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 .
Claim Objections
2. Claims 8-9 and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“The action of canceling executing a first event in the second time window set" in claim 8 (line 5), claim 9 (line 5), claim 11 (line 4), and claim 12 (line 4), should be replaced with - - an action of canceling executing the first event in the second time window set - -, as “the action of canceling executing a first event in the second time window set” lacks antecedent basis, and to be consistent with the first citation of “a first event” in claim 1 (line 8-9).
Claim 11 (line 2) and claim 12 (line 2) recite “the first pending list” and it should be - - a first pending list - -, as “the first pending list” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites limitations “transmitting a first message, the first message being used to determine a first time window set, the first time window set comprising at least one time window; wherein the first message is used for requesting that a wireless transmission for a transmitter of the first signaling be suspended in the first time window set” in lines 4-7, and further recites “a time length from a start of the first timer to a first time exceeds an expiration value of the first timer, where the start of the first timer is before the first time; the first signaling is used to determine that executing a first event is canceled in a second time window set, based on the assumption that the first signaling is not received an expiration of the first timer is used for triggering the first event, the second time window set comprising time-domain resources between a second time and the first time, where the second time is between the start of the first timer and the first time and a time length from the second time to the start of the first timer is no smaller than the expiration value of the first timer” in lines 8-14. It is unclear how “first time window set”, recited in lines 4-7, relates to time-related recitations in lines 8-14, namely “start of the first timer”, “first time”, “time length from a start of the first timer to a first time”, “expiration value of the first timer”, “second time window set”, “expiration of the first timer”, “second time”, and “time length from the second time to the start of the first timer”. Further, claim 1 recites “a time length from a start of the first timer to a first time exceeds an expiration value of the first timer” in line 8. The limitation “a time length from a start of the first timer to a first time exceeds an expiration value of the first timer” is unclear, because it is a comparison between “a time length from a start of the first timer to a first time”, i.e., a duration of a period between two points in time, and “an expiration value of the first timer”, i.e., a point in time. Furthermore, claim 1 recites “a time length from the second time to the start of the first timer is no smaller than the expiration value of the first timer” in lines 13-14. The limitation “a time length from the second time to the start of the first timer is no smaller than the expiration value of the first timer” is unclear, because it is a comparison between “a time length from the second time to the start of the first timer”, i.e., a duration of a period between two points in time, and “the expiration value of the first timer”, i.e., a point in time. Moreover, claim 1 recites “the first signaling is used to determine that executing a first event is canceled in a second time window set, based on the assumption that the first signaling is not received an expiration of the first timer is used for triggering the first event” in lines 9-11. It is unclear what entity uses the first signaling to perform the determination, based on the assumption that the first signaling is not received, considering that the first node does not require an assumption regarding the first node itself not receiving the first signaling. In addition, “the assumption …” lacks antecedent basis, and the meaning of the assumption in its entirety is unclear, according to the recitation “the assumption that the first signaling is not received an expiration of the first timer is used for triggering the first event” in lines 10-11. Correction is required for claim 1 to be definite.
Claims 2-18 are rejected as being dependent of rejected claim 1.
Claim 19 recites limitations "receiving a first message, the first message being used to determine a first time window set, the first time window set comprising at least one time window; wherein the first message is used for requesting that a wireless transmission for the second node be suspended in the first time window set”, `in lines 4-7, and further recites “a time length from a start of the first timer to a first time exceeds an expiration value of the first timer, where the start of the first timer is before the first time; the first signaling is used to by a transmitter of the first message to determine that executing a first event is canceled in a second time window set, based on the assumption that the first signaling is not received an expiration of the first timer is used for triggering the first event, the second time window set comprising time-domain resources between a second time and the first time, where the second time is between the start of the first timer and the first time and a time length from the second time to the start of the first timer is no smaller than the expiration value of the first timer” in lines 8-14. It is unclear how “first time window set”, recited in lines 4-7, relates to time-related recitations in lines 8-14, namely “start of the first timer”, “first time”, “time length from a start of the first timer to a first time”, “expiration value of the first timer”, “second time window set”, “expiration of the first timer”, “second time”, and “time length from the second time to the start of the first timer”. Further, claim 19 recites “a time length from a start of the first timer to a first time exceeds an expiration value of the first timer” in line 8. The limitation “a time length from a start of the first timer to a first time exceeds an expiration value of the first timer” is unclear, because it is a comparison between “a time length from a start of the first timer to a first time”, i.e., a duration of a period between two points in time, and “an expiration value of the first timer”, i.e., a point in time. Furthermore, claim 19 recites “a time length from the second time to the start of the first timer is no smaller than the expiration value of the first timer” in lines 13-14. The limitation “a time length from the second time to the start of the first timer is no smaller than the expiration value of the first timer” is unclear, because it is a comparison between “a time length from the second time to the start of the first timer”, i.e., a duration of a period between two points in time, and “the expiration value of the first timer”, i.e., a point in time. Moreover, claim 19 recites “the first signaling is used to by a transmitter of the first message to determine that executing a first event is canceled in a second time window set, based on the assumption that the first signaling is not received an expiration of the first timer is used for triggering the first event” in lines 9-11. It is unclear which entity it is assumed not to receive the first signaling, considering that the second node transmits the first signaling and that the transmitter of the first message uses the transmitted first signaling. In addition, “the assumption …” lacks antecedent basis, and the meaning of the assumption in its entirety is unclear, according to the recitation “the assumption that the first signaling is not received an expiration of the first timer is used for triggering the first event” in lines 10-11. Correction is required for claim 19 to be definite.
Claim 20 recites limitations "transmitting a first message, the first message being used to determine a first time window set, the first time window set comprising at least one time window” in lines 4-5, “wherein the first message is used for requesting that a wireless transmission for a transmitter of the first signaling be suspended in the first time window set”, in lines 7-8, and “a time length from a start of the first timer to a first time exceeds an expiration value of the first timer, where the start of the first timer is before the first time; the first signaling is used to determine that executing a first event is canceled in a second time window set, based on the assumption that the first signaling is not received an expiration of the first timer is used for triggering the first event, the second time window set comprising time-domain resources between a second time and the first time, where the second time is between the start of the first timer and the first time and a time length from the second time to the start of the first timer is no smaller than the expiration value of the first timer” in lines 9-15. It is unclear how “first time window set”, recited in lines 4-5 and 7-8, relates to time-related recitations in lines 9-15, namely “start of the first timer”, “first time”, “time length from a start of the first timer to a first time”, “expiration value of the first timer”, “second time window set”, “expiration of the first timer”, “second time”, and “time length from the second time to the start of the first timer”. Further, claim 20 recites “a time length from a start of the first timer to a first time exceeds an expiration value of the first timer” in line 9. The limitation “a time length from a start of the first timer to a first time exceeds an expiration value of the first timer” is unclear, because it is a comparison between “a time length from a start of the first timer to a first time”, i.e., a duration of a period between two points in time, and “an expiration value of the first timer”, i.e., a point in time. Furthermore, claim 20 recites “a time length from the second time to the start of the first timer is no smaller than the expiration value of the first timer” in lines 14-15. The limitation “a time length from the second time to the start of the first timer is no smaller than the expiration value of the first timer” is unclear, because it is a comparison between “a time length from the second time to the start of the first timer”, i.e., a duration of a period between two points in time, and “the expiration value of the first timer”, i.e., a point in time. Moreover, claim 20 recites “the first signaling is used to determine that executing a first event is canceled in a second time window set, based on the assumption that the first signaling is not received an expiration of the first timer is used for triggering the first event” in lines 10-12. It is unclear what entity uses the first signaling to perform the determination, based on the assumption that the first signaling is not received, considering that the first node does not require an assumption regarding the first node itself not receiving the first signaling. In addition, “the assumption …” lacks antecedent basis, and the meaning of the assumption in its entirety is unclear, according to the recitation “the assumption that the first signaling is not received an expiration of the first timer is used for triggering the first event” in lines 11-12. Correction is required for claim 20 to be definite.
Conclusion
Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only. (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA SANDHU whose telephone number is (571) 272-0679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST, Friday variable.
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, Michael Thier can be reached on (571) 272-2832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NEVENA ZECEVIC SANDHU/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights