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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6, 46, and 53 in the reply filed on 1/8/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-42, 47-52, and 54-59 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/8/2026.
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 1-6 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
Claim 1 covers a device comprising two elements, a processor circuit and a memory circuit. The rest of the claim covers a series of “wherein” clauses which specify that the processor circuit and the device are “arranged” for certain purposes. As shown in Figure 9 and described on pages 42-44, the applicant uses a conventional processor circuit and memory circuit. Figure 9 shows the processor 602 as being connected to the main memory 606 and secondary memory 608 via a generic bus 604. It is not clear what the “arrangement” of the processor circuits, referred to in the first two wherein clause of claim 1, would be as Figure 9 shows a single generic arrangement that would apply to any computer. It is not clear what the “arrangement” of the device is that causes it “to enter an inactive mode or sleep mode if a criterion is met”. Claim 3-5 also specifies more “arrangement” limitations related to the processor that are also not clear for the same reasoning. Claim 5 specifies an “arrangement” of the device which is also not clear for the same reasoning.
Claims 2 and 4 recite the limitation "the criterion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 only specifies that “the device is arranged to enter an inactive mode or sleep mode if a criterion is met” but it does not specify any specific criterion that can be subsequently referred to. The “arrangement” of the device does not define any criterion with respect to the claims.
Claims 2-4 and 6 recite the limitation "the at least one transmission". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 only specifies that “the circuitry is arranged to receive at least one transmission” but it does not specify any specific act of receiving a transmission. The “arrangement” of the circuitry does not define any at least one transmission with respect to the claims.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the duration" in the second wherein clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous wherein clause establishes that the “inactivity timer is arranged to specify a duration” but it does not specify a specific duration of time that can be subsequent referred to. The first wherein clause only specified that the inactivity timer is arranged for a purpose of specifying a duration but there is no limitation which actually defines any duration.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the inactive mode or sleep mode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claims 1 nor 2 features such a limitation. It is assumed the applicant was intending for claim 5 to depend from claim 3 and not claim 2.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 53 covers a program stored on a non-transitory medium. Claim 53 does not “further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends”, claim 46, as claim 53 does not further limit the subject matter, which is the method, of claim 46. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 46, and 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipatated by U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0174411 by Xu et al.
As to claim 46, Xu teaches a method for operating a device (Network node in Figure 10) comprising: receiving a transmission from at least one second device over a sidelink (paragraph 101); operating in a Discontinuous Reception mode (Figure 10, shows a process of operation of the Network node in such a mode); and entering an inactive mode or sleep mode if a criterion is met (paragraph 104, sleep time shown in Figure 10 is dependent on timer criterion).
As to claim 53, the Network node in Figure 10 is a device which executes programs.
As to claim 1, Xu teaches a device comprising a processor circuit and memory circuit, wherein the memory circuit is arranged to store instructions for the processor circuit (Figure 22 and corresponding text, Figure 22 shows the same components and arrangement as applicant’s Figure 9). The processor circuit and device of Xu are “arranged” in the same manner as the disclosed by the applicant in on pages 42-44 and shown in Figure 9. The “wherein” clauses, even if claimed coherently, would not be patentable for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 46.
As to claim 2, paragraph 101 describes the criterion related to a successful reception of a transmission and Figure 10 and paragraph 102 show the reservation of resources for retransmission.
As to claims 3, 5, and 6, see Figure 10.
As to claim 4, see paragraph 101 and mapping in the rejection of claim 46.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. 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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454