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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section II, with respect to claims 3, 11, 14, and 20-21 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. The objection of claims 3, 11, 14, and 20-21 has been withdrawn except for claim 20 since Applicant did not fully address the claim.
Applicant’s arguments, see section III, with respect to claims 11, 14, and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 11, 14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section IV, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: add “or” at the end of line 7. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/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 3, in view of claim 1 encompassing “comparing the first size with a first threshold”, the specification does not appear to support “comparing the sum with the first threshold”. The closest the Examiner could find support within the specification is in ¶ 145 of the published specification which recite “In embodiments where split secondary RLC entity is configured for the relay UE, the relay UE may determine jointly for both the remote UE and the relay UE whether or not to submit their PDCP PDUs to the split secondary RLC entity of the relay UE. The determination may be made based on a comparison of total data volume of the remote UE and relay UE to a data threshold (such as ul-DataSplitThreshold)”. However, it appears that “a data threshold (such as ul-DataSplitThreshold)” in ¶ 145 of the published specification is different from “a data threshold, such as ul-DataSplitThreshold” in ¶ 141 of the published specification. Furthermore, in view of claim 1 encompassing “comparing a sum of the first and second size values with the first threshold”, the specification does not appear to support “comparing the second size value with the first threshold” nor “comparing the sum with the second threshold”. The closest the Examiner could find is in ¶ 145 of the published specification which recite “In embodiments where split secondary RLC entity is configured for the relay UE, the relay UE may determine jointly for both the remote UE and the relay UE whether or not to submit their PDCP PDUs to the split secondary RLC entity of the relay UE. The determination may be made based on a comparison of total data volume of the remote UE and relay UE to a data threshold (such as ul-DataSplitThreshold)”.
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(s) 48 is/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 48 recites the limitation "the first network node" in lines 2 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 10, 13-14, 17, 20-21, and 42 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the amendments made to independent claim 1 to add additional limitations indicates the reason(s) the claims are patentable over the prior arts of record.
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 PETER P CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7152. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 A.M - 6 P.M. ET M-F.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/PETER P CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476