DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-4, 13, 33-42, 45, 48-51 are pending wherein claims 1, 33, 34, and 50 are in independent form.
3. Claims 1, 3, 4, 13, 33-35, 37-39, 41-42, 45, 48-50 have been amended.
4. Claims 5-12, 14-32, 43-44, and 46-47 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 33, 34, and 50 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-4, 13, 33-42, 45, 48-51 are 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 1 recites that a resource block (RB) set used to receive DCI has a first central frequency point and at least one RB set of a first plurality of RB sets is selected based on the central frequency point of the at least one RB set (i.e., the second central frequency point) is equal to the first central frequency point. The central frequency point of the at least one RB set is equal to the first central frequency point. Claim further recites that a search space of the DCI includes a second plurality of RB sets and the central frequency point of the at least one RB set is equal to a lowest central frequency point of the second plurality of RB sets. Therefore, the at least one RB set has multiple central frequency points including a first central frequency point and a lowest central frequency point. Under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the at least one RB set is considered as one/single RB set and thus, the single RB set (i.e., the at least one RB set) has multiple central frequency points including a first central frequency point and a lowest central frequency point. Claim does not specify that the first central frequency point is the lowest central frequency point. Therefore, the single RB set (at least one RB set) having multiple central frequency points is not clear.
When the first central frequency point is not equal to the lowest central frequency point and the single RB set (at least one RB set) having the lowest central frequency point (i.e., second central frequency point being equal to lowest central frequency point), then the at least one RB set cannot have a central frequency point equal to the first central frequency point (i.e., second central frequency point cannot be equal to the first frequency point) and so, the at least one RB set cannot be selected based on the second central frequency point being equal to the first central frequency point (i.e., the claim feature “selecting at least one RB set of a first plurality of RB sets based at least in part on the at least one RB set having a second central frequency point equal to the first central frequency point” cannot be performed).
Similarly, When the first central frequency point is not equal to the lowest central frequency point and the single RB set (at least one RB set) having the central frequency point (i.e., second central frequency point) equal to the first central frequency point (second central frequency point being equal to the first central frequency point), then the single RB set (at least one RB set) cannot have a central frequency point equal to the lowest central frequency point.
Claims 33, 34, and 50 recite limitations similar to claim 1 above and thereby, are rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 above.
Claims 2-4, 13, 48 depend upon claim 1 and thereby, are rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 above.
Claims 40-42, 45, 49 depend upon claim 33 and thereby, are rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 33 above.
Claims 35-39 depend upon claim 34 and thereby, are rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 34 above.
Claim 51 depends upon claim 50 and thereby, are rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 50 above.
Examiner’s comment
It has been discussed above that the claim limitations are not defined properly. As a result, examiner cannot perform a proper search and identify the available prior arts relevant to the claimed subject matter. Therefore, rejection/allowability of the claims cannot be made on the basis of available prior arts.
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 HARUN UR R CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-3895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Kwang B Yao can be reached at 5712723182. 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.
/HARUN CHOWDHURY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights