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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 5, 2026 has been accepted and entered. Accordingly, claims 1 and 4-6 are amended, claims 2-3 and 7 are canceled and claim 8 is added.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 8 are pending in this application.
In view of the amendment, the objection to claim 4 has been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment, the rejections to claims 4-5 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on the reference not applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following limitations are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
“a communicator configured to establish connections” (claim 1)
A review of the specification shows that the following to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
“a communicator configured to establish connections” appears to be transmission/reception circuitry (see [para. 0084, 0092] of the Application Specification)
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 the Applicant does not intend to have the claimed limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 8, “wherein a connection control method of the connection control is differs depending on a node function or a node type of the specific radio communication node” should read “wherein a connection control method of the connection control depends on a node function or a node type of the specific radio communication node” or “wherein connection control methods of the connection control differ depending on a node function or a node type of the specific radio communication node”.
Appropriate correction is 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.
Claims 1, 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20200351970A1, hereinafter Lee) in view of Zhang et al. (US20220095186A1, hereinafter Zhang).
For claim 1, Lee teaches a radio communication node ([FIG. 3], device 200)) comprising: communicator configured to establish connections with a plurality of radio communication nodes ([Para. 0099] and [FIG. 3], each of the wireless devices 100 and 200 may include a communication unit 110, communication circuit 112, transceiver 114, a control unit of processors 120 [Examiner’s Note: Communication unit 110, communication circuit 112, transceiver 114 constitute the communicator]. The control unit 120 is electrically connected to the communication unit 110, and controls overall operation of the wireless devices. [Para. 0085], The wireless devices 100 a to 100 f may communicate with each other through the BSs 200/network 300. [Para. 0087], the IoT device performs direct communication with other IoT devices of other wireless devices 100a to 100f), processor configured to control connection established by the communicator ([Para. 0097] and [FIG. 2], the processor(s) 102 in the first wireless device 100 may be configured to perform the UE behaviour or control the transceiver(s) 106 to perform the UE behaviour. [Para. 0099] and [FIG. 3], a control unit 120. [Examiner’s Note: The control unit 120 corresponds to processor]. The control unit 120 is electrically connected to the communication unit 110, and controls overall operation of the wireless devices. The control unit 120 may transmit the information stored to the exterior (e.g., other communication devices) via the communication unit 110 through a wireless/wired interface or store information received through the wireless/wired interface from the exterior (e.g., other communication devices) via the communication unit 110).
Although teaching a wireless device establishing and controlling connections with other wireless devices, Lee does not explicitly disclose the processor is configured to disable connection control from a specific radio communication node, and autonomously perform control of a link between the radio communication node and one of the plurality of radio communication nodes.
Zhang is directed to providing method and apparatus for communication technology selection. More specifically, Zhang teaches the processor is configured to disable connection control from a specific radio communication node ([Para. 0110], In this embodiment, UE1 and UE2 are communicating (certain service(s)) with each other over Uu via an application server, and the Uu path is becoming or becomes unavailable, the path switch from Uu to PC5 can be initiated by any of UE1 and UE2. [Para. 0131], The path switch is initiated by the network (NW). The NW can determine the Uu path to some UE(s) becomes (or is going to become) unavailable for one or more services due to e.g. degradation in channel quality or admission control. [Para. 0135], The NW signals the release, release the whole RRC Uu [Examiner’s Note: The UE is the radio communication node and NW is the specific radio communication node]. [Para. 0136], In case the PC5 path is available, the gNB/eNB may in combination with the release message, transmits a “path redirection” signal to redirect the concerned released bearers to the PC5 interface and optionally provide one or more SL resource pools for the given service. The gNB/eNB may also configure the UE to perform SL discovery and provide a pool for SL discovery so that said UE1 can start discovery of UE2 connection (i.e. the gNB/eNB transmits RRCConnectionRelease)), and autonomously perform control of a link between the radio communication node and one of the plurality of radio communication nodes ([Para. 0138], The UE pairs will start to transmit/receive over PC5 after receiving the path switching instruction, the UE that receives the sidelink L2 IDs will (try to) establish a PC5 link with the peer UE. If succeeded, the two UEs could then communicate over PC5 [Examiner’s Note: The sidelink is the link of which the UE autonomously performs control]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lee, so that the UE is released from connection with the network node and performs control of sidelink with another UE, as taught by Zhang. The modification would have allowed appropriate selection of Radio Access Technology (Zhang [Para. 0003 and 0005]).
For claim 5, Lee and Zhang teach the radio communication node according to claim 1. The references further teach wherein a target of the connection control is at least one of synchronization, connection type (Zhang [Para. 0110] and [FIG. 4A], In this embodiment, UE1 and UE2 are communicating (certain service(s)) with each other over Uu via an application server. Zhang [Para. 0135], The NW signals the release, release the whole RRC Uu [Examiner’s Note: RRC release disables the connection type of Uu connection]), identification, routing (Zhang [Para. 0110] and [FIG. 4A], In this embodiment, UE1 and UE2 are communicating (certain service(s)) with each other over Uu via an application server. Zhang [Para. 0135], The NW signals the release, release the whole RRC Uu. Zhang [Para. 0138], the UE that receives the sidelink L2 IDs will (try to) establish a PC5 link with the peer UE. If succeeded, the two UEs could then communicate over PC5 [Examiner’s Note: RRC release disables routing to UE2 via the base station and server]), and resource allocation.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lee, so that the Uu connection and routing via the base station are disabled, as taught by Zhang. The modification would have allowed appropriate selection of Radio Access Technology (Zhang [Para. 0003 and 0005]).
For claim 6, Lee teaches a radio communication method ([Para. 0006], A method for transmitting data by a node in a wireless communication system) comprising: establishing connections with multiple radio communication nodes ([Para. 0085], The wireless devices 100 a to 100 f may communicate with each other through the BSs 200/network 300. [Para. 0087], the IoT device performs direct communication with other IoT devices of other wireless devices 100a to 100f), and controlling the established connections ([Para. 0097] and [FIG. 2], the processor(s) 102 in the first wireless device 100 may be configured to perform the UE behaviour or control the transceiver(s) 106 to perform the UE behaviour. [Para. 0099] and [FIG. 3], a control unit 120. The control unit 120 is electrically connected to the communication unit 110, and controls overall operation of the wireless devices. The control unit 120 may transmit the information stored to the exterior (e.g., other communication devices) via the communication unit 110 through a wireless/wired interface or store information received through the wireless/wired interface from the exterior (e.g., other communication devices) via the communication unit 110).
Although teaching a wireless device establishing and controlling connections with other wireless devices, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the controlling comprises disabling connection control from a specific radio communication node, and autonomously performing control of a link between the radio communication node and one of the plurality of radio communication nodes.
Zhang is directed to providing method and apparatus for communication technology selection. More specifically, Zhang teaches wherein the controlling comprises disabling connection control from a specific radio communication node ([Para. 0110], In this embodiment, UE1 and UE2 are communicating (certain service(s)) with each other over Uu via an application server, and the Uu path is becoming or becomes unavailable, the path switch from Uu to PC5 can be initiated by any of UE1 and UE2. [Para. 0131], The path switch is initiated by the network (NW). The NW can determine the Uu path to some UE(s) becomes (or is going to become) unavailable for one or more services due to e.g. degradation in channel quality or admission control. [Para. 0135], The NW signals the release, release the whole RRC Uu [Examiner’s Note: The UE is the radio communication node and NW is the specific radio communication node]. [Para. 0136], In case the PC5 path is available, the gNB/eNB may in combination with the release message, transmits a “path redirection” signal to redirect the concerned released bearers to the PC5 interface and optionally provide one or more SL resource pools for the given service. The gNB/eNB may also configure the UE to perform SL discovery and provide a pool for SL discovery so that said UE1 can start discovery of UE2 connection (i.e. the gNB/eNB transmits RRCConnectionRelease)), and autonomously performing control of a link between the radio communication node and one of the plurality of radio communication nodes ([Para. [0138], The UE pairs will start to transmit/receive over PC5 after receiving the path switching instruction, the UE that receives the sidelink L2 IDs will (try to) establish a PC5 link with the peer UE. If succeeded, the two UEs could then communicate over PC5 [Examiner’s Note: The sidelink is the link of which the UE autonomously performs control]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lee, so that the UE is released from connection with the network node and performs control of sidelink with another UE, as taught by Zhang. The modification would have allowed appropriate selection of Radio Access Technology (Zhang [Para. 0003 and 0005]).
For claim 8, Lee and Zhang teach the radio communication node according to claim 1. The references further teach wherein a connection control method of the connection control is differs depending on a node function or a node type of the specific radio communication node (Lee [Para. 0250], Referring to FIG. 15, Node 1 is configured with two cell groups. Especially, the first cell group is associated with Node 2 and the second cell group is associated with Node 3. Lee [Para. 0253], When link problem occurs on SCG as shown in FIG. 16 and Node 1 is configured with logical channel priority 4 as a threshold, bearer #4 and #5 on SCG is selected and relocated to MCG because the logical priority is smaller than the threshold, but bearer #6 on SCG is not selected and not relocated to MCG because the logical priority is higher than the threshold. Lee [Para. 0254], Node 1 transmits data from bearer #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 to the node 2 and does not transmit data from bearer #6 to Nodes 2 and 3 until the link problem on SCG is resolved. Lee [Para. 0255], local route relocation after link failure while keep satisfying QoS can be supported until link failure problem is resolved [Examiner’s Note: Bearers are prioritized. Only bearers of high priorities are served by the access node for Master Cell Group. The connection control methods for the access nodes for Master Cell Group and Secondary Cell Group differ]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20200351970A1, hereinafter Lee) in view of Zhang et al. (US20220095186A1, hereinafter Zhang), and further in view of Choi (US20180270892A1, hereinafter Choi).
For claim 4, Lee and Zhang teach the radio communication node according to claim 1. Although the references further teach a connection control method regardless node function or node type of the network access node (Zhang [Para. 0145], if the Uu path is available for both of the UEs. If that is the case, the two UEs start to communicate (the service(s)) over Uu. The UE(s) may first need to enter connected mode if it is currently in idle or inactive mode, which implies that random access procedure should be performed, indicating that the random access procedure applies to network node supporting Uu interface regardless the function or type of the network node), Choi teaches more explicitly wherein a connection control method is uniform regardless of a node function or a node type of the specific radio communication node.
Choi is directed to providing base station and operation method thereof. More specifically, Choi teaches wherein a connection control method is uniform regardless of a node function or a node type of the specific radio communication node ([Para. 0047], Throughout the entire specification, a base station may refer to as an access point, a radio access station, a node B, an evolved node B, a base transceiver station, a mobile multi-hop relay (MMR)-BS, and may include all or part of the functions thereof. [Para. 0068], a process in which a conventional terminal transitions from an idle state to an active state. [Para. 0069], The terminal 10 may transmit a random access preamble and information such as a terminal identifier, an RRC connection mode indicator, and the like. The base station 20 may then receive the RACH from the terminal 10. [Para. 0070], The base station 20 may transmit a random access response (RAR) message. The terminal 10 may receive the RAR message from the base station 20. [Para. 0071], The terminal 10 may transmit an RRC connection resume request message. The base station 20 may receive the RRC connection resume request message from the terminal 10. [Para. 0072], The base station 20 may transmit an RRC connection response message (e.g., RRC connection setup message in response to the RRC connection resume request message). The RRC connection response message may include information such as bearer indicators of radio bearers and signaling radio bearers between the base station 20 and the terminal 10. The terminal 10 may receive the RRC connection response message from the base station 20. [Para. 0073], The terminal 10 and the base station 20 may resume the RRC connection [Examiner’s Note: The random access procedure is uniform regardless function or type of the base station as listed in the reference]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lee and Zhang, so that the terminal establishes connection with a base station using random access procedure, as taught by Choi. The modification would have simplified the procedure related to state transition of the terminal (Choi [Para. 0006]).
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 SHU LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-5186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, REBECCA E SONG can be reached at (571)270-3667. 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.
/S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2417
/REBECCA E SONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2417