Detail Action
This office action is a response to an amendment submitted on 03/12/2026.
Claims 1-8 are pending for examination.
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) was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/29/2023. These drawings are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application.
Response to Amendment
The objection of title has been withdraw in view of amendment.
Claims 1- 8 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are summarized a following;
Applicant argued that the combined Farhadi in view of Yu does not teach “ at least the communicative connection between the slave terminal apparatus and the base station is stopped, in a case that the communicative connection by the slave terminal apparatus to the base station is not allowed” [See Arguments/Remarks Pg. 6-10].
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the current above argument.
In response to applicant's argument that “specifically, Yu’s Figs. 11, 12 an Par. 238 – 242 merely describes the limitation”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In this case, the Prior Art Yu’ expressly teaches the argued limitation. Yu describes when an access network device/terminal apparatus may receive data from a first terminal apparatus and second terminal apparatus /slave devices, the access network device instructs first and second terminal apparatus to stop transmitting data [Yu: Par. 220, 238- 242] based on the correspondence indication information. Yu’s access network device is clearly capable of performing the intended use of preventing an unauthorized communication path and can issues a stop-transmission instruction once the correspondence is evaluated, therefore can be treated as teaching the same operational result as the network-side system (access network device and core network device). Consequently, it’s reasonably analogous to the claim requirement of communicative connection between the slave terminal apparatus and the base station is stopped when the slave terminal apparatus is not allowed to communicate with the base station based on the correspondence information. Prior Art reference Yu teaches the same communication control concept of stopping the communication path through the network-side/ base station side control entity (access network device and core network device) and prevent the communication based on the correspondence.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1- 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Farhadi et al. (US 20140080534 A1), hereinafter “Farhadi”; and in further view of Yu et al. (US 20220322140 A1), hereinafter “Yu”.
Regarding claim 1, Farhadi teaches A communication system comprising:
a base station [Farhadi: Abstract teaches method to enable tethering among wireless devices];
a terminal apparatus configured to perform data communication with the base station, the terminal apparatus including a tethering function and operating, using the tethering function [See. Farhadi: Abstract] as a master terminal apparatus configured to communicatively connect a slave terminal apparatus to the base station [Farhadi: Fig. 3; Par. 60- 70 teaches of master device/wireless device operated tethering using information/ configuration from slave device and communicated with access point/ base station for configuration/connection]; and the slave terminal apparatus configured to utilize the communicative connection using the tethering function included in the terminal apparatus [Farhadi: Fig. 3;4; Par. 65- 75 teaches slave device 306 configured to communicate with terminal & access point];
PNG
media_image1.png
398
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Farhadi does not teach wherein at least the communicative connection between the slave terminal apparatus and the base station is stopped, in a case that the communicative connection by the slave terminal apparatus to the base station is not allowed.
Nevertheless, Yu, in the similar filed of endeavor, teaches wherein at least the communicative connection between the slave terminal apparatus and the base station is stopped in a case that the communicative connection from the slave terminal apparatus to the base station is not allowed [Yu: Fig. 11; Par. 8, 214-240 teaches core network device/ base station stops transmission based on the correspondence information].
PNG
media_image2.png
628
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Yu for determine the connection with wireless devices. The teaching of Yu, when implemented in the Farhadi system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to perform tethering with different wireless devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Yu in the Farhadi system in order to decide the communication with network devices based on the received data [Yu: Par. 8].
Regarding claim 2, the combined Farhadi in view of Yu teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Farhadi in view of Yu further teaches wherein the base station stops the communicative communication between the slave terminal apparatus and the base station by stopping the data communication with the terminal apparatus in the case that the communicative connection from the slave terminal apparatus to the base station is not allowed [Yu: Par. 238 teaches core network devices stopped the communication with slave terminal based on the correspondence information stopping scheduling].
Regarding claim 3, the combined Farhadi in view of Yu teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Farhadi in view of Yu further teaches wherein the terminal apparatus stops the communicative connection between the slave terminal apparatus and the base station by stopping the tethering function in the case that the communicative connection from the slave terminal apparatus to the base station is not allowed [Yu: Par. 238 further teaches tethering is determined by received information].
Regarding claim 4, the combined Farhadi in view of Yu teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Farhadi in view of Yu further teaches wherein the terminal apparatus stops the communicative connection between the slave terminal apparatus and the base station by stopping the communicative connection to the slave terminal apparatus using the tethering function in the case that the communicative connection from the slave terminal apparatus to the base station is not allowed [Farhadi: Fig. 4; Yu. Fig. 11].
Regarding claim 5, the combined Farhadi in view of Yu teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Farhadi in view of Yu further teaches wherein at least one of the base stations and the terminal apparatus
stores slave terminal information of the slave terminal apparatus for which the communicative connection with the base station is allowed [Farhadi: Figs.2; 5; setup messages are received by access point for further determining of whether power and data requirements are met Par. 53], and
determines whether the communicative connection to the base station from the slave terminal apparatus configured to utilize the communicative connection using the tethering function, is allowed based on whether the stored slave terminal information includes slave terminal information of the slave terminal apparatus configured to utilize the communicative connection using the tethering function [Yu: Par. 238].
Regarding claim 6, the combined Farhadi in view of Yu teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Farhadi in view of Yu further teaches wherein the base station provides the data communication through local fifth generation 5G, private Long Term Evolution (LTE), or private 5G [Farhadi: Par. 57 teaches method 200 operate with respect to LTE networks].
Regarding claim 7, Farhadi teaches A communication control method performed by a communication system, the communication system including
a base station [Farhadi: Abstract teaches method to enable tethering among wireless devices];
a terminal apparatus configured to perform data communication with the base station, the terminal apparatus including a tethering function and operating, using the tethering function [Farhadi: Abstract] as a master terminal apparatus configured to communicatively connect a slave terminal apparatus to the base station [Farhadi: Fig. 3; Par. 60- 70 teaches of master device/wireless device operated tethering using information/ configuration from slave device and communicated with access point/ base station for configuration/connection]; the slave terminal apparatus configured to utilize the communicative connection using the tethering function included in the terminal apparatus [Farhadi: Fig. 3;4; Par. 65- 75 teaches slave device 306 configured to communicate with terminal & access point];
PNG
media_image1.png
398
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Farhadi does not teach stopping, by the base station or the terminal apparatus, at least the communicative connection between the slave terminal apparatus and the base station, in a case that the communicative connection from the slave terminal apparatus to the base station is not allowed.
Nevertheless, Yu, in the similar filed of endeavor, teaches stopping, by the base station or the terminal apparatus, at least the communicative connection between the slave terminal apparatus and the base station, in a case that the communicative connection from the slave terminal apparatus to the base station is not allowed [Yu: Fig. 11; Par. 8, 238-240 teaches core network device/ base station stops transmission based on the correspondence information].
PNG
media_image2.png
628
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Yu for determine the connection with wireless devices. The teaching of Yu, when implemented in the Farhadi system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to perform tethering with different wireless devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Yu in the Farhadi system in order to decide the communication with network devices based on the received data [Yu: Par. 8].
Regarding claim 8, Farhadi teaches A base station comprising:
a communicator configured to transmit and/or receive a radio signal used for data communication with a terminal apparatus; and
a controller [Farhadi: Abstract teaches method to enable tethering among wireless devices];
wherein the terminal apparatus includes a tethering function and operating, using the tethering function, as a master terminal apparatus configured to communicatively connect a slave terminal apparatus to the base station [Farhadi: Fig. 3; Par. 60- 70 teaches of master device/wireless device operated tethering using information/ configuration from slave device and communicated with access point/ base station for configuration/connection]; he controller
determines whether the communicative connection from the slave terminal apparatus to the base station is allowed in a case of attempting to establish the communicative connection between the slave terminal apparatus and the base station via the terminal apparatus using the tethering function [Farhadi: Fig. 3;4; Par. 65- 75 teaches slave device 306 configured to communicate with terminal & access point];
PNG
media_image1.png
398
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Farhadi does not teach performs control to stop at least the communicative connection between the slave terminal apparatus and the base station in the case that the communicative connection from the slave terminal apparatus to the base station is not determined to be allowed.
Nevertheless, Yu, in the similar filed of endeavor, teaches performs control to stop at least the communicative connection between the slave terminal apparatus and the base station in the case that the communicative connection from the slave terminal apparatus to the base station is not determined to be allowed [Yu: Fig. 11; Par. 8, 238-240 teaches core network device/ base station stops transmission based on the correspondence information].
PNG
media_image2.png
628
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Yu for determine the connection with wireless devices. The teaching of Yu, when implemented in the Farhadi system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to perform tethering with different wireless devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Yu in the Farhadi system in order to decide the communication with network devices based on the received data [Yu: Par. 8].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 KYAW Z SOE whose telephone number is (571)270-0304. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-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, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 5712707191. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/KYAW Z SOE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights