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 .
Examiner’s Note
A proposal was extended to the Applicants’ Representative, Hopeton Walker, on 1/8/2026 during a telephonic interview, in order to place the application in condition of allowance. However, the proposal was not accepted and an office action on merits was requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “…reception of a second signal associated with a response to the request of the first connection change…reception of a fourth signal associated with a response to the request of the second connection change, wherein each of the second and fourth signal is received from the first user terminal device” This is not described or disclosed in the originally filed specification.
Although signals are received, such as in Fig. 3-Fig. 4, Fig. 13-Fig. 14, Fig. 21-Fig. 22, Fig. 29-Fig. 30. These and corresponding description disclose reception of signals from the STA/user terminal device, however, these are not associated with a response to the request of second connection change, or request for first connection change.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a control, …, transmission and reception of a signal. It is unclear which one of the transmission or reception is associated with the signal and which one of the transmission or reception is associated with “a first connection change” and which is associated with “a second connection change”
Claim 1 recites, “a reception of a second signal associated with a response to the request of the first connection change…reception of a fourth signal associated with a response to the request of the second connection change, wherein each of the second and fourth signal is received from the first user terminal device” It is unclear which signal is referred to by these limitations.
Claim 16 is also rejected based on similar issues explained above.
Claims are read as best understood by the examiner.
Corrections are required.
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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASINI et al (US 2015/0181481) in view of WANG et al (US 2007/0293227) further in view of BONTU et al (US 2014/0211762) still further in view of FORSBERG (US 2007/0060127)
Regarding claim 1, 16, MASINI et al (US 2015/0181481) discloses a communication control device that controls wireless communication of a communication device which is configured to operate as a first base station, the communication control device comprising:
circuitry configured to:
determine a first communication quality in a first basic service set (BSS), wherein
the first BSS includes the communication device (MASINI: Fig. 4, ¶44, ¶199-202, based on the quality reports in the coverage of the serving base station’s BSS, of the communication between the serving base station and the UE(s), the determination of the quality is made at the source base station); and
control, based on the determination of the first communication quality, transmission of a first signal associated with a request of a first connection change of a first user terminal device of a plurality of user terminal devices, wherein the first connection change is from the first base station to a second base station, (MASINI: Fig. 4, ¶235, ¶199-202, the source base station controls, based on the measurement reports, sending/transmitting RRC connection Reconfig. Message with mobility information indication to the UE(s) to handover; the signal is received by the UE), wherein the first signal is transmitted to the first user terminal device (MASINI: Fig. 4, ¶235, the signal is received by the UE) control transmission of a signal to the first user terminal device, wherein the first user terminal device is connectable from the second base station based on the signal (MASINI: Fig. 4, ¶235, the RRC ConnectionReconfiguration message (handover command) message enables detachment from the old cell and synchronization with the new cell for handover),
MASINI remains silent regarding the signal being a reset signal to the first user terminal device wherein the reset signal corresponds to reset of specific parameter information of the first base station, and the first user terminal device is connectable from the second base station based on the reset of the specific parameter information of the first base station.
However, WANG et al (US 2007/0293227) discloses the signal being a reset signal to the first user terminal device wherein the reset signal corresponds to reset of specific parameter information of the first base station, and the first user terminal device is connectable from the second base station based on the reset of the specific parameter information of the first base station (WANG: ¶32, the WTRU/User terminal receives a signal that resets the parameter and enables setting these parameters for communication and handover to the target/second base station).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of MASINI would have been motivated to use the teachings of WANG as it provides details for efficient target eNode-B scheduling of resources for UE transmission (¶10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of MASINI with teachings of WANG in order to improve handover performance.
MASINI modified by WANG remains silent regarding the control, based on the determination of the first communication quality, transmission of a third signal associated with a request of a second connection change of the first user terminal device from the second base station, wherein the third signal is transmitted to the first user terminal device.
However, BONTU et al (US 2014/0211762) discloses the control, based on the determination of the first communication quality, transmission of a third signal associated with a request of a second connection change of the first user terminal device from the second base station (BONTU: ¶190, ¶192, ¶195, Fig. 9, UE receives a signal from the serving cell to stay with the serving cell and cancel any handover or intermediate handover state), wherein the third signal is received by the first user terminal device (BONTU: ¶190, the indication is received from the serving cell, by the UE)
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of MASINI modified by WANG would have been motivated to use the teachings of BONTU as it provides details for the best feasible cell for the UE based on the quality and avoid ping-pong effects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of MASINI modified by WANG with teachings of BONTU in order to improve unnecessary handovers.
MASINI modified by WANG modified by BONTU remains silent regarding reception of a second signal associated with a response to the request of the first connection change; reception of a fourth signal associated with a response to the request of the second connection change.
However, FORSBERG (US 2007/0060127) discloses a response signal to a request of a connection change (FORSBERG: ¶141, a response message in response to a connection change request from the source base station is sent to the source base station).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of MASINI modified by WANG modified by BONTU would have been motivated to use the teachings of FORSBERG as it provides confirmation of any connection change requested by the base station to minimize chances of missing critical control type messages. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of MASINI modified by WANG modified by BONTU with teachings of FORSBERG in order to improve control information reliability.
Regarding claim 2, MASINI discloses communication control device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to control transmission, to the first user terminal device, of a request signal that requests the first user terminal to be connected to the second base station (MASINI: ¶123, ¶235, source base station sends/transmits a handover message including the reconfiguration message in step 7, for example in Fig. 4, to the UE that causes the UE to initiate communication and connection with the target (second) base station).
Regarding claim 3, MASINI discloses communication control device according to claim 2, wherein the circuitry
determines presence of a specific number of user terminal devices of the plurality of user terminal devices (MASINI: ¶107-108, ¶109, the number of nodes/UEs in a subset of a group of UEs are determined at the base station (network node of Fig. 14 and source eNB of Fig. 4) based at least on the reports from the subset of UEs), wherein each user terminal device of the specific number of user terminal devices has a first parameter that falls outside a distribution of parameter information of the plurality of user terminal devices (MASINI: ¶107, ¶209-2226 Fig. 18, a measurement reported value of measurement parameter (e.g. signal strength) of a group of UE is above/below a threshold (outside distribution/range) for the serving base station) and
the first parameter represents an index of a communication quality of the each user terminal device of the specific number of user terminal devices (MASINI: ¶107-108, ¶219-226, signal strength value (index of the parameter (signal strength)) for the subset (specific number) of the UE is higher/outside distribution/range in the neighboring base station/target base station); and
transmit a request signal that requests for each of the specific number of user terminal devices to connect to the second base station wherein the request signal is transmitted to each of the specific number of user terminal devices (MASINI: ¶109, ¶110, ¶119-122, a handover request is transmitted to all the UEs of the group including the UEs of the subset).
Regarding claim 6, MASINI discloses communication control device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit determine presence of the specific number of terminal devices of the plurality of the user terminal device (MASINI: ¶107-108, ¶109, the number of nodes/UEs in a subset of a group of UEs are determined at the base station (network node of Fig. 14 and source eNB of Fig. 4) based at least on the reports from the subset of UEs), wherein
each user terminal device of the specific number of user terminal devices has a first parameter falling outside a distribution of parameter information of the plurality of user terminal device (MASINI: ¶107, ¶209-2226 Fig. 18, a measurement reported value of measurement parameter (e.g. signal strength) of a group of UE is above/below a threshold (outside distribution/range) for the serving base station) and the first parameter represents an index of a second communication quality of the each user terminal device of the specific number of user terminal devices; MASINI: ¶107-108, ¶219-226, signal strength value (index of the parameter (signal strength)) for the subset (specific number) of the UE is higher/outside distribution/range in the neighboring base station/target base station)
controls transmission of the inquiry signal inquiring of the surrounding base station availability of acceptance of the subordinate terminal (MASINI: ¶109, ¶110, ¶119-122, a handover request is transmitted to neighboring bas station regarding all the UEs of the group including the UEs of the subset).
Regarding claim 7, MASINI discloses communication device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry configured to control transmission of one of the first inquiry signal, to the second base station, the second communication quality of each user terminal device of the specific number of user terminal devices or information associated with specific user terminal device (MASINI: ¶123, ¶128, ¶67, the number of UEs that are to be handed over to the target base station are indicated in a handover request message which, when accepted, is determined by the source base station as available at the target base station).
Regarding claim 9, MASINI discloses communication control device according to claim 1, the circuitry configured to:
receive an answer signal, indicating the acceptance of the second user terminal device from the second base station; and control transmission of a request signal, to the second user terminal device, requesting the second user terminal device to be connected to the second base station (MASINI: ¶123, ¶128, ¶67, the number of UEs that are to be handed over to the target base station are indicated in a handover request message which, when accepted (by send ack/answer signal), is determined by the source base station as available at the target base station with sufficient quality).
Claim(s) 10-12, 14-15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASINI et al (US 2015/0181481) in view of SITARAM et al (US 9426707)
Regarding claim 10, MASINI discloses communication device according to claim 9, wherein the circuitry is further configured to control unit controls the transmission of the request signal, to the user terminal device, including information regarding a communication quality in a BSS, the BSS includes a base station, and the information regarding the communication quality is added to the answer signal (MASINI: ¶123, ¶128, ¶67, the number of UEs that are to be handed over to the target base station are indicated in a handover request message which, when accepted (by send ack/answer signal), is determined by the source base station as available at the target base station with sufficient quality).
MASINI remains silent regarding the communication quality being third communication quality in a second BSS and the second BSS includes the second base station.
However, SITARAM et al (US 9426707) discloses the communication quality being third communication quality in a second BSS and the second BSS includes the second base station (SITARAM: col. 8:36-48, the target base station becomes the source base station and the source base station becomes the target base station).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of MASINI would have been motivated to use the teachings of SITARAM as it provides a way to improve flexibility by leaving options open to go back to the original base station when it improves in quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of MASINI with teachings of SITARAM in order to enhance flexibility in order to maintain continuity.
Regarding claim 11, MASINI discloses communication device according to claim 1, receive a second parameter based on a third connection change of a first user terminal device from the second base station to the first base station, from one of:
a third user terminal device of the second base station or the second base station (MASINI: ¶123, ¶128, ¶67, the number of UEs that are to be handed over to the target base station are indicated in a handover request message which, when accepted, is determined by currently serving base station as available at the currently target base station with sufficient quality); and
set a first parameter for the first base station based on the second parameter (MASINI: ¶123, ¶128, ¶67, the number of UEs that are to be handed over to the currently target base station are set by the handover request message during admission process).
MASINI remains silent regarding the second base station being the currently serving base station and the first base station being the currently target base station.
However, SITARAM et al (US 9426707) discloses the second base station being the currently serving base station and the first base station being the currently target base station (SITARAM: col. 8:36-48, the target base station becomes the source base station and the source base station becomes the target base station).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of MASINI would have been motivated to use the teachings of SITARAM as it provides a way to improve flexibility by leaving options open to go back to the original base station when it improves in quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of MASINI with teachings of SITARAM in order to enhance flexibility in order to maintain continuity.
Regarding claim 12, MASINI discloses communication device according to claim 1, wherein circuitry further configured to
wherein the circuitry is further configured to: receive a second inquiry signal from the second base station that inquires an availability of acceptance of a user terminal device of the second base station; and controls, based on the reception of the second inquiry signal, transmission of an answer signal, to the second base station, answering the availability of acceptance of the user a terminal device of the second base station. (MASINI: ¶123, ¶128, ¶67, the number of UEs that are to be handed over to the currently target base station are indicated in a handover request (inquiry) message transmitted by the current source base station which, when accepted (by send ack/answer signal), is determined by the current source base station as available at the current target base station with sufficient quality; MASINI: ¶109, ¶110, ¶119-122, a handover acknowledgment (answer) is sent from the current target base station)
MASINI remains silent regarding the second base station being the currently serving base station and the first base station being the currently target base station.
However, SITARAM et al (US 9426707) discloses the second base station being the currently serving base station and the first base station being the currently target base station (SITARAM: col. 8:36-48, the target base station becomes the source base station and the source base station becomes the target base station).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of MASINI would have been motivated to use the teachings of SITARAM as it provides a way to improve flexibility by leaving options open to go back to the original base station when it improves in quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of MASINI with teachings of SITARAM in order to enhance flexibility in order to maintain continuity.
Regarding claim 14, MASINI modified by SITARAM discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to control the transmission of the answer signal to the second base station, and information regarding the first communication quality in the first BSS (MASINI: ¶123, ¶128, ¶67, the number of UEs that are to be handed over to the target base station are indicated in a handover request message which, when accepted (by send ack/answer signal), is determined by the source base station as available at the target base station with sufficient quality; this is based on acceptance of quality requirement in the ACK message; SITARAM: col. 8:36-48, the target base station becomes the source base station and the source base station becomes the target base station)
Regarding claim 15, MASINI modified by SITARAM discloses discloses communication device according to claim 12, wherein, the circuitry is further configured to: accept the third user terminal device of the second base station; and attempt connection with the third user terminal device of the second base station based on the acceptance of the third user terminal device. (MASINI: ¶123, ¶128, ¶67, the number of UEs that are to be handed over to the target base station are indicated in a handover request message which, when accepted, is determined by the source base station as available at the target base station with sufficient quality; SITARAM: col. 8:36-48, the target base station becomes the source base station and the source base station becomes the target base station).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASINI et al (US 2015/0181481) modified by SITARAM as applied to claim 12 above, further in view of VAN LEISHOUT et al (US 2016/0037425)
Regarding claim 13, MASINI modified by SITARAM discloses communication device according to claim 12, wherein the circuitry is further configured to determine the availability of acceptance of the third user terminal device of the second base station based on one of regarding a second parameter or a traffic load in the first base station, wherein the second inquiry signal includes the second parameter, (MASINI: ¶123, ¶128, ¶67, the number of UEs that are to be handed over to the currently target base station are indicated in a handover request (inquiry) message transmitted by the current source base station which, when accepted (by send ack/answer signal), is determined by the current source base station as available at the current target base station with sufficient quality; SITARAM: col. 8:36-48, the target base station becomes the source base station and the source base station becomes the target base station);
user capabilities included signal level threshold (MASINI: Table 1: minimum signal power)
MASINI modified by SITARAM remains silent regards, however VAN LEISHOUT et al (US 2016/0037425) discloses the second parameter includes at least signal detection threshold value (VAN LEISHOUT: ¶144, the handover request/prep message includes use capabilities)
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of MASINI modified by SITARAM would have been motivated to use the teachings of VAN LEISHOUT as it provides a way to improve the chances of the mobile terminal successfully handing over to the target base station (¶85). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of MASINI modified by SITARAM with teachings of VAN LEISHOUT in order to improve handover success.
Claim(s) 4 and 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASINI et al (US 2015/0181481) as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of VAN LEISHOUT et al (US 2016/0037425)
Regarding claim 4 and 8, MASINI discloses the communication device according to claim 2/1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to control transmission of a first inquire signal to the second base station, to inquire an availability of the second base station for acceptance of a second user terminal device of the plurality of user terminal devices, wherein first inquiry signal includes a second parameter, and the second parameter includes a required parameter (MASINI: ¶123, ¶128, ¶67, the number of UEs that are to be handed over to the currently target base station are indicated in a handover request (inquiry) message transmitted by the current source base station which, when accepted (by send ack/answer signal), is determined by the current source base station as available at the current target base station with sufficient quality;)
user capabilities included signal level threshold (MASINI: Table 1: minimum signal power)
MASINI remains silent regards, however VAN LEISHOUT et al (US 2016/0037425) discloses the second parameter includes at least signal detection threshold value (VAN LEISHOUT: ¶144, the handover request/prep message includes use capabilities)
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of MASINI would have been motivated to use the teachings of VAN LEISHOUT as it provides a way to improve the chances of the mobile terminal successfully handing over to the target base station (¶85). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of MASINI with teachings of VAN LEISHOUT in order to improve handover success.
Claim(s) 17, 19-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASINI et al (US 2015/0181481) in view of LEE et al (US 20080273503) further in view of WANG et al (US 2007/0293227)
Regarding claim 17, 20, MASINI discloses communication control device configured to operate as a user terminal device under control of a first base station, the communication control device comprising: circuitry configured to:
receive a first request signal from the first base station requesting for a change in connection from the first base station to a second base station, wherein the received first request signal includes first parameter information of the first base station, and the first parameter information corresponds to at least one of a contention windows size, an arbitration inter frame space, a transmission opportunity, or a signal detection threshold value (MASINI: ¶235 and Fig. 4, ¶199-201, ¶204-206, a RRC Connection Reconfig message is transmitted in order to change the UE from the first base station to another/target base station; this message includes measurement object including the signal detection RSRP or RSCP and interframe space/gaps );
receiving a signal from the first base station (MASINI: Fig. 4, a RRC Reconfiguration message is received)
transmit a second request signal to the second base station based on the received first request signal and the signal (MASINI: Fig. 4, ¶249, UE sends a signal to synchronizes with the target base station);
receive a reply signal from the second base station based on the transmitted second request signal; change the connection from the first base station to the second base station based on the received request reply signal (MASINI: ¶239-242 Fig. 4, the reply from the second base station/target BS is transmitted to the UE and the UE completes the handover e.g. signal in step 10 and step 11); and
transmit the set second parameter information of a neighboring base station to a serving base station (MASINI: Fig. 4, ¶231, ¶199-201, ¶204-206, measurement report is sent with parameter information including the RSRP, interframe gaps etc is transmitted; this information is of the neighboring cell)
MASINI remains silent regarding the transmitting the parameter information of the second base station to the second base station after the change in the connection to the second base station, wherein the transmitted second parameter information increases communication opportunities between the second base station and the user equipment.
However, LEE et al (US 20080273503) discloses the transmitting the parameter information of the second base station to the second base station after the change in the connection to the second base station, wherein the transmitted second parameter information increases communication opportunities between the second base station and the user equipment (LEE: ¶57-58, ¶59, at least configuration information including scheduling opportunities and other control and service information is sent from the terminal to the target base station, including the MBMS information which includes the opportunities of communication between the target base station the UE (compared to before the handover)).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of MASINI would have been motivated to use the teachings of LEE as it provides robust communication of significant control information when the connection between source and target is costly or unavailable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of MASINI with teachings of LEE in order to enhance flexibility in order to improve cost-effectiveness, robustness of control information transfer, and efficiency (¶59).
MASINI modified by LEE remains silent regarding the first request signal including first parameter information and second parameter information set for the second base station; and receive a reset signal from the first base station, wherein the reset signal corresponds to reset of the first parameter information of the first base station.
However, WANG et al (US 2007/0293227) discloses the first request signal including first parameter information and second parameter information set for the second base station; and receive a reset signal from the first base station, wherein the reset signal corresponds to reset of the first parameter information of the first base station (WANG: ¶32, ¶18, the WTRU/User terminal receives a signal that resets the parameter and enables setting these parameters for communication and handover to the target/second base station; the parameter includes parameter for source and target eNode Bs).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of MASINI would have been motivated to use the teachings of WANG as it provides details for efficient target eNode-B scheduling of resources for UE transmission (¶10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of MASINI with teachings of WANG in order to improve handover performance.
Regarding claim 19, MASINI modified by LEE modified by WANG discloses the communication device according to claim 17, wherein the parameter information further includes information regarding an implementation schedule of one of spatial reuse communication or multi user communication in a basic service set (BSS) and the BSS includes the first base station (LEE: ¶56, ¶59, point to multipoint information; MASINI: ¶119-120, mobility Control Infor will contain measuring info for all the UEs to be handed over (equivalent to multi user information))
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 6-17, 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11323941. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims 1-4, 6-17, 19-20, of application claim all that is recited in claim 1-16 of the patent. An omission of an element and its functions is obvious variation if the function of the element is not desired (Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989)) (See MPEP, 2144.04 (ll)(a)).
Double patenting rejections presented previously are maintained and no arguments were presented by the applicants regarding the rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue,
“
PNG
media_image1.png
192
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
170
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments. Applicants take a position that MASINI does not disclose, “…control transmission of a reset signal to the first user terminal device, wherein the reset signal corresponds to reset of specific parameter information of the first base station and the first user terminal device is connectable from the second base station based on the reset of the specific parameter information of the first base station…”
MASINI, expressly discloses that a RRCReconfigurationMobility message, in Fig. 4, is sent to the UE from the source base station (first base station) and a connection between UE and the target base station (second base station) is performed based on this signal and mobility control information within this signal.
[0239] 9 After receiving the RRCConnectionReconfiguration message including the mobilityControlInformation, the UE performs synchronization with target eNB and accesses the target cell via RACH (Random Access Channel).
MASINI, remains silent regarding, however, newly cited reference, WANG et al (US 2007/0293227), discloses the signal being a reset signal to the first user terminal device wherein the reset signal corresponds to reset of specific parameter information of the first base station, and the first user terminal device is connectable from the second base station based on the reset of the specific parameter information of the first base station (WANG: ¶32, ¶18, the WTRU/User terminal receives a signal that resets the parameter and enables setting these parameters for communication and handover to the target/second base station).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of MASINI would have been motivated to use the teachings of WANG as it provides details for efficient target eNode-B scheduling of resources for UE transmission (¶10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of MASINI with teachings of WANG in order to improve handover performance.
Arguments regarding remaining independent claims, claims 16, 17 and 20 and dependent claims, all are based on the arguments addressed as above and are fully addressed as above.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMER S MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7524. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,W,Th: 10a-7p, Fri, 9a-12p.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
OMER S. MIAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2461
/OMER S MIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461