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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(c), the Applicant's submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement has been received, entered into the record, and considered. See attached form PTO-1449.
Examiner’s Remarks
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn as of February 25, 2025, with traverse.
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are examined.
This application contains 8-14 are drawn to an invention nonelected with traverse. A complete reply to the final rejection must include cancellation of nonelected claims or other appropriate action (37 CFR 1.144) See MPEP § 821.01.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention with Applicant’s amendment and response to this Non-final office action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 7, the Examiner has noted the use of the clauses “to be” and “adapted to” and “adaptable to.”
Examples of such claim language raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim. The claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. Notably, limitations recited after the phrases will be considered optional to the functionality of the claimed system.
It is suggested to positively and concretely define the functionality of the claimed invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “data unit in claim 1, 3, 5, 15, and 17.
Applicant is required to review all the claims for the deficiencies noted, supra and correct the claims.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim limitation “data units” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s processing units could be a signal, Para [0048], or information [0049], for example. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(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.
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Marinier et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0015241 A1 and Marinier hereinafter).
Regarding Claims 1 and 15, Marinier teaches a communication method, comprising:
sending a first identifier (Figure 1D, whole figure infra:
PNG
media_image1.png
548
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
to a core network device (Figure 1A, whole figure infra:)
PNG
media_image2.png
566
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the first identifier indicates a transmission requirement (i.e., data ready for transmission, for example in its data buffer. The WTRU may be configured to initiate transmission of an SA followed by transmission of data. The WTRU may be configured to transmit an SA, e.g., when the WTRU has data that is ready for transmission. The readiness of data for transmission may be indicated by a buffer status indication) Para [0085] and (i.e., WTRU may transmit the data according to the parameters indicated in the SA. For example the WTRU may transmit the data on the first transmit occasion within the scheduling period determined according to the selected pattern. The WTRU may determine the transmission schedule for D2D data) Para [0104]; receiving a first parameter from the core network device, wherein the first parameter indicates that a quality-of-service flow meets the transmission requirement (i.e., configured to set a priority index of data. The WTRU may compute a priority index for data communication based on, for example, one or more of the following elements: a quality of service (QoS); a buffer status; a time elapsed since a last transmission; a WTRU identifier; a WTRU or channel permissions level (e.g., as determined by configuration); and/or the like. A WTRU may be configured to set a security context) Para [0118]; and sending a plurality of pieces of first information to an access network device based on the quality of service flow (i.e., configured to set a priority index of data. The WTRU may compute a priority index for data communication based on, for example, one or more of the following elements: a quality of service (QoS); a buffer status; a time elapsed since a last transmission; a WTRU identifier; a WTRU or channel permissions level (e.g., as determined by configuration); and/or the like. A WTRU may be configured to set a security context) Para [0118], wherein the plurality of pieces of first information each comprise a second identifier, and the second identifier comprises marking (i.e., successfully received and marking those resources) Para [0014] information of a data unit (i.e., The period of time may be referred to, for example, as a transmission time interval (TTI) or a transmission period (TP). The information may be inserted in one or more protocol data units (PDUs). The one or more PDUs that may be transmitted within the transmission period may be referred to as a payload unit) Para [0195].
Regarding Claims 2 andf 16, Marinier teaches wherein the second identifier further comprises a quality-of-service flow identifier (i.e., determine and/or select the SA resource based on one or more of the quality of service (QoS) (and/or QoS class identifier (QCI)), traffic type (e.g., delay-sensitive vs non-delay-sensitive), application or other characteristic associated to the data, logical channel priorities) Para [0008].
Regarding Claims 3 and 17, Marinier teaches wherein the marking information indicates one or more types of the following information: a quantity of pieces of first information in the data unit; an identifier of the data unit; generation time information of the data unit; and a data volume of the data unit (i.e., The period of time may be referred to, for example, as a transmission time interval (TTI) or a transmission period (TP). The information may be inserted in one or more protocol data units (PDUs). The one or more PDUs that may be transmitted within the transmission period may be referred to as a payload unit) Para [0195].
Regarding Claims 4 and 18, Marinier teaches wherein the first information further comprises a third identifier, and the third identifier is used to mark the first information (i.e., pattern based on identifiers) Para [0018].
Regarding Claims 5 and 19, Marinier teaches wherein the third identifier indicates one or more types of the following information: an index of the first information in the data unit to which the first information belongs; an identifier of the first information; and a data volume of the first information (i.e., indexes) Para [0185].
Regarding Claims 6 and 20 Marinier teaches wherein before the sending a plurality of pieces of first information to an access network device, the method further comprises: sending a fourth identifier to the access network device, wherein the fourth identifier comprises the quality-of-service flow identifier and/or one or more types of information in the marking information (i.e., The base stations 180a, 180b, 180c may also provide mobility management functions, such as handoff triggering, tunnel establishment, radio resource management, traffic classification, quality of service (QoS) policy enforcement, and the like. The ASN Gateway 182 may serve as a traffic aggregation point and may be responsible for paging, caching of subscriber profiles, routing to the core network 106c, and the like) Para [0075].
Regarding Claim 7, Marinier teaches wherein the transmission requirement requests to-be-transmitted data to be transmitted as a whole, and the to-be-transmitted data is the plurality of pieces of first information (i.e., the data characteristics may be configured (e.g., pre-configured) in the application) Para [0008].
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Marinier et al., (US Patent Publication No. 20200015241 A1), “Distributed scheduling for device-to-device communication” (January 9, 2020) discloses scheduling for device-to-device (D2D). A WTRU (e.g., a D2D WTRU) may determine whether the WTRU has D2D data to transmit. The WTRU may determine a set of allowed SA resources and/or allowed D2D data resources for transmission of the SA. The WTRU may select an SA resource and/or D2D data resources (e.g., from the set of allowed SA resources and/or D2D data resources) for transmission. The WTRU may select one or more transmission parameters. The WTRU may select one or more transmission patterns. The WTRU may transmit D2D data over the set of allowed D2D resources using the selected transmission patterns and according to the selected transmission parameters.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANE D MIZRAHI whose telephone number is 571- 272-4079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-3:30 PM (7:30 - 4:30 p.m.).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison T. Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (703) 872-9306 for regular communications and for After Final communication.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
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.qov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
/DIANE D MIZRAHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Diane.Mizrahi@USPTO.gov
Prosecution Insights