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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yavuz et al (WO 2025/078432) in view of Bahta et al (2017/0006447) OR Li et al (2023/0268982).
Regarding claim 1. Yavuz teaches a first apparatus (figures 1 and 2 – UE item 12) comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (figures 1 and 2, pages 18-19 wherein UE comprises processor, memory storing instructions, figure 5 – UE comprises processor 510 and memory 530), cause the first apparatus at least to:
in accordance with a determination that an access to a cell by the first
apparatus is barred (figures 1 and 2, page 13 lines 31-35 wherein UE receives signaling (figure 1 at item 18 and figure 2 at item 200) from the network. The signaling includes cell barring indication (figure 1 at time 20 and figure 2 at item 210) which indicate the UE is barred from camping on, accessing or attempting to access the cell 116 (block 210)) , monitor an indication related to an emergency access in the cell (page 13 line 36 – page 14 line 7 wherein the signaling includes a barring bypass indication (figure 1 at item 22, figure 2 at item 220) which indicates the UE is allowed to camp on, access, or attempt to access the cell 22, despite the call barring indication 20, under one or more circumstances 24 (block 220). In some embodiments, the one or more circumstances 24 include the UE camping on, accessing or attempting the cell for a certain communication service from the communication network 10. In some embodiments, the certain communication service is an emergency service), wherein the first apparatus is barred from making a non-emergency access in the cell
based on the first apparatus being a RedCap user equipment with 1 receiving (Rx)
branch or 2 Rx branches (page 11 lines 28-35 and page 14 lines 15-20 and 30-34 wherein the network indicates that an eRedCap UE, which is barred due to having certain properties (e.g., because UE has 1RX, 2RX or HD-FDD), can anyway access the network for an “essential” service. This behavior will be referred to as the UE will “bypass” the barring indications, and this means that the UE could attempt to access the cell even if the UE has properties which would under normal circumstances force the UE to consider the cell as barred. One example of such essential service is emergency services such as emergency calls);
in accordance with a determination that the indication related to the
emergency access is received and that the indication indicates that the emergency access is allowed, determine whether the first apparatus is allowed to perform emergency access in the cell (page 15 lines 25-27 wherein based on the barring bypass indication 22, camping on, accessing, or attempting to access the cell, despite the cell barring indication 20, under one or more circumstances 24).
. Yavuz teaches wherein the first apparatus is caused to: in accordance with a determination that no indication related to the emergency access is received, determine that the first apparatus is disallowed to perform the emergency access in the cell (page 12 lines 15-22 – Absence of barring bypassing indications. In case the network does not provide any indication (no barring bypass indication 22 is signaled), the UE interprets this as the UE as the UE cannot bypass the barring indications).
Yavuz does not explicitly teach wherein the first apparatus is caused to: in accordance with a determination that the first apparatus is to initiate an emergency access, select a target cell for the emergency access from at least one candidate cell, wherein each of the at least one candidate cell is accessible to the first apparatus .
Bahta teaches how what the UE should do when it needs to make an emergency call in a cell where emergency access is disallowed (0011 – TS 36.331 version 12.4.1, the specification indicates that the UE will not initiate an emergency call when ac-BarringForEmerency parameter is set to TRUE. However, the specification fails to set forth an alternative system for the UE to search and originate the emergency call when the ac-BarringForEmergency parameter is set to TRUE). A redirecting procedure is described in which an access class barring parameter (hereinafter referred to as a “redirection parameter”) aids the UE in establishing the emergency call when ac-BarringForEmergency is set to True. The redirection parameter is carried by a SIB Type 2 message. The UE uses the redirection prior to an initiation of a RRC procedure pertaining to the emergency call, and when ac-BarringForEmergency parameter is set to True. In this way, the UE uses the redirection parameter to “redirect” the UE from the barred cell to another candidate cell via which the UE may establish the emergency call (0013) wherein the redirection parameter includes candidate cells (e.g, a list) (0016-0017).
Li teaches in accordance with a determination that no indication related to the emergency access is received, determine that the first apparatus is disallowed to perform the emergency access in the cell (page17 at TABLE 1.7-2, SIB1 field descriptions wherein ims-EmergencySupport indicates the cell supports IMS emergency bearer services for UEs in limited service mode. If absent, IMS emergency call is not supported by the network in the cell for UEs in limited service mode). Therefore, the network provides intraFreqReselctionRedCap which controls cell selection to intra-frequency cells for RedCap UEs when the cell is barred, or treated as barred by the RedCap UE which reads on “and in accordance with a determination that the first apparatus is to initiate an emergency access, select a target cell for the emergency access form at least one candidate cell, wherein each of the at least one candidate cell is accessible to the first apparatus”. In this case the UE (e.g,. the first apparatus) selects at least one candidate cell (e.g., intraFreqReselctionRedCap) that is accessible to the first apparatus. (page 17 at TABLE 1.7-2, SIB1 field descriptions).
It would have been extremely obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yavuz to provide an indication to the UE as taught by Bahta (e.g., redirection parameter for candidate cells) OR Li (e.g., intraFreqReselctionRedCap for intra frequency candidate cells) thereby assisting the UE regarding what the UE should do when it needs to make an emergency call in a cell where emergency access is disallowed/barred.
Regarding claim 16. Yavuz teaches a method comprising:
in accordance with a determination that an access to a cell by (figures 1 and 2 – UE item 12) is barred (figures 1 and 2, page 13 lines 31-35 wherein UE receives signaling (figure 1 at item 18 and figure 2 at item 200) from the network. The signaling includes cell barring indication (figure 1 at time 20 and figure 2 at item 210) which indicate the UE is barred from camping on, accessing or attempting to access the cell 116 (block 210)), monitoring an indication related to an emergency access in the cell (page 13 line 36 – page 14 line 7 wherein the signaling includes a barring bypass indication (figure 1 at item 22, figure 2 at item 220) which indicates the UE is allowed to camp on, access, or attempt to access the cell 22, despite the call barring indication 20, under one or more circumstances 24 (block 220). In some embodiments, the one or more circumstances 24 include the UE camping on, accessing or attempting the cell for a certain communication service from the communication network 10. In some embodiments, the certain communication service is an emergency service), wherein the first apparatus is barred from making a non-emergency access in the cell based on the first apparatus being a RedCap user equipment with 1 receiving (Rx) branch or 2 Rx branches (page 11 lines 28-35 and page 14 lines 15-20 and 30-34 wherein the network indicates that an eRedCap UE, which is barred due to having certain properties (e.g., because UE has 1RX, 2RX or HD-FDD), can anyway access the network for an “essential” service. This behavior will be referred to as the UE will “bypass” the barring indications, and this means that the UE could attempt to access the cell even if the UE has properties which would under normal circumstances force the UE to consider the cell as barred. One example of such essential service is emergency services such as emergency calls);
in accordance with a determination that the indication related to the emergency access is received and that the indication indicates that the emergency access is allowed (page 15 lines 25-27 wherein based on the barring bypass indication 22, camping on, accessing, or attempting to access the cell, despite the cell barring indication 20, under one or more circumstances 24),
determining, (page 11 lines 28-35 and page 14 lines 15-20 and 30-34 wherein the network indicates that an eRedCap UE, which is barred due to having certain properties (e.g., because UE has 1RX, 2RX or HD-FDD), can anyway access the network for an “essential” service. This behavior will be referred to as the UE will “bypass” the barring indications, and this means that the UE could attempt to access the cell even if the UE has properties which would under normal circumstances force the UE to consider the cell as barred. One example of such essential service is emergency services such as emergency calls. page 15 lines 25-27 wherein based on the barring bypass indication 22, camping on, accessing, or attempting to access the cell, despite the cell barring indication 20, under one or more circumstances 24).
Yavuz teaches wherein the first apparatus is caused to: in accordance with a determination that no indication related to the emergency access is received, determine that the first apparatus is disallowed to perform the emergency access in the cell (page 12 lines 15-22 – Absence of barring bypassing indications. In case the network does not provide any indication (no barring bypass indication 22 is signaled), the UE interprets this as the UE as the UE cannot bypass the barring indications).
Yavuz does not explicitly teach wherein the first apparatus is caused to: in accordance with a determination that the first apparatus is to initiate an emergency access, select a target cell for the emergency access from at least one candidate cell, wherein each of the at least one candidate cell is accessible to the first apparatus .
Bahta teaches how what the UE should do when it needs to make an emergency call in a cell where emergency access is disallowed (0011 – TS 36.331 version 12.4.1, the specification indicates that the UE will not initiate an emergency call when ac-BarringForEmerency parameter is set to TRUE. However, the specification fails to set forth an alternative system for the UE to search and originate the emergency call when the ac-BarringForEmergency parameter is set to TRUE). A redirecting procedure is described in which an access class barring parameter (hereinafter referred to as a “redirection parameter”) aids the UE in establishing the emergency call when ac-BarringForEmergency is set to True. The redirection parameter is carried by a SIB Type 2 message. The UE uses the redirection prior to an initiation of a RRC procedure pertaining to the emergency call, and when ac-BarringForEmergency parameter is set to True. In this way, the UE uses the redirection parameter to “redirect” the UE from the barred cell to another candidate cell via which the UE may establish the emergency call (0013) wherein the redirection parameter includes candidate cells (e.g, a list) (0016-0017).
Li teaches in accordance with a determination that no indication related to the emergency access is received, determine that the first apparatus is disallowed to perform the emergency access in the cell (page17 at TABLE 1.7-2, SIB1 field descriptions wherein ims-EmergencySupport indicates the cell supports IMS emergency bearer services for UEs in limited service mode. If absent, IMS emergency call is not supported by the network in the cell for UEs in limited service mode). Therefore, the network provides intraFreqReselctionRedCap which controls cell selection to intra-frequency cells for RedCap UEs when the cell is barred, or treated as barred by the RedCap UE which reads on “and in accordance with a determination that the first apparatus is to initiate an emergency access, select a target cell for the emergency access form at least one candidate cell, wherein each of the at least one candidate cell is accessible to the first apparatus”. In this case the UE (e.g,. the first apparatus) selects at least one candidate cell (e.g., intraFreqReselctionRedCap) that is accessible to the first apparatus. (page 17 at TABLE 1.7-2, SIB1 field descriptions).
It would have been extremely obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yavuz to provide an indication to the UE as taught by Bahta (e.g., redirection parameter for candidate cells) OR Li (e.g., intraFreqReselctionRedCap for intra frequency candidate cells) thereby assisting the UE regarding what the UE should do when it needs to make an emergency call in a cell where emergency access is disallowed/barred.
Regarding claim 4. Yavuz teaches wherein the indication is comprised in system information which is broadcasted from a second apparatus (page 11 lines 36-37 wherein the network can provide the indication (as an example of barring bypass indication 22) as part of System Information).
Regarding claim 5. Yavuz teaches wherein the first apparatus is caused to: in accordance with a determination that the first apparatus is allowed to perform the emergency access in the cell, determine the cell to be an acceptable cell (page 15 lines 25-27 – In some embodiments, the method further comprises, based on the barring bypass indication 22, camping on, accessing, or attempting to access the cell, despite the call barring indication 20, under one of the one or more circumstances 24).
Regarding claim 6. Yavuz teaches wherein the presence of the indication depends on information that the cell is inaccessible to the first apparatus (page 11 lines 27-35).
Regarding claim 9. Yavuz teaches wherein the first apparatus is caused to: perform one of the following based on the determining: performing the emergency access in the cell, or preventing the emergency access in the cell (page 11 lines 28-35 and page 14 lines 15-20 and 30-34 wherein the network indicates that an eRedCap UE, which is barred due to having certain properties (e.g., because UE has 1RX, 2RX or HD-FDD), can anyway access the network for an “essential” service. This behavior will be referred to as the UE will “bypass” the barring indications, and this means that the UE could attempt to access the cell even if the UE has properties which would under normal circumstances force the UE to consider the cell as barred. One example of such essential service is emergency services such as emergency calls).
Regarding claims 10 and 19. Yavuz teaches wherein the indication indicates that the emergency access is allowed for a device with 1 receiving (Rx) branch (page 11 lines 28-35 and page 14 lines 15-20 and 30-34 wherein the network indicates that an eRedCap UE, which is barred due to having certain properties (e.g., because UE has 1RX, 2RX or HD-FDD), can anyway access the network for an “essential” service. This behavior will be referred to as the UE will “bypass” the barring indications, and this means that the UE could attempt to access the cell even if the UE has properties which would under normal circumstances force the UE to consider the cell as barred. One example of such essential service is emergency services such as emergency calls).
Regarding claims 11 and 20. Yavuz teaches wherein the indication indicates that emergency access is allowed for a device with 2 Rx branches (page 11 lines 28-35 and page 14 lines 15-20 and 30-34 wherein the network indicates that an eRedCap UE, which is barred due to having certain properties (e.g., because UE has 1RX, 2RX or HD-FDD), can anyway access the network for an “essential” service. This behavior will be referred to as the UE will “bypass” the barring indications, and this means that the UE could attempt to access the cell even if the UE has properties which would under normal circumstances force the UE to consider the cell as barred. One example of such essential service is emergency services such as emergency calls).
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 16, and 19-20 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.
Conclusion
3. 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.
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
---(2010/0240338) Mallick et al teaches when the UE wants to perform an emergency call but barred from access, the UE “REDIRECTS” to another RAT or PLMN (0034-0039) by using the REDIRCTION INFORMATION from the network (0045) and/or the UE indicates to the user that emergency calls are not possible and provide candidate cells for the user to select (0040).
---(2025/0119771) Zhang teaches for Rel-17 RedCap UEs, intraFreqReselectionRedCap and redCapAccessAllowed are introduced to control cell selection/reselection to intra-frequency/inter-frequency cells when this cell is barred or treated as barred by the RedCap UE (0028).
---(2015/0126147) Koskela et al teaches UE receives access control information from the network wherein access control information further comprises emergency access barring (see claims 1, 3-4, and 6-9).
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARRY W TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-7509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7-5.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at 571-272-4177. 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.
/BARRY W TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights