DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on: 06/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 06/04/2026.
Claims 1, and 3-9 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1, 8, and 9 have been amended.
Claim 2 has been 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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06//04/2026 have been fully considered, and are determined to be persuasive. In this regard, none of the references argued against, namely Verma, Kneckt, and Wang, appear to reasonably teach/suggest the amended claim feature of a second base station: “transmit[ing], to the first base station, a response signal including information indicating that the second base station participates in the first cooperative processing, in response to the invite signal, on a condition that the second base station has acquired the second transmission right for the second channel as the result of the second carrier sensing.”
However, the Examiner notes that each of claims 1 and 3-9 are newly rejected under §112(a), based on the written description requirement, for the reasons explained below.
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.
Claims 1, and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 9, each of these independent claims contains amended claim 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, each of claims 1, 8, and 9, was amended to recite (in Applicant’s response of 12/01/2025): “wherein the first cooperative processing [executed at the second base station] includes transmitting, by the second channel, a second signal to the terminal apparatus on the basis of the second transmission right cooperating with the first base station transmitting, by the first channel, a first signal to the terminal apparatus based on the first transmission right,” without corresponding support in the original disclosure for any claimed first and second signal transmissions to a terminal apparatus.
In this regard, the Examiner required Applicant to provide specific support for these two signal transmissions to the terminal device from the first and second base stations, in the last Final Office Action. In response, Applicant indicated that “[s]upport for the previously made amendments can be found throughout the present application and drawings as originally filed, such as in paragraph [0037].” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 6. However, para. [0037] merely recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
190
409
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This portion of Applicant’s disclosure only describes that a base station, via its cooperative transmission control unit, can negotiate with other candidate base stations, to build its own cooperative base station management table, “prior to transmission processing of data to the terminal apparatus.” However, no explicit transmission of signals is described as being sent from multiple base stations to a terminal device via separate channels, i.e., actually using a constructed cooperative BS management table to coordinate primary/secondary channel data transmissions between/among base stations. This subject matter is left to speculation as the description relates to what happens “prior to” subsequent, presumably coordinated terminal device data transmissions. Thus, Applicant has not provided adequate written description support for the above-cited claim limitation of claims 1, 8, and 9, as required in the last Office Action.
Moreover, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s entire combined disclosure only suggests a future “data” transmission to a terminal device may occur using its inter-base station generated cooperative management table, but never explicitly describes the coordinated data transmission act happening, much less in the manner claimed. Notably, the only described “signal” transmissions in Applicant’s combined disclosure occur between/among cooperating base stations. This verbiage choice indicates “signal” transmissions are restricted to inter-base station communications, whereas “data” transmissions are directed to base station transmissions with a terminal device.
For all of the above reasons, independent claims 1, 8, and 9 are each rejected under the written description requirement of §112(a). The Examiner notes that this deficiency is not curable when the corresponding written description support does not in fact exist. Therefore, the only cure would be for Applicant to remove the unsupported claim subject matter from its claims via appropriate amendment.
Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 3-7, each of these dependent claims 3-7 are also rejected under §112(a), on the same basis, based on claim dependency from one of independent claims 1, 8, and 9. Additionally, claim 4 was also previously amended (in Applicant’s response of 12/01/2025) to recite: “wherein the second cooperative processing includes transmitting, by the first channel, a fourth signal to the terminal apparatus cooperating with the first base station transmitting a third signal to the terminal apparatus by a third channel.” For the same reasons already described, with respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 9, Applicant’s original disclosure also fails to provide written description support for any cooperative signal transmissions, i.e., third and fourth signal transmissions, to a terminal apparatus from multiple, cooperating base stations, in the manner recited in dependent claim 4.
For all of the above reasons, dependent claims 3-7 are also rejected under the written description requirement of §112(a). Appropriate correction of claim 4 is also required.
The Examiner notes that amended claim limitations, which are not supported by the original disclosure in a corresponding foreign priority document do not receive the priority benefit thereof. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, and 3-9 are rejected herein under §112(a), but would be allowable if each of claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 were appropriately amended to cure the corresponding lack of written description support issues identified above under the: Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 112, heading.
Specifically, each of independent claims 1, 8 and 9, were amended to recite: “transmit, to the first base station, a response signal including information indicating that the second base station participates in the first cooperative processing, in response to the invite signal, on a condition that the second base station has acquired the second transmission right for the second channel as the result of the second carrier sensing,” which is not reasonably taught/suggested by any combination of prior art references identified in the Examiner’s prior art searches.
The claimed invention relates to a second base station being invited, i.e., requested, by a first base station that has acquired the transmission right to a common primary channel (i.e., by winning the PCH TXOP), to participate in cooperative processing to share the first base station’s channel resources. Then, prior to responding to the invitation, the second base station first acquires its own transmission right (TXOP) to a secondary channel by performing carrier sensing. Next, and only after acquiring the transmission right to its secondary channel, the second base station transmits an invite response signal to the first base station indicating its intent to participate in the cooperative processing.
Verma, which was applied as the base-reference under §103 to reject independent claims 1, 8 and 9, teaches a process where a second access point (AP) transmits its intent to participate in a coordinated access point (AP) session during a TXOP (a transmission opportunity) obtained by a second AP belonging to a second BSS, where the second AP’s intent may be sent in response to an intent request frame that is received from the first AP (paras. [0103], [0108], and [0119], and blocks 702 of Fig. 7 and 902 of Fig. 9).
However, none of Verma, Kneckt, nor any other identified prior art describes the claim limitation of a second base station transmitting a response to an invitation from a first base station, indicating that the second base station will participate in first cooperative processing based “on a condition that the second base station has acquired the second transmission right for the second channel as the result of the second carrier sensing,” as recited in each Applicant’s independent claims.
For all of the above reasons, Applicants claims 1 and 3-9 would be allowable if each of claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 were appropriately amended to cure their respective §112(a) rejection deficiencies identified above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights