DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 10/21/2025. Claims 1 and through 12 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
3. 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.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 have been 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 Interpretations - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. - An element in a claim for a combination may be
expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of
structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the
corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents
thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing
a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and
such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts
described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 7 use of the word "unit" in a claim with functional
language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in
accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The
presumption that§ 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when
the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to
entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §
112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that§ 112(f) (pre-AIA
§ 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites
function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that
function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word "means" (or "step for'' or “unit”, or “module”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word "means" (or "step for'') are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The limitations of claims 1, 4, and 7 recite an information management unit ... and a distribution unit ...an information securing unit… a radio unit are being treated in accordance with 112(f).
Since these claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ),
sixth paragraph, claims 1, 4, and 7 are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure
described in the specification that achieves the claimed functions, and equivalents
thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the
corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph limitation:
(a) Regarding claims 1, 4, and 7, the specification in paragraph(s) [0019]-[0020], [0032], and [0126] discloses a device being equipped with an management information unit ... distributed unit ... radio unit… information security unit . Also in Fig.2 shows a device being equipped with an management information unit ... and Distributed unit ... (Fig.2@ 110, 200, 210, and 300)
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's
interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding
structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the
drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so
that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth
paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure,
material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of
Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011 ).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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 and 10 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 the limitation “the DU”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because of their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the DU”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because of their dependency from claim 10.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Shimoda et al. (US 2025/0105945 A1) and Chandrashekar et al. (US 2025/0240682 A1).
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David M OVEISSI whose telephone number is (571)270-3127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8Am-5PM.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270 - 1215. 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.
/MANSOUR OVEISSI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights