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 titled “Claim Objections”, with respect to claims 4 and 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 4 and 12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112”, with respect to claims 2, 6, 8, 10, 14, 16, 18, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 2, 6, 8, 10, 14, 16, 18, and 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103”, with respect to claims 1-6, 9-14, and 17-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-6, 9-14, and 17-20 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “CE) signaling” in line 3 to “CE)” since later on in the claim and dependent claims there are MAC CE but no “signaling”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 2 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “CE signaling” in line 4 to “CE” since a majority of claims recite MAC CE than MAC CE signaling. Furthermore, indicate what Q is (e.g., an integer value equal to or less than S). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 6 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “selected” in line 3 to “selected from”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “CE) signaling” in line 3 to “CE)” since later on in the claim and dependent claims there are MAC CE but no “signaling”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 10 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “CE signaling” in line 4 to “CE” since a majority of claims recite MAC CE than MAC CE signaling. Furthermore, indicate what Q is (e.g., an integer value equal to or less than S). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 14 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “selected” in line 3 to “selected from”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “CE) signaling” in line 3 to “CE)” since later on in the claim and dependent claims there are MAC CE but no “signaling”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: indicate what Q is (e.g., an integer value equal to or less than S). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 19 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “CE) signaling” in line 3 to “CE)” since later on in the claim and dependent claims there are MAC CE but no “signaling” and “the two the two” in lines 17 and 20 to “the two” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: indicate what Q is (e.g., an integer value equal to or less than S). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 21-24 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “the group” in line 2 to “a group” and “RS is” in line 7 to “RS sets is”. 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) 2, 10, 18, 20, and 21-24 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 2, Applicant has amended this claim to now recite “one or more third fields (e.g., 2 or more third fields), each of which corresponds to a bit with a value of 1 in the Q bits (e.g., Q = 1)”. Applicant state that support is found in ¶ 84-85 and 102 of the originally filed specification, claims and drawings. After a review of these portions of the specification and the rest of the specification, the Examiner could not find support for the above feature. Claims 10 and 18 and 20 recite similar limitations of claim 2 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 21, this claim recites “a second new candidate RS index selected from a second of the two candidate RS is absent in the MAC CE” and “the first new candidate RS index selected from the first of the two candidate RS sets is absent in the MAC CE”. Applicant state that support is found in ¶ 84-85 and 102 of the originally filed specification, claims and drawings. After a review of these portions of the specification and the rest of the specification, the Examiner could not find support for the above feature. The closest the Examiner could find is in ¶ 102 of the published specification which recite “the octet containing candidate RS index 2 for the serving cell of C.sub.i is present only when the AC-BFI for the serving cell indicates two new candidates are found”. However, this portion of the specification does not provide support for the above features. Claims 22-24 recite similar limitations of claim 21 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
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) 2, 5-6, 10, 13-14, 18, 20 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.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear what “the one serving cell” is referring to since there is potentially 2 or more one serving cells in claim 1 by S being potentially more than 1. Claims 10 and 18 and 20 recite similar limitations of claim 2 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear what “the two candidate RS sets” are being referred to since there is potentially two or more two candidate RS sets if there are 2 or more serving cells (S = 2 or more). Claim 6 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 5 and/or recite similar issues of claim 5 and is thus rejected under similar rationale. Claim 13 recite similar limitations of claim 5 and is thus rejected under similar rationale. Claim 14 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 13 and/or recite similar issues of claim 13 and is thus rejected under similar rationale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 15-17, and 19 is/are allowed.
Claim(s) 2, 5-6, 10, 13-14, 18, and 20-24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the amendments herein made to the independent claims indicates the reason(s) the above 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
Prosecution Insights