-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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 1-3, 8-10, 12, 15, 29, 31-32, 37-46 are pending wherein claims 1, 8, 15, 29, 37, and 44 are in independent form.
4. Claims 1, 8, 12, 15, 29, 37, 41, and 44 have been amended.
5. Claims 4-7, 11, 13-14, 16-28, 30, 33-36, and 47 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, 29, and 37 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
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-3, 12, 29, 31-32, 41-43, and 45-46 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 to process signals in at least one of the first MUSIM gap occasion, second MUSIM gap occasion, or MG occasion based on the relative priorities of the first MUSIM gap occasion and the second MUSIM gap occasion or the first MUSIM gap occasion and the MG occasion. Claim defines processing the signals as the transmission of signals via a second network during the second MUSIM gap occasion or the MG occasion and therefore, signal processing is performed at least one of the second MUSIM gap occasion or MG occasion and it excludes considering signal processing during the first MUSIM gap occasion. Therefore, it is not clear how the claimed signal processing is performed in at least one of the first MUSIM gap occasion, second MUSIM gap occasion, or MG occasion when the first MUSIM gap occasion is excluded from the signal processing stage (“processing the signals comprises transmitting signals via a second network during the second MUSIM gap occasion or the MG occasion”).
Claimed signal processing is performed in at least one of the first MUSIM gap occasion, second MUSIM gap occasion, or MG occasion based on the relative priorities of the first MUSIM gap occasion and the second MUSIM gap occasion or the first MUSIM gap occasion and the MG occasion. The claimed signal processing in view of specification indicates to process signals during the first MUSIM gap occasion when the first MUSIM gap occasion has a higher priority than the second MUSIM gap occasion (relative priorities of the first MUSIM gap occasion and the second MUSIM gap occasion). Similarly, signal processing is performed during the first MUSIM gap occasion when the first MUSIM gap occasion has a higher priority than the MG occasion (relative priorities of the first MUSIM gap occasion and the MG occasion) (Specification, Fig. 8, Fig. 10-12). Claim does not specify that the first MUSIM gap occasion has a lower priority than the second MUSIM gap occasion or the MG occasion. Therefore, the first MUSIM gap occasion may have a higher priority than the second MUSIM gap occasion or the MG occasion and, in that case (higher priority first MUSIM gap occasion), signal processing (i.e. transmission of signals) needs to be performed during the first MUSIM gap occasion (i.e., processing signals based on the relative priorities of the first MUSIM gap occasion and the second MUSIM gap occasion or the first MUSIM gap occasion and the MG occasion). However, claim limitation, “processing the signals comprises transmitting signals via a second network during the second MUSIM gap occasion or the MG occasion”), specifies that the signal processing is performed during the second MUSIM gap occasion or the MG occasion irrespective of the priority of the first MUSIM gap occasion. Therefore, the signal processing is not performed based on the relative priorities of the first MUSIM gap occasion and the second MUSIM gap occasion or the first MUSIM gap occasion and the MG occasion.
Specification discloses to process signals during the first MUSIM gap occasion when the first MUSIM gap occasion has a higher priority than the MG occasion (US PG-PUB 20240114561, Fig. 8, Fig. 10A-B, Par 0113-0114) and during the first MUSIM gap occasion when first MUSIM gap occasion has a higher priority than the second MUSIM gap occasion (US PG-PUB 20240114561, Fig. 8, Fig. 11-12, Par 0115-0118). Claim excludes the first MUSIM gap occasion from the signal processing stage (“processing the signals comprises transmitting signals via a second network during the second MUSIM gap occasion or the MG occasion”), and therefore, the signal processing cannot be performed during the first MUSIM gap occasion even if the first MUSIM gap occasion has a higher priority than the second MUSIM gap occasion and the MG occasion. Therefore, the claim limitation of “processing signals in at least one of the first MUSIM gap occasion, the second MUSIM gap occasion, or the MG occasion based on relative priorities of the first MUSIM gap occasion and the second MUSIM gap occasion, or the first MUSIM gap occasion and the MG occasion” is not clear.
Claim 29 recites limitation similar to claim 1 above and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2-3 and 12 depend upon claim 1 and thereby, are rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 above.
Claims 31-32, 41-43, and 45-46 depend upon claim 29 and thereby, are rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 29 above.
Examiner’s comment
It has been discussed above that the claim limitations regarding claims 1 and 29 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Re claims 8 and 37, the cited prior arts do not disclose, “receiving or transmitting signals via a first network during a period excluding the third MUSIM gap occasion, including the first MUSIM gap occasion, based on the detection”.
Therefore, claims 8-10 and 37-40 are allowed.
Re claims 15 and 44, the cited prior arts do not disclose, “the second MUSIM gap occasion collides with a fourth MUSIM gap occasion; the first MUSIM gap occasion has a higher relative priority than the second MUSIM gap occasion, which has a higher relative priority than the fourth MUSIM gap occasion; and the method further comprises: dropping the second MUSIM gap occasion; transmitting or receiving signals via a first network during a period excluding the first MUSIM gap occasion and the fourth MUSIM gap occasion; and transmitting or receiving signals via a second network during the first MUSIM gap occasion and during the fourth MUSIM gap occasion.”
Therefore, claims 15 and 44 are allowed.
Conclusion
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