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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 9/19/2024 and 2/19/2025 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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: “signal transmission module configured to induce the plurality of base stations to transmit a plurality of handover parameters to the mobile communication device” in claim 7; “a calculation module electrically connected to the signal transmission module and configured to calculate a position of the mobile communication device, a moving velocity of the mobile communication device and signal strength between the mobile communication device and each of the plurality of base stations according to the plurality of handover parameters” in claims 7, 8, and 10; and a processing module electrically connected to the calculation module and performing the following steps in claims 7, 9, 11, 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.
A review of the specification shows that there is no corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation signal transmission module, calculation module, or processing module or .
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant’s specification discloses no structure for the “signal transmission module”.
Regarding claims 7, 8, and 10, Applicant’s specification discloses no structure for the “calculation module”.
Regarding claims 7, 9, 11, and 12, Applicant’s specification discloses no structure for the “processing module”.
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 limitations “signal transmission module” in claim 7; “calculation module” in claims 7, 8, and 10; and “processing module” in claims 7, 9, 11, and 12 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claims. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, Applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 are allowed.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Considering claim 1, the best prior art found during the prosecution of the present application, Choi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0156556 A1) and Pablo Muñoz, Raquel Barco, and Isabel de la Bandera, “On the Potential of Handover Parameter Optimization for Self-Organizing Networks”, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 62, NO. 5, JUNE 2013 (Year: 2013), fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the limitations of determining whether the signal strength between the mobile communication device and the second base station is greater than a sum of the signal strength between the mobile communication device and the first base station and the handover margin threshold value and whether hold time when the signal strength between the mobile communication device and the second base station is greater than the sum of the signal strength between the mobile communication device and the first base station and the handover margin threshold value is greater than the time to trigger in combination with and in the context of all of the other limitations in claim 1.
Claims 2-6 are also allowed by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Park (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0006514 A1) discloses an apparatus and method for performing handoff in a mobile communication system;
Chin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0130206 A1) discloses a handover technique for wireless communications enabled devices;
Dimou (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0103347 A1) discloses adaptation of handover command size in a mobile telecommunication network;
Grob-Lipski et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0207452 A1) discloses a handover method and apparatus in a wireless communications network;
Hayashi (U.S. Patent No. 8,213,381 B2) discloses a mobile communication system, core network node selection method, and base station and mobile station used therefor;
Alonso-Rubio et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,331,936 B2) discloses automatic handover oscillation control;
Amirijoo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0115959 A1) discloses a method and apparatus for excluding non-mobility data from mobility key performance indicators;
Godin (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0137434 A1) discloses self-configuration of donor/relay node relationship;
Kallin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0344871 A1) discloses a method and arrangement for handover in a radio network;
Xuan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0378142 A1) discloses triggering a handover process based on the activity of a connection;
Godin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,060,373 B2) discloses de-activation of data bearer connections upon outgoing handover from a home cell;
Min et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0142962 A1) discloses an apparatus and method for providing handover support information in mobile communication system;
Bakker et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,414,272 B2) discloses UE measurements for hot spot detection;
Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0134996 A1) discloses a communication system adapted for key derivation during handover;
Park et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,693,268 B2) discloses a method of handover in mobile communication system;
Ogami et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,730,130 B2) discloses a mobile communication system, handover control method, radio base station, and mobile station;
Ruiz Avilés et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0318509 A1) discloses HO performance indicators for tuning HO parameters which are based on radio channel quality before HO; and
Caldenhoven et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0373516 A1) discloses handover for mobile edge computing applications in mobile networks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to MARK G. PANNELL whose telephone number is (303) 297-4245. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 3:00 pm (Mountain Time).
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on (571) 272-7915. 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.
/Mark G. Pannell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights