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 text of the Claim Interpretation not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 8 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.
Claim 8 has antecedent basis problems because of alternative limitations. Claim 7 states, "receiving an RRC connection establishment request carrying the reason information sent by the second terminal; or receiving an RRC connection resume request carrying the reason information sent by the second terminal." In claim 8, for example, the RRC connection establishment request lacks antecedent basis because in claim 7 it receives only an RRC connection resume request, and vice versa. Also, “in response to receiving the RRC connection establishment request,” or either “response to receiving the RRC connection resume request” may never happen because only the other would happen, so the claim is confusing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 12-16, 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter can be found in previous Office actions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The essential inquiry pertaining to 35 USC §112(b) paragraph is whether the claims set out and describe a particular subject matter with a reasonable degree of clarity and particularity. Definiteness of claim language must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but in light of the content of the particular application disclosure, the teachings of the prior art, and the claim interpretation that would be given by one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time the invention was made. To assist in understanding the scope of a claim and/or meaning of a claim term, applicants may provide definitions of the claim terms in the written description of the specification. Such a disclosure is helpful to the public, and applicants are fully within their rights to do so, as they may be their own lexicographers. Applicants can define in the claims what they regard as their invention essentially in whatever terms they may choose, so long as any special meaning assigned to a term is clearly set forth in the specification. However, providing a definition of a claim term in the written description does not preclude a finding of indefiniteness of the claim term. The clarity of the provided definition of a term in a claim must also be evaluated from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. If an examiner, when evaluating a claim term’s disclosed definition, concludes the definition is not clear and precise and one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the term indefinite (e.g., the definition’s broadest reasonable interpretation results in more than one meaning and/or interpretation), then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), would be appropriate. Furthermore, inconsistency between a claim term and the specification disclosure may make an otherwise definite claim term take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971). http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/section_112_2nd_09_02_2008.pdf
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the “or” language, the condition would also not occur and the step or function claimed would never be realized, hence the claim does not require to perform the step or function. Under the broadest scenario, the steps or functions dependent on the “or” condition would not be invoked.
The claim language “in response to receiving the RRC connection establishment request, accepting the RRC connection establishment request; or in response to receiving the RRC connection resume request, accepting the RRC connection resume request” is ambiguous.. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine, with reasonable certainty, the scope of the claimed invention, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and as interpreted by Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014). This ambiguity is further reflected in the unclear antecedent basis, compounding the indefiniteness. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to clarify the relationship between the alternatives, specify whether both types of addresses can be present, and provide clear antecedent basis to resolve the ambiguity.
The Examiner suggest to amend the claim to state,” The method according to claim 1, further comprising: when receiving the RRC connection establishment request, accepting the RRC connection establishment request; and when receiving the RRC connection resume request, accepting the RRC connection resume request.”
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.
The USPTO will not accept requests for consideration under the AFCP 2.0 filed after December 14, 2024.
If applicants wish to request for an interview, an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form (PTOL-413A) should be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the issues to be discussed. This form should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, or video conference, and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. A copy of the completed "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form should be attached to the Interview Summary form, PTOL-413 at the completion of the interview and a copy should be given to applicant or applicant's representative.
If applicants request an interview after this final rejection, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search will be denied.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D CUMMING whose telephone number is (571)272-7861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 noon to 6pm.
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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
WILLIAM D. CUMMING
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2645
/WILLIAM D CUMMING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights