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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 05/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1,5,7,11,16,18 and 20 have been amended. Claims 2-4 and 12-15 have been canceled in this amendment. No New Claim has been added in this amendment. Claims 1,5-11 and 16-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1,11 and 20 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to rejection of Claims 1,11 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered but are moot because of 112(b) rejection being cited in this office action.
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 1,5-11 and 16-20 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. The claims are not clearly written to define metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
In claims 1,11 and 20, the phrase “obtaining a configuration . .” or “obtaining the XR-specific BSR . .” are unclear as to what it refers to such as the UE retrieves those information from preconfigured storage or it receives any configuration messages from the network, etc. Also, the description of the present
application fails to provide a clear and complete
description on the invention as well as the above phrases.
Therefore, the corresponding technical means in the present
invention is unclear, and consequently, have no welldefined
meaning for the skilled person and do not comprise
any inherent features which can be derived from the wording
of these terms as such. The scope of the claims should be
clear from the wording of the claims alone.
The claims further recite phrase “wherein buffer size values of the XR-specific BSR table in a linear distribution”. It is not clear whether entire BSR table has linearly distributed buffer size values or part of the table has linear values. Also, the description of the present application fails to provide a clear and complete
description on the invention as well as the above phrases.
Therefore, the corresponding technical means in the present
invention is unclear, and consequently, have no welldefined
meaning for the skilled person and do not comprise
any inherent features which can be derived from the wording
of these terms as such. The scope of the claims should be
clear from the wording of the claims alone.
The claims further recite phrase “a step size value, for the table”. It is not clear whether same step size is applied to the entire table or there are different steps sizes used by the UE. Also, the description of the present application fails to provide a clear and complete
description on the invention as well as the above phrases.
Therefore, the corresponding technical means in the present
invention is unclear, and consequently, have no welldefined
meaning for the skilled person and do not comprise
any inherent features which can be derived from the wording
of these terms as such. The scope of the claims should be
clear from the wording of the claims alone.
Claims 5-10 are rejected based upon claim dependency to claim 1.
Claims 16-19 are rejected based upon claim dependency to claim 11.
A prior art rejection has not been applied because the published specification and the resulting claims do not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired and are vague and indefinite (35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph). The claims are vague and indefinite such that no meaningful search can be performed at this time. However, any subsequently presented claims, in definite form will be subject to rejection on art. Due to the informal nature of the claims as noted above, an art rejection is not being applied at this time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claims 1 and 11 upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM ET.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights