DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in reply communication filed on 08/10/2026.
Claims 1, 10-11, and 13-15 are pending.
Claims 2-9 and 12 are cancelled.
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 .
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filled on 08/10/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 1, 3 and 7-11 have been fully 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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recited, “first information” in line 5. For clarity, it is suggested to change to “the first information”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claim 1, 10-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 are recites the limitation “second information relate to a base station group to which a serving cell belongs” in line 11. It is unclear whether this “base station group” is different from the base station group included in the first information. Thus, these claims 1, 10, and 11 are indefinite.
For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claims as best understood.
Claims 13, 14, and 15 are also rejected based on dependency.
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 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) 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 10-11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 2016/0219475) in view of Toh et al. (US 2012/0088505).
Regarding claim 1, KIM discloses a mobile communication system [see Fig. 23, ¶¶ 735-739; a mobile communication system] comprising:
a user equipment [see Fig. 23, ¶ 736; terminals 2310]; and
a base station [see Fig. 23, ¶ 735; base station 2320] configured to perform radio communication with the user equipment [see Fig. 23, ¶ 735; configured to perform radio communication with the terminals 2310],
wherein the user equipment is configured to receive a Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling including first information about a base station group notified from the base station [see Fig. 23, ¶ 739; wherein the terminals 2310 is configured to receive a Radio Resource Control (RRC) control message/(a dedicated control message) comprising information on nearby APs of an area where the terminal is located, that notified from the base station 2320; (that is, prior to the step S2301, the base station 2320 may transmit the information on nearby APs and measurement-related information of them to the terminal 2310 through a separate control message in the step S2301)], and
wherein the user equipment is configured to receive system information including second information related to base station group to which a serving cell belongs [see Fig. 23, ¶ 736; in step S2301, wherein the terminal 2310 is configured to receive information on Aps and information related to measurement on APs via system information, wherein the information related to nearby APs (base station group) to which a serving cell belongs].
Although, KIM discloses all aspects of claim invention including the user equipment is configured to receive RRC signaling including first information and system information including second information.
KIM does not explicitly disclose wherein the first information includes a list of base stations that configured the base station group.
However, Toh discloses
wherein the first information includes a list of base stations that configured the base station group [see ¶¶ 145-151; a network element (for example, HeNB) can broadcast common A-PCI list information to mobile terminals 140 as broadcast information; wherein the first information/(common A-PCI list information) includes a list of base stations/(CSG cells divided into different groups) configuring an updated common A-PCI list information for the group of CSG cells with an updated group PCI ID].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the base station group information includes a list of base stations configuring a base station group” as taught by Toh in the system of KIM, so that it would provide to access based on A-PCI list information without the need of receiving system information that includes a CSG identification that would reduce time required for access verification of the mobile terminal [see Toh; ¶ 16].
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites a base station configured to perform radio communication with a user equipment to perform the functions of the mobile communication system recited as in claim 1; therefore, claim 10 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites a user equipment configured to perform radio communication with a base station to perform the functions of the mobile communication system recited as in claim 1; therefore, claim 11 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the combined system of KIM and Toh discloses the user equipment according to claim 11.
KIM further discloses wherein the user equipment is configured to recognize the base station group to which the serving cell belongs, by using the second information [see ¶¶ 741-745-151; wherein the terminal 2310 is configured to recognize the base station group to which the serving cell belongs, by using the second information (perform measurements on nearby WLAN APs based on the AP information or the measurement-related information received from the base station 2320 )].
Regarding claim 15, the combined system of KIM and Toh discloses the user equipment according to claim 11.
KIM further discloses wherein the RRC signaling is a dedicated signal [see ¶ 739; wherein the RRC signaling is a dedicated signal].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 2016/0219475) in view of Toh et al. (US 2012/0088505), and further in view of Nair et al. (US 2011/0047029).
Regarding claim 14, the combined system of KIM and Toh discloses the user equipment according to claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first information about the base station group includes an identifier related to the base station group that is grouped in accordance with a location of the base station including two or more of the base stations.
However, Nair discloses wherein the first information about the base station group includes an identifier of a base station group [see ¶ 47; wherein the advertisement message/(base station group information) is a neighbor advertisement message such as the NBR-ADV message including the base station group identifier assigned to each of the groups] that is grouped in accordance with a location of the base station [see Fig. 3, ¶¶ 41-42; S210, the macro base station 102M organizes and groups the plurality of femto base stations 102F into a plurality of femto groups G1 through G6 based on/(according to) femto grouping characteristics/geographic location characteristics] including two or more of the base stations [see Fig. 1, ¶ 38, Fig. 3, ¶ 44; including a few femto base stations 102F, a few femto cells 100F].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the first information about the base station group includes an identifier related to the base station group that is grouped in accordance with a location of the base station including two or more of the base stations” as taught by Nair in the combined system of KIM and Toh, so that it would provide for more efficient management of larger numbers of neighbor base stations (e.g., macro and/or femto) for potential handoff and improve device battery life, reduce consumption of limited space in the air interface for broadcast messages, and/or reduce relatively long scanning periods of all the potential target base stations affecting data transmission/reception [see Nair; ¶¶ 12-13].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG LA whose telephone number is (571)272-2588. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IAN 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 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).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHONG LA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights