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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 4/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are amended.
Claims 13-25 are newly added.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 4/10/2026 are entered for prosecution. Claims 1-25 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendment filed on 4/10/2026 necessitated the new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Accordingly, the rejection is properly made final pursuant to MPEP § 706.07(a).
The rejections of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. §103 set forth in the prior Non-Final Office action are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment. No rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103 is maintained in this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 18-20 are objected because of the following informalities:
In claims 18-20, it is suggested to add a comma (,) to read “The user terminal according to claim 17, wherein …” for clarity and consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-25 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 11, 12, and 17:
Amended claims 1 and 11 each recite “information regarding renewable energy consumption of the second base station”. Amended claims 5, 12, and 17 recite “information regarding renewable energy consumption”. However, the originally filed specification does not provide written descriptive support for the newly recited limitation(s). Paragraph [0034] of the originally filed specification discloses how the renewable energy use rate may be acquired or calculated, but nowhere discloses, either explicitly or inherently, “the handover response including information regarding renewable energy consumption of the second base station” or performing a cell selection based on “information regarding renewable energy consumption”. Accordingly, the originally filed disclosure fails to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-10, 13-16, and 18-25:
Claims 2-4, 6-10, 13-16, and 18-25 are also rejected because they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the rejected claim, as set forth above.
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.
Claims 17-25 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 recites “A user terminal” which is a machine related apparatus claim. However, the claim only recites action with no sufficient corresponding structural elements in the claim. As such, the claim is indefinite.
Also, Claim 17 recites a limitation “the information regarding renewable energy consumption” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 18-25:
Claims 18-25 are also rejected because they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the rejected claim 17, as set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in a reply filed 4/10/2026 have been considered but not persuasive.
Applicant argues (in page 8) that the amended limitation is supported by the specification, figures and claims as originally filed.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification, figures and claims as originally filed do not disclose or reasonably convey possession of the claimed limitation requiring “information regarding renewable energy consumption”. The specification, figures and claims as originally filed do not provide adequate written descriptive support for the amended claim language.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
No allowable subject matter is indicated because all pending claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, 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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights