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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s reply filed on 04/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 are pending.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claim 10 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claim.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini et al. (US 2021/0051558 A1, hereinafter “Abedini”) in view of Chun (US 12,096,346 B2, hereinafter “Chun”).
Regarding claim 1:
Abedini discloses a communication control apparatus (e.g., Fig. 6, 602) concerning a moving station (e.g., [0080]-[0083], a mobile IAB node providing a moving cell, e.g., Fig. 6, 604) 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, by prohibiting ordeprioritizing access by the communication device (Fig. 6, 608) to a connection of a moving communication cell (Fig. 6, 604) of the moving station ([0102], [0113], hand over UE/MT 608 from a first cell 604 to a second cell 606 based on the first cell 604 and UE/MT 608 are moving in different directions).
Abedini is silent regarding prohibiting or deprioritizing access by the communication device to at least one of a frequency band, a tracking area or a location registration area of a moving communication cell.
Chun teaches prohibiting or deprioritizing access by a communicating device to at least one of a frequency band, a tracking area or a location registration area of a moving communication cell (e.g., Page 31, Lines 1-22, list of “5GS forbidden TA, forbidden Tas or forbidden LAs”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Abedini based on the teaching in Chun to include the feature prohibiting or deprioritizing access by the communication device to at least one of a frequency band, a tracking area or a location registration area of a moving communication cell, because it would prevent service interruption for UE.
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: restricting a moving communication cell of 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).
Abedini is silent regarding prohibiting or deprioritizing access by the communication device to at least one of a frequency band, a tracking area or a location registration area of a moving communication cell.
Chun teaches prohibiting or deprioritizing access by a communicating device to at least one of a frequency band, a tracking area or a location registration area of a moving communication cell (e.g., Page 31, Lines 1-22, list of “5GS forbidden TA, forbidden Tas or forbidden LAs”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Abedini based on the teaching in Chun to include the feature prohibiting or deprioritizing access by the communication device to at least one of a frequency band, a tracking area or a location registration area of a moving communication cell, because it would prevent service interruption for UE.
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).
Abedini is silent regarding prohibiting or deprioritizing access by the communication device to at least one of a frequency band, a tracking area or a location registration area of a moving communication cell.
Chun teaches prohibiting or deprioritizing access by a communicating device to at least one of a frequency band, a tracking area or a location registration area of a moving communication cell (e.g., Page 31, Lines 1-22, list of “5GS forbidden TA, forbidden Tas or forbidden LAs”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Abedini based on the teaching in Chun to include the feature prohibiting or deprioritizing access by the communication device to at least one of a frequency band, a tracking area or a location registration area of a moving communication cell, because it would prevent service interruption for UE.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Abedini
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 as amended have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 over Abedini and Chun.
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 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
Prosecution Insights