Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/069,289

MOBILE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, USER EQUIPMENT AND BASE STATION

Non-Final OA §102§103§DP
Filed
Dec 21, 2022
Examiner
AYAD, SALMA ABDELMONEM
Art Unit
2462
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
40 granted / 47 resolved
+27.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
70
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
63.2%
+23.2% vs TC avg
§102
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
§112
6.4%
-33.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 47 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §DP
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/21 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/21/2025 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments and examiner’s response are provided below. Double Patenting: Applicant asserts that a timely terminal disclaimer has been filed. However, a review of the application file does not show any terminal disclaimer of record. Accordingly, the double patenting rejection is maintained. To overcome the rejection, applicant must file a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.321 (c). Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102: Applicant argues (pages 4-5): It may be considered that "it is possible to perform radio communication between the neighbor cell base station and the terminal" if the neighbor cell base station may transmit a data signal to the terminal in Ko. However, this means only that it is possible "to perform radio communication between the neighbor cell base station and the terminal". Thus, Ko fails to disclose and suggest, the second base station enables radio communication with the mobile terminal in coordination with the first base station. As such, "the neighbor cell base station may transmit a data signal to the terminal" in Ko cannot be properly characterized as disclosing "the second base station enables radio communication with the mobile terminal in coordination with the first base station". Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The generation and transmission of a data signal based on the scheduling information inherently involves enabling radio communication. A data signal cannot be transmitted unless the radio communication has been enabled according to the scheduling information. Therefore, the act of generating and transmitting a data signal based on the scheduling information functionally encompasses and implies enabling radio communication based on scheduling information, since transmission cannot occur without such enabling. The claim uses broad functional language “enables radio communication”, which reasonably covers actions that establish or support radio communication, including transmitting a data signal. A POSITA would recognize that enabling radio communication is inherently accomplished by transmitting the data signal. Ko expressly discloses transmitting a data signal, which inherently enables radio communication. Therefore, Ko discloses "the second base station enables radio communication with the mobile terminal in coordination with the first base station". Applicant argues (pages 5-6): In contrast to Ko's centralized scheduling approach, claim 6 explicitly recites that the second base station performs scheduling to allocate radio resources without using scheduling information received from at least one other base station among a plurality of base stations. This independent scheduling by the second base station is not disclosed or suggested by Ko. Examiner’s response: The newly added limitation is disclosed by Ji (US 20090196245 A1), as set forth in this office action. 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 a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 2-3 and 6 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,887,826 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the main difference between the Instant Application and the U.S. Patent No. 9,887,826 B2 is the broadening of the claimed subject matter which is already covered by the claim of the U.S. Patent No. 9,887,826 B2 (See claim mapping below). Instant Application US Patent No. 9,887,826 B2 2. A mobile communication system comprising: a mobile terminal, a first base station, and a second base station, wherein resource allocation information is transmitted from the first base station to the second base station, and when the second base station receives the resource allocation information, the second base station enables radio communication with the mobile terminal in coordination with the first base station based on the resource allocation information which has been received. 1. A communication system comprising: a plurality of base station devices communicably connected and a terminal device configured to perform radio communication with each of said base station devices, wherein each of said base station devices is configured to communicate with said terminal device in cooperation among the other base station devices, each of said base station devices includes a processor that performs scheduling to determine which radio resource is allocated to the communication with said terminal device; a communication unit that communicates with said terminal device based on results of said scheduling by said processor; 3. A base station performing communication with a mobile terminal in coordination with another base station, wherein when a processor of the base station receive resource allocation information transmitted from another processor of the another base station, the base station enables radio communication with the mobile terminal in coordination with the another base station based on the resource allocation information which has been received. 1. A communication system comprising: a plurality of base station devices communicably connected and a terminal device configured to perform radio communication with each of said base station devices, wherein each of said base station devices is configured to communicate with said terminal device in cooperation among the other base station devices, each of said base station devices includes a processor that performs scheduling to determine which radio resource is allocated to the communication with said terminal device; a communication unit that communicates with said terminal device based on results of said scheduling by said processor; 6.The mobile communication system according to claim 2, wherein the second base station performs scheduling to allocate radio resources without using scheduling information received from at least one other base station among a plurality of base stations. 1. said processor is configured to ignore the acquired scheduling information for said scheduling notified from at least one of the other base station devices among the acquired scheduling information for said scheduling notified from said other base station devices and acquired by said acquisition unit, when the acquired scheduling information is notified after a predetermined time, so that the determination of which radio resource is allocated to the communication with said terminal device is made without using the acquired scheduling information. Claims 4-5 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,887,826 B2 in view of Ko et al. (US 20120087423 A1). Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,887,826 B2 does not explicitly disclose sending MCS information. However, Ko discloses “wherein modulation and coding scheme (MCS) information is transmitted from the first base station to the second base station” (See ¶ [0055] Also, the serving base station may transmit, to a neighbor base station, scheduling information including at least one of the received precoding information, information about radio resource allocated to the terminal, and modulation and coding scheme (MCS) information). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the teachings of U.S. Patent No. 9,887,826 B2 with the teachings of Ko to include MCS information with resource allocation information, and the motivation to do so would have been for better resource allocation. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102(e) that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language. Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Ko et al. (US 20120087423 A1). Regarding claim 2, Ko discloses “A mobile communication system comprising: a mobile terminal, a first base station, and a second base station” (See Fig. 1, ¶ [0022] In the multi- cell cooperative communication system according to an embodiment of the present invention, both a serving cell base station 120 and a neighbor cell base station 130 transmit data signals required by a terminal 110 to the terminal 110), “wherein resource allocation information is transmitted from the first base station to the second base station” (See ¶ [0055] the serving cell base station may transmit, to a neighbor cell base station, scheduling information including at least one of the received precoding information, information about radio resource allocated to the terminal, and modulation and coding scheme (MCS) information), “and when the second base station receives the resource allocation information, the second base station enables radio communication with the mobile terminal in coordination with the first base station based on the resource allocation information which has been received” (See ¶ [0056] the neighbor cell base station may generate a data signal further based on the scheduling information, and may transmit the data signal to the terminal. That is, the neighbor cell base station may transmit the data signal to the terminal based on the scheduling information transmitted from the serving cell base station. In this instance, it is preferable that the serving cell base station and the neighbor cell base station are synchronized. Note: The second (neighbor) base station transmits data to the terminal (enables radio communication) based on the scheduling information including resource allocation information. Transmitting a data signal based on the scheduling information functionally encompasses and implies enabling radio communication based on scheduling information, since transmission cannot occur without such enabling. [0057] there may be need for a subject that generally manages a cooperative communication performed between the plurality of base stations to cooperatively perform the MIMO communication. The plurality of base stations may include a first base station controlling the cooperative communication and at least one second base station that is controlled by the first base station, the first base station is referred to as a supernode and a set of at least one cell managed by the at least one second base station is referred to as a supercell. [0058] The supernode may determine scheduling of at least one terminal involved, in the cooperative communication and may transmit the determined scheduling information of the at least one terminal to the at least one second base station that manages the supercell to enable the at least one second base station to transmit a data signal according to the scheduling information. Note: The second (neighbor) base station enables radio communication with the terminal in coordination/cooperation with the first (serving) base station based on the scheduling information received. Regarding claim 3, Ko discloses “A base station performing communication with a mobile terminal in coordination with another base station, wherein the base station comprises a processor coupled to a memory, and the another base station comprises another processor coupled to another memory” (See Fig. 1, ¶ [0022] In the multi-cell cooperative communication system according to an embodiment of the present invention, both a serving cell base station 120 and a neighbor cell base station 130 transmit data signals required by a terminal 110 to the terminal 110), “when the processor of the base station receives resource allocation information transmitted from the another processor of the another base station” (See ¶ [0055] the serving cell base station may transmit, to a neighbor cell base station, scheduling information including at least one of the received precoding information, information about radio resource allocated to the terminal, and modulation and coding scheme (MCS) information), “the base station enables radio communication with the mobile terminal in coordination with the another base station based on the resource allocation information which has been received” (See ¶ [0056] the neighbor cell base station may generate a data signal further based on the scheduling information, and may transmit the data signal to the terminal. That is, the neighbor cell base station may transmit the data signal to the terminal based on the scheduling information transmitted from the serving cell base station. In this instance, it is preferable that the serving cell base station and the neighbor cell base station are synchronized. Note: The second (neighbor) base station transmits data to the terminal (enables radio communication) based on the scheduling information including resource allocation information. Transmitting a data signal based on the scheduling information functionally encompasses and implies enabling radio communication based on scheduling information, since transmission cannot occur without such enabling. [0057] there may be need for a subject that generally manages a cooperative communication performed between the plurality of base stations to cooperatively perform the MIMO communication. The plurality of base stations may include a first base station controlling the cooperative communication and at least one second base station that is controlled by the first base station, the first base station is referred to as a supernode and a set of at least one cell managed by the at least one second base station is referred to as a supercell. [0058] The supernode may determine scheduling of at least one terminal involved, in the cooperative communication and may transmit the determined scheduling information of the at least one terminal to the at least one second base station that manages the supercell to enable the at least one second base station to transmit a data signal according to the scheduling information. Note: The second (neighbor) base station enables radio communication with the terminal in coordination/cooperation with the first (serving) base station based on the scheduling information received. Regarding claim 4, Ko discloses “The mobile communication system according to claim 2, wherein modulation and coding scheme (MCS) information is transmitted from the first base station to the second base station” (See ¶ [0055] the serving cell base station may transmit, to a neighbor cell base station, scheduling information including at least one of the received precoding information, information about radio resource allocated to the terminal, and modulation and coding scheme (MCS) information), “and wherein, when the second base station receives the resource allocation information and the MCS information, the second base station enables radio communication with the mobile terminal in coordination with the first base station based on the resource allocation information and the MCS information which have been received” (See ¶ [0056] the neighbor cell base station may generate a data signal further based on the scheduling information, and may transmit the data signal to the terminal. That is, the neighbor cell base station may transmit the data signal to the terminal based on the scheduling information transmitted from the serving cell base station. In this instance, it is preferable that the serving cell base station and the neighbor cell base station are synchronized. Note: The second (neighbor) base station transmits data to the terminal (enables radio communication) based on the scheduling information including resource allocation information. Transmitting a data signal based on the scheduling information functionally encompasses and implies enabling radio communication based on scheduling information, since transmission cannot occur without such enabling. [0057] there may be need for a subject that generally manages a cooperative communication performed between the plurality of base stations to cooperatively perform the MIMO communication. The plurality of base stations may include a first base station controlling the cooperative communication and at least one second base station that is controlled by the first base station, the first base station is referred to as a supernode and a set of at least one cell managed by the at least one second base station is referred to as a supercell. [0058] The supernode may determine scheduling of at least one terminal involved, in the cooperative communication and may transmit the determined scheduling information of the at least one terminal to the at least one second base station that manages the supercell to enable the at least one second base station to transmit a data signal according to the scheduling information. Note: The second (neighbor) base station enables radio communication with the terminal in coordination/cooperation with the first (serving) base station based on the scheduling information received. Regarding claim 5, Ko discloses “The base station according to claim 3, wherein, when the processor of the base station receives resource allocation information, and modulation and coding scheme (MCS) information are transmitted from the another processor of the another base station” (See ¶ [0055] the serving cell base station may transmit, to a neighbor cell base station, scheduling information including at least one of the received precoding information, information about radio resource allocated to the terminal, and modulation and coding scheme (MCS) information), “the base station enables radio communication with the mobile terminal in coordination with the another base station based on the resource allocation information and the MCS information which have been received” (See ¶ [0056] the neighbor cell base station may generate a data signal further based on the scheduling information, and may transmit the data signal to the terminal. That is, the neighbor cell base station may transmit the data signal to the terminal based on the scheduling information transmitted from the serving cell base station. In this instance, it is preferable that the serving cell base station and the neighbor cell base station are synchronized. Note: The second (neighbor) base station transmits data to the terminal (enables radio communication) based on the scheduling information including resource allocation information. Transmitting a data signal based on the scheduling information functionally encompasses and implies enabling radio communication based on scheduling information, since transmission cannot occur without such enabling. [0057] there may be need for a subject that generally manages a cooperative communication performed between the plurality of base stations to cooperatively perform the MIMO communication. The plurality of base stations may include a first base station controlling the cooperative communication and at least one second base station that is controlled by the first base station, the first base station is referred to as a supernode and a set of at least one cell managed by the at least one second base station is referred to as a supercell. [0058] The supernode may determine scheduling of at least one terminal involved, in the cooperative communication and may transmit the determined scheduling information of the at least one terminal to the at least one second base station that manages the supercell to enable the at least one second base station to transmit a data signal according to the scheduling information. Note: The second (neighbor) base station enables radio communication with the terminal in coordination/cooperation with the first (serving) base station based on the scheduling information received. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 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 negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (US 20120087423 A1) in view of Ji (US 20090196245 A1). Regarding claim 6, Ko discloses “The mobile communication system according to claim 2”, but does not explicitly disclose that the second base station performs scheduling without using scheduling information received from at least one other base station. However, Ji discloses “wherein the second base station performs scheduling to allocate radio resources without using scheduling information received from at least one other base station among a plurality of base stations” (See ¶ [0051] a common AP can provide coordinated scheduling among neighboring cells in a particular coverage area served by the common AP. ¶ [0053] Priority can be utilized by a recipient AP to determine whether to obey, modify or ignore the scheduling provided by the common AP. Note: Since the recipient AP can ignore the scheduling information provided by the common AP, the recipient AP necessarily performs its own scheduling independently without using the scheduling information received. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the teachings of Ko with the teachings of Ji, and the motivation to do so would have been to ensure better QoS management and meet different traffic priorities without being constrained by external scheduling (Ji [0053]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SALMA A AYAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 to 5:30 ET. 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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 5712723927. 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. /SALMA AYAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2462 /YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 21, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 22, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 12, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §DP
Jul 03, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 22, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §DP
Jan 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 14, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 22, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §DP
Jul 10, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 20, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §DP
Oct 13, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 21, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 25, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603827
ASYMMETRIC ROUTING RESOLUTIONS IN MULTI-REGIONAL LARGE SCALE DEPLOYMENTS WITH DISTRIBUTED GATEWAYS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588046
DUAL CONNECTION ON BROADBAND MODEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12550136
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR INDICATING NUMBER OF REPETITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12549288
HYBRID AUTOMATIC REPEAT REQUEST INFORMATION FEEDBACK METHOD AND DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12526025
TWO STEP REPORTING PROCEDURE FOR DEMODULATION REFERENCE SIGNAL CONFIGURATION ADJUSTMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+10.0%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 47 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month