable instructions ([0090] “The memory is configured to store a computer program or the instructions.”). Liu teaches the connected processor and execution of the terminal’s access-control method ([0090] “The at least one processor is coupled to the memory and the interface circuit.”; “When the at least one processor executes the computer program or the instructions, the communication apparatus performs the method performed by the terminal device in the foregoing method”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Sierra’s method of claim 9 using Liu’s programmed terminal for the same application-and-design-constraint benefit identified for claim 21 (Liu, [0090], [0236]).
Regarding Claim 24: Sierra teaches the method of claim 9.
Sierra does not explicitly teach a non-transitory computer storage medium having stored therein computer executable instructions which are executed by a processor.
Liu teaches the terminal-side computer-program storage and execution implementation ([0095] “The computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program. When the computer program is run, the methods performed by the terminal device in the foregoing aspects are implemented.”). Liu’s physical storage and processor-execution teachings in [0253], quoted for claim 22, supply the non-transitory storage and execution implementation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store instructions implementing Sierra’s method of claim 9 in Liu’s flash memory for processor execution, allowing the terminal to retain and reuse its access-control program (Liu, [0095], [0253]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASAN CHEEMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8722. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571) 270-0422. 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.
/H.A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights