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 .
Claims 1-10 and 15-18 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8 “a relay device of the plurality of relays” should read --a relay of the plurality of relays—
Claim 6, line 12 “a relay device of the plurality of relays” should read --a relay of the plurality of relays--
Claim 15, line 11-12 “a relay device of the plurality of relays” should read --a relay of the plurality of relays--
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.
Claims 3-5, 8-10, and 16-18 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.
In reference to claim 3, 8, 16
The language “determining the plurality of relays based on a logical channel configuration” in lines 2-4 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. The original disclosure supports “determining whether at least one relay comprises a plurality of relays based on a logical channel configuration” and not “determining the plurality of relays based on a logical channel configuration” as currently amended. Consequently, the language constitutes new matter.
Claims 8 and 16 have similar language as claim 3 and are similarly rejected.
In reference to claim 4, 9, 17
The language “determining the plurality of relays based on radio thresholds configured by a network” in lines 2-4 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. The original disclosure supports “determining whether at least one relay comprises a plurality of relays based on radio thresholds configured by a network” and not “determining the plurality of relays based on radio thresholds configured by a network” as currently amended. Consequently, the language constitutes new matter.
Claims 9 and 17 have similar language as claim 4 and are similarly rejected.
In reference to claim 5, 10, 18
The language “determining the plurality of relays based on radio thresholds preconfigured by a network” in lines 2-4 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. The original disclosure supports “determining whether at least one relay comprises a plurality of relays based on radio thresholds preconfigured by a network” and not “determining the plurality of relays based on radio thresholds preconfigured by a network” as currently amended. Consequently, the language constitutes new matter.
Claims 10 and 18 have similar language as claim 5 and are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-10 and 15-18 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.
In reference to claim 1, 6, 15
The language “transmitting the information to a relay device of the plurality of relays indicating the plurality of relays” in claim 1, lines 8-9 renders the indefinite because the scope of the claim is unclear because it is unclear what is meant by “indicating the plurality of relays”. Does the applicant intend for “the information” of claim 1, line 8 with antecedent basis to “information” of claim 1, line 2 to indicate the plurality of relays, or
second information with no antecedent basis to “information” of claim 1, line 2 to indicate the plurality of relays, or
a relay device to indicate the plurality of relays, or
the plurality of relays to indicate the plurality of relays?
Or did the applicant inadvertently not delete “indicating the plurality of relays” and meant for the language to read “transmitting the information to a relay of the plurality of relays.”.
The applicant should clarify the language so the scope of the claim is clear.
Claims 6 and 15 have similar language as claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
In reference to claim 3, 8, 16
The language “determining the plurality of relays based on a logical channel configuration” in claim 3, lines 2-4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how or if it relates to the “determining” step of claim 1 or the “selecting” step of claim 1.
It appears the language should read “determining that more than one relay is needed for transmitting information comprises determining that more than one relay is needed for transmitting information based on a logical channel configuration” or
“selecting a plurality of relays comprises selecting a plurality of relays based on a logical channel configuration”.
The applicant should clarify the language so that the method is clear and supported by the original disclosure.
Claims 8 and 16 have similar language as claim 3 and are similarly rejected.
In reference to claim 4, 9, 17
The language “determining the plurality of relays based on radio thresholds configured by a network.” In claim 4 lines 2-4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how or if it relates to the “determining” step of claim 1 or the “selecting” step of claim 1.
It appears the language should read “determining that more than one relay is needed for transmitting information comprises determining that more than one relay is needed for transmitting information based on radio thresholds configured by a network” or
“selecting a plurality of relays comprises selecting a plurality of relays based on radio thresholds configured by a network”.
The applicant should clarify the language so that the method is clear and supported by the original disclosure.
Claims 9 and 17 have similar language as claim 4 and are similarly rejected.
In reference to claim 5, 10, 18
The language “determining the plurality of relays based on radio thresholds preconfigured by a network.” in claim 5, lines 2-4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how or if it relates to the “determining” step of claim 1 or the “selecting” step of claim 1.
It appears the language should read “determining that more than one relay is needed for transmitting information comprises determining that more than one relay is needed for transmitting information based on radio thresholds preconfigured by a network” or
“selecting a plurality of relays comprises selecting a plurality of relays based on radio thresholds preconfigured by a network”.
The applicant should clarify the language so that the method is clear and supported by the original disclosure.
Claims 10 and 18 have similar language as claim 5 and are similarly rejected.
In reference to claim 2, 7
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected because they depend on a rejected parent claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because they do not apply to the current rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are:
US 11515932 pertains to a relay station count determination unit 403 determines how many relay stations are to be connected to the terminal 1 according to the forward link data amount for the terminal 1 that has been obtained by the forward link data amount acquisition unit 402.
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 BRIAN S ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-3095. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at (571) 272-7969. 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.
BRIAN S. ROBERTS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2466
/BRIAN S ROBERTS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466