DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to application number 18,956,404 filed on November 22nd, 2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on January 13th, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted on April 9th, 2026, October 13th, 2025, April 30th, 2025, March 27th, 2025 and November 22nd, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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 1-8 and 10-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by ZTE (R2-2303286).
Regarding claim 2,18, ZTE discloses a method, comprising: transmitting, to a device, an indication of a barring status of a cell, wherein the barring status is associated with a capability of the device, wherein the indication of the barring status comprises an indication of whether the cell is barred for devices supporting single receiver branch operation or whether the cell is barred for devices supporting dual receiver branch operation, and wherein the capability of the device comprises a capability to support the single receiver branch operation or the dual receiver branch operation at the frequency band of the cell (Page 1 Section 2 discloses “Upon receiving the SIB1 the UE shall:… 3>if the cellBarredRedCap1Rx is present in the acquired SIB1 and is set to barred and the UE is equipped with 1 Rx branch; or 3>if the cellBarredRedCap2Rx is present in the acquired SIB1 and is set to barred and the UE is equipped with 2 Rx branches;” Here both conditions of the barring of 1RX UE and 2RX UE is addressed.).
Regarding claims 1,3, ZTE discloses a method, comprising: determining, by a device, a frequency band of a cell (Page 1 Section 2 discloses “Upon receiving the SIB1 the UE shall:… 2>if intraFreqReselectionRedCap is not present in SIB1:… else:”, the reference to SIB1 and intrafrequency refers to acquisition of the cell frequency) ; receiving, by the device, an indication of a barring status of the cell (Page 1 Section 2 discloses “…3>if the cellBarredRedCap1Rx is present in the acquired SIB1 and is set to barred and the UE is equipped with 1 Rx branch; or 3> if the cellBarredRedCap2Rx is present in the acquired SIB1 and is set to barred and the UE is equipped with 2 Rx branches;”) , wherein the barring status is associated with a capability of the device (Page 3 Observation 3 discloses “For FR1, the UE’s Rx number is implicitly indicated by supported DL MIMO layers, but based on current signaling design, for a specific band, the UE may report different DL MIMO layers in different FS.”); determining, by the device, the capability of the device at the frequency band of the cell (Page 2 Section 4.2.21.1 discloses “For FR1, 1 DL MIMO layer if 1 Rx branch is supported, and 2 DL MIMO layers if 2 Rx branches are supported; for FR2, either 1 or 2 DL MIMO layers can be supported, while 2 Rx branches are always supported. For FR1 and FR2, UE features and corresponding capabilities related to more than 2 UE Rx branches or more than 2 DL MIMO layers, as well as UE features and capabilities related to more than 1 UE Tx branch or more than 1 UL MIMO layer are not supported by RedCap UEs;” Here the device is aware of its capabilities at FR1 and FR2 furthermore Page 3 Observation 3 states “For FR1, the UE’s Rx number is implicitly indicated by supported DL MIMO layers, but based on current signaling design, for a specific band, the UE may report different DL MIMO layers in different FS.”); and determining, by the device, whether the cell is barred for the device based on the barring status and the capability of the device at the frequency band of the cell (Page 1 Section 2 discloses “3>if the cellBarredRedCap1Rx is present in the acquired SIB1 and is set to barred and the UE is equipped with 1 Rx branch…4>consider the cell as barred in accordance with TS 38.304.)
Regarding claim 4, ZTE discloses the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the indication of the barring status comprises an indication of whether the cell is barred for devices supporting single receiver branch operation or whether the cell is barred for devices supporting dual receiver branch operation, and wherein the capability of the apparatus comprises a capability to support the single receiver branch operation or the dual receiver branch operation at the frequency band of the cell (Page 1 Section 2 discloses “Upon receiving the SIB1 the UE shall:… 3>if the cellBarredRedCap1Rx is present in the acquired SIB1 and is set to barred and the UE is equipped with 1 Rx branch; or 3>if the cellBarredRedCap2Rx is present in the acquired SIB1 and is set to barred and the UE is equipped with 2 Rx branches;” Here both conditions of the barring of 1RX UE and 2RX UE is addressed.)..
Regarding claim 5, ZTE discloses the apparatus according to claim 4, further caused to perform: determining the capability to support the single receiver branch operation or the dual receiver branch operation based on a maximum number of downlink multiple input multiple output (MIMO) layers supported by the apparatus at the frequency band of the cell (Page 3 Paragraph 3 discloses “For FR1, if the UE reports “twoLayers” for maxNumberMIMO-LayersPDSCH, it means the UE supports 2Rx branches; if maxNumberMIMO-LayersPDSCH is not signalled, it means the UE supports 1Rx branch. ”).
Regarding claim 6, ZTE discloses the apparatus according to claim 5, further caused to perform: determining that the apparatus has the capability to support the single receiver branch operation, based on absence of an indication of the maximum number of downlink MIMO layers in user equipment capability information of the apparatus (Page 3 Paragraph 3 discloses “For FR1, if the UE reports “twoLayers” for maxNumberMIMO-LayersPDSCH, it means the UE supports 2Rx branches; if maxNumberMIMO-LayersPDSCH is not signalled, it means the UE supports 1Rx branch. ”); or determining that the apparatus has the capability to support the dual receiver branch operation, in response to determining the indication of the maximum number of downlink MIMO layers in the user equipment capability information of the apparatus to indicate two downlink MIMO layers (Page 3 Paragraph 3 discloses “For FR1, if the UE reports “twoLayers” for maxNumberMIMO-LayersPDSCH, it means the UE supports 2Rx branches; if maxNumberMIMO-LayersPDSCH is not signalled, it means the UE supports 1Rx branch. ”); or determining that the apparatus has the capability to support the dual receiver branch operation, in response to determining that the frequency band of the cell belongs to a Frequency Range 2 (Page 2 Paragraph 5 discloses “Regarding how to determine the Rx number, based on RAN1 agreement and TS 38.306, for FR2, 2 Rx branches are always supported, but for FR1, the number of supported Rx branches is implicitly indicated by the MIMO capability.”).
Regarding claim 7, ZTE discloses the apparatus according to claim 4, further caused to perform: determining that the cell is barred for the apparatus, in response determining that the barring status is indicative of the cell being barred for devices supporting the single receiver branch operation and that the apparatus supports the single receiver branch operation at the frequency band of the cell (Page 1 Section 2 discloses “…3>if the cellBarredRedCap1Rx is present in the acquired SIB1 and is set to barred and the UE is equipped with 1 Rx branch; and “4>consider the cell as barred in accordance with TS 38.304”); or determining that the cell is barred for the apparatus, in response determining that the barring status is indicative of the cell being barred for devices supporting the dual receiver branch operation and that the apparatus supports the dual receiver branch operation at the frequency band of the cell (Page 1 Section 2 discloses “…3> if the cellBarredRedCap2Rx is present in the acquired SIB1 and is set to barred and the UE is equipped with 2 Rx branches;” and “4>consider the cell as barred in accordance with TS 38.304”).
Regarding claim 8, ZTE discloses the apparatus according to claim 4, further caused to perform: determining that the cell is not barred for the apparatus, in response to determining that the barring status is indicative of the cell not being barred for devices supporting the single receiver branch operation and that the apparatus supports the single receiver branch operation at the frequency band of the cell (Page 3 Table 1 case 3); or determining the cell is not barred for the apparatus, in response to determining that the barring status is indicative of the cell not being barred for devices supporting the dual receiver branch operation and that the apparatus supports the dual receiver branch operation at the frequency band of the cell (Page 3 Table 1 case 2).
Regarding claims 10,19, ZTE discloses the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the indication of the barring status is targeted to devices belonging to a category of reduced capability devices (Page 1 Title discloses “Clarification on cell barred indication for RedCap UEs”, Page 2 Section 2 discloses “3>if the cellBarredRedCap1Rx is present in the acquired SIB1 and is set to barred and the UE is equipped with 1 Rx branch; or 3>if the cellBarredRedCap2Rx is present in the acquired SIB1 and is set to barred and the UE is equipped with 2 Rx branches;” here only RedCap is barred).
Regarding claims 11,20, ZTE discloses the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the capability of the apparatus comprises the apparatus belonging to a category of reduced capability devices (Page 2 Section 4.2.21.1 discloses “Definition of RedCap UE”).
Regarding claims 12, 21, ZTE discloses the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the apparatus belongs to a category of reduced capability devices (Page 2 Section 4.2.21.1 discloses “Definition of RedCap UE”).
Regarding claims 13,22, ZTE discloses the apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the category of reduced capability devices comprises a category of RedCap devices or a category of eRedCap devices (Page 2 Section 4.2.21.1 discloses “Definition of RedCap UE”).
Regarding claims 14,23, ZTE discloses the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the indication of the barring status is associated with a current frequency band of the cell, or wherein the capability of the apparatus is related to receiver operation of the apparatus (Page 2 Paragraphs 3 and 5 respectively disclose “For FR1, if the UE reports “twoLayers” for maxNumberMIMO-LayersPDSCH, it means the UE supports 2Rx branches; if maxNumberMIMO-LayersPDSCH is not signalled, it means the UE supports 1Rx branch.” And “Regarding how network determines the UE’s Rx number, from network implementation point of view, as long as the UE reports 2 layers DL MIMO in at least one feature set of a band, we think the UE is equipped with 2 Rx branches. If the UE only report 1 layer DL MIMO for all feature sets of a band, the network assumes the UE is equipped with only 1 Rx branch.”).
Regarding claims 15, ZTE discloses the apparatus according to claim 3, further caused to perform: receiving the indication of the barring status from the cell via a system information block message (Page 1 Section 2 discloses “3>if the cellBarredRedCap1Rx is present in the acquired SIB1 and is set to barred and the UE is equipped with 1 Rx branch; or 3>if the cellBarredRedCap2Rx is present in the acquired SIB1 and is set to barred and the UE is equipped with 2 Rx branches;”).”.
Regarding claim 16, ZTE discloses the apparatus according to claim 15, further caused to perform: determining the frequency band of the cell based on a frequency band list received from the cell via the system information block message (Page 1 Section 2 discloses “Upon receiving the SIB1 the UE shall”).
Regarding claims 17, ZTE discloses the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the apparatus is not allowed to access the cell when the cell is barred for the apparatus (Page 3 Table 1 Case 1 discloses scenario where “Both 1Rx and 2Rx RedCap UEs cannot access the cell”).
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZTE. (R2-2303286) further view of Nagano et al. (US 20240015641 A1).
Regarding claim 9, ZTE discloses the apparatus, according to claim 3.
ZTE fails to explicitly disclose determining to refrain from selecting or reselecting the cell, in response to determining that the cell is barred for the apparatus; or determining to select or reselect the cell, based on determining that the cell is not barred for the apparatus.
However, in an analogous art Nagano et al. teaches determining to refrain from selecting or reselecting the cell, in response to determining that the cell is barred for the apparatus; or determining to select or reselect the cell, based on determining that the cell is not barred for the apparatus (US 20240015641 A1 Fig.3 discloses both conditions. If it is determined that the cell is barred (S109) then cell selection (S110 is not performed, and the opposite also holds true).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified ZTE to incorporate the teachings of Nagano et al., determining to refrain from selecting or reselecting the cell, in response to determining that the cell is barred for the apparatus; or determining to select or reselect the cell, based on determining that the cell is not barred for the apparatus, in order prevent inefficient usage or wastage of UE resources, by preventing participating in functions that a bound to fail.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samuel Dilan Rutnam whose telephone number is 703-756-1374. The examiner can normally be reached between 8:30am-5:00pm Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy Kundu can be reached on 571-272-8586.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Samuel Dilan Rutnam/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights