Detailed Action
The office action is in response to the communications filed on 06/01/2026.
Notice of 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 .
Claims Status
Claims 4, 9, 14, and 19 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15-18, and 20 are pending in this application.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhu et al. ( Publication Patent No. US 2020/0296769), the prior art discloses obtaining, by a first RN, first indication information includes: receiving, by the first RN, a broadcast message from the first access network device, where the broadcast message includes the first indication information, and obtaining, by the first RN, the first indication information based on the broadcast message; or establishing, by the first RN, a connection to the second access network device, and obtaining the first indication information from the second access network device; see ¶ 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7, 12-13 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)
Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention. However, Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) presented in the previous office action have been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102
Regarding claim 1, Applicant remarks, filed on 06/01/2026, indicate that the cited portion of the prior art, individually or in combination, fails to discloses the features in claim 1. In specific, Applicant indicates that the certain features reciting are not disclosed by the prior art. Examiner agrees, based on the remarks, that the amendments to claim 1 overcome the prior art rejection. However, a new ground of rejection necessitated by the claim amendments is set forth below. The new ground of rejection selects a different embodiment of Hong. The new embodiment discloses, what was presented in the previous office action, that the terminal [second device] determines a target base station [target second device] based on the access requirement information [first information] received from the smart home device [first device]; see figure 6 step 603-604. In addition, discloses that the terminal [second device] may acquire the preamble codes randomly allocated by a plurality of base stations [target second device], and sends these preamble codes to the smart home device [first device]; see ¶ 138. The smart home device receives multiple preamble codes, the smart home device selects the preamble code allocated by one target base station [target second device]; see ¶ 138. As a result, the claim is met by the prior art.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP §2111.04(II) recites:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.
The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
Claim 3 is a process claim that include at least one contingent limitation.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim comprises a first limitation that recite “wherein, when the first indication information indicates that the first device supports the target second device in performing random access, …”. The limitation is considered a contingent limitation based in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). When analyzing the limitation, it discloses a step that only occurs after the condition (i.e. “the first indication information indicates”), but it fails to explicitly disclose a step when the condition does not occur. Therefore, the contingent limitation is not included in the BRI of the claim based on the interpretation that the condition does not occur. Any prior art rejection below might address the identified limitation in prior art rejections however those limitation cannot be relied upon to overcome prior art rejections because they are not required in the BRI of the claims.
Claim 8 is a process claim that include at least one contingent limitation.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim comprises a first limitation that recite “wherein, when the first indication information indicates that the first device supports the target second device in performing the random access …”. The limitation is considered a contingent limitation based in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). When analyzing the limitation, it discloses a step that only occurs after the condition (i.e. “the first indication information indicates”), but it fails to explicitly disclose a step when the condition does not occur. Therefore, the contingent limitation is not included in the BRI of the claim based on the interpretation that the condition does not occur. Any prior art rejection below might address the identified limitation in prior art rejections however those limitation cannot be relied upon to overcome prior art rejections because they are not required in the BRI of the claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, the claim recites:
(first limitation) “receiving, by a second device, first indication information from a first device…”;
(second limitation) “wherein the first information is being used to determine a target second device…”,
(third limitation) “wherein the first indication information indicates that the first device selects the target second device to initiate a random access request, or that the first device supports the target second device in initiating a random access request…”
(fourth limitation) “wherein the target second device is a second device that meets one or more pieces of information in the first information…”, or
(fifth limitation) “wherein initiating, by the second device, random access to the first device comprises: …”.
Based on the context of the claim is ambiguous whether the initiating step of the fifth limitation is performed by the second device, or is performed by the target second device. Examiner suggest to modify the naming convention of the devices to uniquely identify each of them in the claim. As a result, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding Claims 2-3, 5, 12-13, and 15, the claims are rejected as they inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claim above.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, the claim recites:
(first limitation) “receiving, by a second device, first indication information from a first device…”;
(second limitation) “wherein the first information is being used to determine a target second device…”,
(third limitation) “wherein the first indication information indicates that the first device selects the target second device to initiate a random access request, or that the first device supports the target second device in initiating a random access request…”
(fourth limitation) “wherein the target second device is a second device that meets one or more pieces of information in the first information…”, or
(fifth limitation) “wherein initiating, by the second device, random access to the first device comprises: …”.
Based on the context of the claim is ambiguous whether the initiating step of the fifth limitation is performed by the second device, or is performed by the target second device. Examiner suggest to modify the naming convention of the devices to uniquely identify each of them in the claim. As a result, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding Claims 7-8, 10, 17-18, and 20, the claims are rejected as they inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claim above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11, and 16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(2) as being anticipated by Hong et al. (Publication No. US 2021/0377067 , hereinafter referred to as Hong).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Hong discloses receiving, by a second device, first indication information from a first device, wherein the first indication information comprises first information (A terminal [second device] receive access requirement information [first information] from the smart home device [first device]; see figure 6 step 604);
wherein the first information is being used to determine a target second device (The terminal [second device] determines a target base station [target second device] based on the access requirement information [first information]; see figure 3 step 605.), and
wherein the first information comprises at least one or more of the following: first type information of the target second device, polar encoding information of the target second device, and authentication registration information of the target second device (The access requirement information[first information] includes at least one of a type of a network accessible by the smart home device [first type information of the target second device]; see ¶ 10.);
[NEW] wherein the first indication information indicates that the first device selects the target second device to initiate a random access request (The terminal [second device] may acquire the preamble codes randomly allocated by a plurality of base stations [target second device], and sends these preamble codes to the smart home device [first device]; see ¶ 138. The smart home device receives multiple preamble codes, the smart home device selects the preamble code allocated by one target base station [target second device]; see ¶ 138.), or
that the first device supports the target second device in initiating a random access request (Note: This limitation is claimed in the alternative form. Therefore, not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation.), and
wherein the target second device is a second device that meets one or more pieces of information in the first information (The terminal [second device] determines a target base station [target second device] based on the access requirement information [first information]; see figure 3 step 605.); and
when the second device is the target second device, initiating, by the second device, a random access request to the first device (The smart home device [second device] initiating a random access to the target base station [target second device] based on the access information; see figure 3 step 608.).
[CLM] wherein initiating, by the second device, random access to the first device comprises: sending, by the second device, a first message to the first device, wherein the first message comprises capability information of the second device, and the capability information comprises one or more of: first type information of the second device, information about whether the second device supports polar encoding, and information about whether the second device supports authentication registration (The limitation has been interpreted as being performed when the target device supports the second device in initiating a random access request. As a result, this limitation has not been considered as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation because is part of the alternative limitation above.); and
[NEW] the method further comprises:
receiving, by the second device, configuration information from the first device, wherein the configuration information is determined by the first device based on the first indication information (The terminal [second device] may acquire the preamble codes randomly allocated by a plurality of base stations [target second device], and sends these preamble codes to the smart home device [first device]; see ¶ 138.) and/or
the capability information, and the configuration information is used to configure information used by the second device to perform data transmission or signaling transmission (Note: This limitation is claimed in the alternative form. Therefore, not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation.).
Regarding claim 3, the limitation is considered a contingent limitation based in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI); see claim interpretation. As result, the claim is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation is considered a contingent limitation based in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI); see claim interpretation. As result, the claim is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Hong discloses receiving, by a second device, first indication information from a first device, wherein the first indication information comprises first information (A terminal [second device] receive access requirement information [first information] from the smart home device [first device]; see figure 6 step 604);
wherein the first information is being used to determine a target second device (The terminal [second device] determines a target base station [target second device] based on the access requirement information [first information]; see figure 3 step 605.), and
wherein the first information comprises at least one or more of the following: first type information of the target second device, polar encoding information of the target second device, and authentication registration information of the target second device (The access requirement information[first information] includes at least one of a type of a network accessible by the smart home device [first type information of the target second device]; see ¶ 10.);
[NEW] wherein the first indication information indicates that the first device selects the target second device to initiate a random access request (The terminal [second device] may acquire the preamble codes randomly allocated by a plurality of base stations [target second device], and sends these preamble codes to the smart home device [first device]; see ¶ 138. The smart home device receives multiple preamble codes, the smart home device selects the preamble code allocated by one target base station [target second device]; see ¶ 138.), or
that the first device supports the target second device in initiating a random access request (Note: This limitation is claimed in the alternative form. Therefore, not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation.), and
wherein the target second device is a second device that meets one or more pieces of information in the first information (The terminal [second device] determines a target base station [target second device] based on the access requirement information [first information]; see figure 3 step 605.); and
when the second device is the target second device, initiating, by the second device, a random access request to the first device (The smart home device [second device] initiating a random access to the target base station [target second device] based on the access information; see figure 3 step 608.).
[CLM] wherein initiating, by the second device, random access to the first device comprises: sending, by the second device, a first message to the first device, wherein the first message comprises capability information of the second device, and the capability information comprises one or more of: first type information of the second device, information about whether the second device supports polar encoding, and information about whether the second device supports authentication registration (The limitation has been interpreted as being performed when the target device supports the second device in initiating a random access request. As a result, this limitation has not been considered as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation because is part of the alternative limitation above.); and
[NEW] the method further comprises:
receiving, by the second device, configuration information from the first device, wherein the configuration information is determined by the first device based on the first indication information (The terminal [second device] may acquire the preamble codes randomly allocated by a plurality of base stations [target second device], and sends these preamble codes to the smart home device [first device]; see ¶ 138.) and/or
the capability information, and the configuration information is used to configure information used by the second device to perform data transmission or signaling transmission (Note: This limitation is claimed in the alternative form. Therefore, not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 AIA 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 5, 10, 15, and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (Publication No. US 2021/0377067 , hereinafter referred to as Hong) in view of Chien et al. (Publication No. US 2022/0377798, hereinafter referred as Chien).
Regarding claims 5, 10, 15, and 20, Hong discloses initiating a random access process, but fails to explicitly disclose sending, by the second device, capability information to the first device, wherein the capability information comprises one or more of the following: first type information of the second device, information about whether the second device supports polar encoding, and information about whether the second device supports authentication registration. However, in analogous art, Chien discloses UE [first device] provide a device type related information to the gNB [second device], wherein the gNB uses the device type information to provide resource configurations for the initial access procedure based on the device type; see figure 2 steps 1-3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hong with access procedure with the information type in order to configure the access procedure based on the terminal type.
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 HECTOR REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-0239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached on (571) 272-3980. 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.
/H.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights