DETAILED ACTION
This action considers the Applicant’s response filed on July 7, 2025. Claims 19-37 remain pending.
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 10,368,335 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Response to Arguments
Reissue Declaration
In view of the reissue declaration field on July 7, 2025, the Examiner find that the Applicant has overcome the issues set forth in the previous office action. Therefore, the rejection to the claims under this issue will be withdrawn.
Recapture – 35 U.S.C. §251
The Applicant states that the recapture test is not applicable because new claims 19-37 are directed to overlooked subject matter. The Applicant explains that claim 19 recites “wherein broadcasting the essential system information and the resource configuration of the demand channel comprises broadcasting the resource configuration of the demand channel comprises broadcasting the resource configuration of the demand channel and at least part of the essential system information in an access information table (AIT).” The Applicant states that the original patent claims did not recite subject matter related to the resource configuration of the demand channel in an AIT.
The Examiner finds that US Patent 10,368,335 recites in claim 3, “wherein broadcasting the essential system information and the resource configuration of the demand channel comprises: broadcasting the resource configuration of the demand channel and at least a part of the essential system information in an access information table (AIT).” In light of patent claim 3, the Examiner finds that the reissue claims are covered by the claims of the ‘335 Patent and thus are the same invention/embodiment. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the reissue claims are drawn to an overlooked embodiment.
The Applicant also maintained that the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects and avoid the recapture rule. The Applicant states that MPEP 1412.02 (II.C.Situation 3) instructs that material narrowing may occur “in other respects relative to the surrendered subject matter.” The Applicant states that the surrender generating limitation identified by the Office Action are related to a request for optional system information and resourced for providing the optimal system information. The Applicant states that reissue claim 19 is also related to a request for optimal system information and resource for providing the optimal system information.
The Applicant states that while the claims where amended in a particular direction during prosecution of the original claims to overcome the art, Applicant has drafted the reissue claims in a manner that also overcomes the art, albeit in a different manner, but that does not recapture the previously surrendered subject matter.
The Examiner first notes that MPEP 1412.02(II)(C) provides several “situations” as it relates to the modification of a surrender generating limitation (SGL).
Situation 1:
Situation 1 - SGL entirely eliminated: If an SGL has been entirely eliminated from a claim present in the reissue application, then a recapture rejection under 35 U.S.C. 251 may be proper. For example, if a claim limitation present in the original patent that was added to overcome a rejection or that was argued by applicant to distinguish over the prior art is entirely eliminated from a claim in the reissue application and not replaced by a new SGL-related limitation, then a recapture rejection under 35 U.S.C. 251 is proper and must be made for that claim.
Such an omission in a reissue claim, even if it is accompanied by other limitations making the reissue claim narrower than the patent claim in other unrelated aspects, is impermissible recapture. Pannu, 258 F.3d at 1371-72, 59 USPQ2d at 1600. But note that even if the SGL limitation in the patent claims was entirely eliminated, the reissue applicant may have added a new limitation that relates to surrendered subject matter. See situation 3 below.
As set forth in the previous office action and herein, the Examiner found that several of the identified SGLs have been entirely eliminated. As recited in this situation 1, situation 3 relates to a new limitation that is added that relates to the surrendered subject matter.
The Examiner finds that Situation 3 (as identified by the Applicant) recites:
Situation 3 - Materially narrowed in other respects relative to the surrendered subject matter: In both situations 1 and 2, even "[i]f the modified limitation does not materially narrow (or, in other cases, the limitation is eliminated)," it may be that "the reissued claims were materially narrowed in other respects so that the claims have not been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule." Youman, 679 F.3d at 1347, 102 USPQ2d at 1870. In other words, even if the modified limitation does not materially narrow, the reissue applicant may have added a new limitation that still relates to surrendered subject matter (e.g., same characteristic or concept).
In addition, it is further stated that “[t]he material narrowing must relate to what was amended or argued by applicant in the original application, for example to define the claim over the art. Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 1271, 103 USPQ2d 1951, 1958 (Fed. Cir. 2012). See also In re General Electric Co., 789 F. App’x 857, 860-61, 2019 USPQ2d 399054 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (unpublished)
In this case, Situation 3 recites that the reissue applicant may have added a new limitations that still relates to surrendered subject matter (e.g. same characteristic or concept). The Examiner finds that the Applicant did not identify the new limitation that still relates to the surrendered subject matter. In addition, as set forth in the non-final office action, the Examiner acknowledged that claim 19 recites additional limitations.
For example, the claim recites that the optional system information on demand is “to save resource and energy” and that the essential system information is “being broadcast periodically”. In addition, claim 19 recites “wherein broadcasting the essential system information and the resource configuration of the demand channel comprises broadcasting the resource configuration of the demand channel and at least a part of the essential system information in an access information table (AIT).”
The Examiner found that none of these limitations materially narrow at least the surrendered generating limitation of “information identifying a predefined resource zone for receiving the optional system information in response to a request for the optional system information” or “wherein the information identifying the predefined resource zone comprises at least one of a time resource or a frequency resource for receiving the optional system information” or “broadcasting an indicator in the predefined resource zone to indicate existence of the part of the optional system information and broadcasting, on the demand basis, the part of the optional system information in the predefined resource zone”.
The Examiner notes that with respect to “save resource and energy” and that the essential system information is “being broadcast periodically” these limitations do not relate to identifying a predefined zone for receiving the optional system information nor does it pertain to identifying a predefined resource zone with either a time resource or a frequency resource or the broadcast of an indicator in the predefined resource zone to indicate existence of the part of the optional system information. The limitation “save resource and energy” pertains to the reasons for the transmission of optional system information (which is based on a limitation which was not subject to recapture). The limitation “being broadcast periodically” pertains to the frequency of the broadcast. This does not pertain to a “predefined zone” or an “Indicator” in the “predefined zone”.
In addition “wherein broadcasting the essential system information and the resource configuration of the demand channel comprises broadcasting the resource configuration of the demand channel and at least a part of the essential system information in an access information table (AIT)” pertains to the use of a specific type of table for the broadcast. This limitation does not relate to a specific “predefined zone” for the with either a time of frequence resource or the broadcast of an “indicator in a predefined zone”.
As set forth in the rejection, several limitations which have been indicated as being surrendered are no longer recited in the current reissue claims. This includes, at the least, the limitation of “information identifying a predefined resource zone for receiving the optional system information in response to a request for the optional system information” or “wherein the information identifying the predefined resource zone comprises at least one of a time resource or a frequency resource for receiving the optional system information” or “broadcasting an indicator in the predefined resource zone to indicate existence of the part of the optional system information and broadcasting, on the demand basis, the part of the optional system information in the predefined resource zone”.
As set forth in the previous office action and herein, none of the added limitation in the reissue claims are materially narrowed relative to the surrendered subject matter since they do not narrow a surrendered generating limitation in other respects as it relates to identifying a predefined resource zone, identifying a time or frequency resources or the broadcast of an indicator in the predefined resource zone.
35 USC 103
The Applicant states that the Office Action fails to show that the proposed Mustapha-Ishii combination discloses, teaches or suggests “wherein broadcasting the essential system information and the resource configuration of the demand channel comprises broadcasting the resource configuration of the demand channel and at least part of the essential system information in an access information table (AIT).”
The Applicant also states the cited portions of Mustapha disclosed that the time and channel information is for the secondary system information, which is not disclosure of time and channel information of a demand channel to be used for requesting optional system information. The Applicant states that Office Action also recites on paragraph 0015 of Mustapha which discloses that a channel or code sequence may be used for request for secondary system information, as disclosing a demand channel. The Applicant states however, that there is still no disclosure that a resource configuration for the demand channel were broadcast as part of the essential system information as claimed.
The Examiner, as set forth in the previous office action, notes that Mustapha discloses of a specific demand channel for making requests for secondary system information. This is disclosed in paragraphs [0015] and [0022]. The Examiner also notes that paragraph [0010] discloses the broadcast of time and channel information as in relates to the secondary system information.
In view of the Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner acknowledges that the claim recites in part “broadcasting a resource configuration of a demand channel…the essential system information and the resource confirmation of the demand channel comprises broadcasting the resource configuration of the demand channel and at least part of the essential system information in an access information table (AIT)”. In this case, the Examiner notes that as set forth in paragraph [0015] “[a] channel or code sequence (for example, a RACH code sequence) may be reserved for request from user equipment for secondary system information”.
Upon further review, the Examiner finds that although Mustapha discloses a method for a UE to use a channel for requesting the transmission of the optional/secondary system information, the Examiner finds that Mustapha does not clearly show that the this ‘resource configuration’ of the demand channel was broadcast to the UE with at least part of the essential system information in an access information table.
Therefore, the Examiner finds that Applicant’s arguments persuasive as to this issue.
The Applicant also states that the Office Action relies on Ishii with respect to “broadcasting the resource configuration of the demand channel and at least a part of the essential system information in an access information table (AIT). The Applicant states that Ishii merely discloses that information may be stored in a table format and that the information in the table may be broadcast in system information. The Applicant states that the existence of generic table format, is not disclosure of the specific access information table (AIT) recited in claim 19. The Applicant refers to column 5 and 6 of the original patent for a more detailed discussion of the claimed AIT.
The Examiner first notes that the detailed discussion of the claimed AIT as set forth in col. 5 and 6 of the ‘335 patent is not specifically claimed. In addition, claim 19 broadly recites “an access information table (AIT)” without providing and specific functions that is claimed that is not met by the table set forth by Ishii. The Examiner maintains that the combination of Mustapha and Ishii shows it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an access information table for the broadcasting of the information.
Thus, for the reasons set forth above, the Examiner finds persuasive the Applicant’s arguments with respect to the argument directed to the resource configuration of a demand channel which is broadcast with the essential system information in an access information table.
Double Patenting
The Examiner notes that the Applicant defers the decision to file a terminal disclaimer until such time as the claims are indicated as allowable in their current form. Thus, in view of the Applicant’s comments, the rejection of the claims for this issue will remain.
Recapture
Claims 19-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. In re McDonald, 43 F.4th 1340, 1345, 2022 USPQ2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335, 102 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The reissue application contains claim(s) that are broader than the issued patent claims. The record of the application for the patent family shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
As set forth in MPEP 1412.02, in Clement, 131 F.3d at 1468-70, 45 USPQ2d at 1164-65, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit set forth a three step test for recapture analysis. In North American Container, 415 F.3d at 1349, 75 USPQ2d at 1556, the court restated this test as follows:
We apply the recapture rule as a three-step process: (1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims; (2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and (3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.
As to the three-step process, the Examiner notes that following:
first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims
The Examiner finds that new claim 19 is broader that claim 1 of the ‘335 patent since new claim 19 does not recite requesting “information identifying a predefined resource zone for receiving the optional system information in response to a request for the optional system information”, “wherein the information identifying the predefined resource zone comprises at least one of a time resource or a frequency resource for receiving the optional system information”, “broadcasting an indicator in the predefined resource zone to indicate existence of the part of the optional system information and broadcasting, on the demand basis, the part of the optional system information in the predefined resource zone” and “avoid periodic transmission of the optional system information”.
next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution;
The Examiner notes that during the original prosecution of the 15/113,888 application, in response to the non-final office action of September 11, 2017, the Applicant amended claim 1 as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
253
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In addition, the Applicant argued in part “the proposed Bucknell-Griot combination does not disclose, teach, or suggest “broadcasting, to at least one terminal, essential system information and a resource configuration of a demand channel for requesting optional system information to be provided to the at least one terminal on a demand-basis,” as recited in amended Claim 1”.
In response to the Final Office Action of January 19, 2018, the claim was further amended as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
359
585
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Applicant stated that “the proposed Bucknell-Griot combination does not disclose, teach, or suggest “broadcasting, to at least one terminal, essential system information and a resource configuration of a demand channel for requesting optional system information to be provided to the at least one terminal on a demand-basis the essential system information being required to access a cell in the device, wherein the demand channel is a channel on which user equipments send a request for requesting at least a part of the optional system information on a demand-basis to avoid periodic transmission of the optional system information,” as recited in Claim 1”.
The Applicant emphasized that “there is no disclosure in Bucknell that the broadcast of the MIB includes “a configuration of a demand channel for requesting optional system information…wherein the demand channel is a channel on which user equipments send a request for requesting at least a part of the optional system information on a demand basis to avoid periodic transmission of the optional system information.”
The Applicant also argued “the proposed Bucknell-Griot combination does not disclose, teach, or suggest “in response to receiving the request from the user equipment and on the demand-basis, broadcasting the part of the optional system information.”
In response to the Non-Final Office Action of May 24, 2018, the Applicant further amended the claim to recite:
PNG
media_image3.png
421
591
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Applicant states that “the proposed Bucknell-Kubota and Bucknell-Kubtoa-Frenger combinations do not disclose, teach, or suggest “in response to receiving the request from a user equipment, broadcasting an indicator in a predefined zone to indicate existence of the part of the optional system information and broadcasting, on the demand basis, the part of the optional system information in the predefined resource zone.”
With emphasis on Frenger, the Applicant stated that “[t]here is no disclose of a predefined resource zone or that the AIT and the system signatures sequences are transmitted in a predefined resource zone.”
In response to the Final Rejection of September 19, 2018, the Applicant provided a further amendment to the claim as follows:
PNG
media_image4.png
442
590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Applicant argued that Frenger does not disclose, teach, or suggest “in response to receiving the request from a user equipment, broadcasting an indicator in a predefined zone to indicate existence of the part of the optional system information and broadcasting, on the demand basis, the part of the optional system information in the predefined resource zone, the predefined resource zone comprising at least one physical resource block for receiving the optional system information.”
In response to the Advisory Action of November 26, 2018, the Applicant further amended the claim as follows:
PNG
media_image5.png
518
592
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Applicant stated that Bucknell does not disclose, teach, or suggest, “broadcasting, to at least one terminal, essential system information, the essential system information comprising…information identifying a predefined resource zone for receiving the optional system information in response to a request for the optional system information…wherein the information identifying the predefined resource zone comprises at least one of a time resource of a frequency resource for receiving the optional system information.”
In accordance with MPEP 1412.02(II)(B), “[i]f an original patent claim limitation now being omitted or broadened in the present reissue application was originally relied upon by applicant in the original application to make the claims allowable, the omitted limitation relates to subject matter previously surrendered by applicant. The reliance by applicant to define the original patent claims over the art can be by presentation of new/amended claims to define over the art, or an argument/statement by applicant that a limitation of the claim(s) defines over the art.”
Therefore, the above amendments/arguments are considered subject matter previously surrendered by applicant.
finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.
The Examiner first notes that In the decision of In re Mostafazadeh, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit stated that to avoid the recapture rule "the claims must be materially narrowed relative to the surrendered subject matter such that the surrendered subject matter is not entirely or substantially recaptured." Id. at 1361, 98 USPQ2d at 1644.
The Examiner notes that although claim 19 is broader than claim 1 of the original patent, claim 19 recite additional limitations. For example, the claim recites that the optional system information on demand is “to save resource and energy” and that the essential system information is “being broadcast periodically”. In addition, claim 19 recites “wherein broadcasting the essential system information and the resource configuration of the demand channel comprises broadcasting the resource configuration of the demand channel and at least a part of the essential system information in an access information table (AIT).”
Thus, none of these limitations materially narrow the surrendered generating limitation of “information identifying a predefined resource zone for receiving the optional system information in response to a request for the optional system information” or “wherein the information identifying the predefined resource zone comprises at least one of a time resource or a frequency resource for receiving the optional system information” or “broadcasting an indicator in the predefined resource zone to indicate existence of the part of the optional system information and broadcasting, on the demand basis, the part of the optional system information in the predefined resource zone”.
Therefore, the current claims are subject to recapture.
In addition, the Examiner notes that dependent claims 21 and 22 (as well as dependent claims 29. 32 and 33) recite limitations pertaining to a resource zone, however neither of these claims materially narrow the surrendered limitation pertaining to “wherein the information identifying the predefined resource zone comprises at least one of a time resource or a frequency resource for receiving the optional system information”.
Therefore, all claims are subject to recapture.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 19, 21, 23-27, 31, 32, and 34-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6,8, 6, 19, 22-24, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. RE50,011 in view of Mustapha US Patent Pub. 2010/0027466.
18/735,597
RE50011
19. A method implemented by a base station of a cellular network, comprising:
1. A method implemented by a device at a base station of a cell of a cellular network, comprising:
broadcasting essential system information
without optional system information and
broadcasting a resource configuration of a demand channel,
wherein the demand channel is a channel reserved for user equipments to send a request
for transmission of the optional system information on demand to save resource and energy, and
broadcasting, to at least one terminal, essential system information, the essential system information comprising a resource configuration of a demand channel for requesting optional system information to be provided to the at least one terminal on a demand-basis and information identifying a predefined resource zone for receiving the optional system information in response to a request for the optional system information, wherein the essential system information is required to access a cell of the device,
wherein the demand channel is a common channel shared by user equipments in a cell of the base station,
the essential system information being broadcasted periodically and being required to access the cell,
wherein the demand channel is a channel on which user equipments send a request for requesting at least a part of the optional system information on the demand-basis to avoid periodic transmission of the optional system information, wherein the information identifying the predefined resource zone comprises an identifier of one or more physical resource blocks (PRBs) [at least one of a time resource or a frequency resource] for receiving the optional system information, and
wherein broadcasting the essential system information and the resource configuration of the demand channel comprises broadcasting the resource configuration of the demand channel and at least a part of the essential system information in an access information table (AIT);
wherein the resource configuration of the demand channel includes at least one of the following: a period of the demand channel, a time offset with respect to a reference signal, or a frequency offset with respect to the reference signal;
monitoring, on the demand channel, a request for at least a part of optional system information other than the essential system information; and
while monitoring the demand channel, receiving a request from the at least one terminal for at least a part of optional system information other than the essential system information; and
in response to receiving the request from a user equipment, broadcasting the part of the optional system information.
in response to receiving the request from a user equipment, broadcasting an indicator in the predefined resource zone to indicate existence of the part of the optional system information and broadcasting, on the demand basis, the part of the optional system information in the predefined resource zone.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein broadcasting the essential system information and the resource configuration of the demand channel comprises: broadcasting the resource configuration of the demand channel and at least a part of the essential system information in an access information table (AIT).
As set forth above, the instant claims are broader than the above identified claims of RE50011 since it does not resource at least predefined zones. In addition, the instant claim different in at least it recites the essential system information being broadcasted periodically and being required to access the cell. However this is not a patentable distinction since it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to periodically transmit the essential information.
For example, Mustapha also discloses that the primary information is broadcast periodically. See the abstract, paragraphs [0005] and [0039]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to periodically broadcast information so that the under equipment can timely receive the required essential information in order to access the cell network.
The Examiner also finds that claims 21,23-27,31,32,34-36 correspond to claims 4,6,1,8,9,19,22-24,19 and 26 of RE50011 respectively.
Conclusion
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 Ovidio Escalante whose telephone number is (571)272-7537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday - 6:00 AM to 2:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-1367. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/Ovidio Escalante/
Primary Examiner
Central Reexamination Unit - Art Unit 3992
(571) 272-7537
Conferee:
/MATTHEW E HENEGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /MICHAEL FUELLING/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992