Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/569,918

CONNECTION RESTRICTION FOR MOVING STATION

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Dec 13, 2023
Examiner
ZHU, BO HUI ALVIN
Art Unit
2465
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Rakuten Mobile Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
627 granted / 780 resolved
+22.4% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
804
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.4%
-36.6% vs TC avg
§103
45.7%
+5.7% vs TC avg
§102
29.4%
-10.6% vs TC avg
§112
17.7%
-22.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 780 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . 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. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “communication control apparatus” in claims 1 and 12. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claim 10 is 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. Regarding claim 10, the claim limitation “the moving communication cell” lacks antecedent basis. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abedini et al. (US 2021/0051558 A1, hereinafter “Abedini”). Regarding claim 1: Abedini discloses a communication control apparatus (e.g., Fig. 6, 602) concerning a moving station (e.g., [0080]-[0083], mobile IAB node, Fig. 6, 604, 606, or 608) capable of communicating with a communication device (e.g., Fig. 6, 608), the communication control apparatus configured to perform: identifying a communication cell where the moving station passes (e.g., [0096], Fig. 6, 604); and restricting a connection of the moving station with a communication device (e.g., Fig. 6, 608) that does not move with the moving station inside the communication cell (e.g., [0102], [0113], hand over UE/MT 608 from first cell 604 to second cell 606 based on first cell 604 and UE/MT 608 moving in different directions). Regarding claim 2: Abedini further discloses the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the moving station is capable of communicating with a base station to expand a communication cell provided by the base station (e.g., [0070], relay IAB nodes). Regarding claim 3: Abedini further discloses the communication control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the moving station comprises a communication-device functional unit (e.g., [0074], MT (mobile termination) of an IAB node) that functions as a communication device to the base station, and a base-station functional unit (e.g., [0074], DU (distributed unit) of an IAB node) that functions as a base station to a communication device with which the moving station can communicate. Regarding claim 4: Abedini further discloses the communication control apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the moving station is an IAB (Integrated Access and Backhaul) node, the communication-device functional unit is a MT (Mobile Termination), and the base-station functional unit is a DU (Distributed Unit) (e.g., [0074]). Regarding claim 5: Abedini further discloses the communication control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the moving station is a relay station that relays communication signal between the base station and a communication device (e.g., [0070]). Regarding claim 6: Abedini further discloses the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the moving station is a moving base station capable of providing a moving communication cell to a communication device (e.g., [0080]-[0083], mobile IAB nodes). Regarding claim 7: Abedini further discloses the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the communication control apparatus is further configured to perform acquiring movement information concerning the movement of the moving station, and identifying a communication cell where the moving station passes based on the movement information (e.g., [0096]-[0097]). Regarding claim 8: Abedini further discloses the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the communication control apparatus is further configured to perform estimating whether a communication device inside the communication cell moves with the moving station, and restricting a connection of the moving station with a communication device estimated not to move with the moving station inside the communication cell (e.g., [0096], [0102], [0103], [0113]) Regarding claim 9: Abedini further discloses the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the communication control apparatus is further configured to perform estimating whether a communication device inside the communication cell moves with the moving station, and causing a communication device estimated to move with the moving station inside the communication cell to connect to the moving station (e.g., [0096], [0102], [0103], [0113]). Regarding claim 10: Abedini further discloses the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the communication control apparatus is further configured to exclude the moving communication cell by the moving station from the handover candidates of a communication device from the communication cell (e.g., [0102], a first cell is not suitable for a UE/MT if the first cell and the UE/MT are moving in different directions, [0113], a first wireless device only selects a second wireless device if the second wireless device is moving in a same direction with similar mobility state as the first wireless device). Regarding claim 11: Abedini further discloses the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the moving station is installed to a movable object (e.g., [0080]). Regarding claim 12: Abedini discloses a communication control apparatus (e.g., Fig. 6, 602) concerning a moving station (e.g., Fig. 6, 604) capable of communicating with a communication device (e.g., Fig. 6, 608), the communication control apparatus configured to perform: excluding a moving communication cell by the moving station from the handover candidates of a communication device from a communication cell where the moving station passes (e.g., [0102], a first cell is not suitable for a UE/MT if the first cell and the UE/MT are moving in different directions, [0113], a first wireless device only selects a second wireless device if the second wireless device is moving in a same direction with similar mobility state as the first wireless device). Regarding claim 13: Abedini discloses a communication control method concerning a moving station (e.g., Fig.6, 604) capable of communicating with a communication device (e.g., Fig. 6, 608) comprising: identifying a communication cell where the moving station passes (e.g., [0096], Fig. 6, 604); and restricting a connection of the moving station with a communication device that does not move with the moving station inside the communication cell (e.g., [0102], [0113], hand over UE/MT 608 from first cell 604 to second cell 606 based on first cell 604 and UE/MT 608 moving in different directions). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alvin ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1086. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6am-9am and 2pm-7pm. 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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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. /BO HUI A ZHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 13, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598611
INFORMATION SENDING METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND INFORMATION RECEIVING METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593335
LOGICAL CHANNELS AND SCHEDULING REQUEST CONFIGURATIONS FOR FULL-DUPLEX MODES AND HALF-DUPLEX MODES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588028
Restriction of Configured Grant Resource Occasion
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580693
Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledgment Scheduling
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574182
METHOD PERFORMED BY USER EQUIPMENT, AND USER EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+16.1%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 780 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