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 arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 3-6 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.
- Regarding to claim 1, the term “signal type” is no antecedent basis/undefined, and no link back to data signal. Same rejection for claim 6
- Regarding to claim 1, the step “transmitter configured……; wherein a method of reporting…” is a product and process in the same claim, therefore appropriate correction is required.
- Regarding to claim 1, the steps “to transmit information that indicates the determined priority…to another communication device” vs “reporting the information that indicates the priority to another communication device” is not clear these steps are the same or different, since they transmit/report the same information that indicated priority to another communication device. Same rejection for claim 6.
- Regarding to claim 1, the steps “to transmit information that indicates the determined priority…to another communication device” vs “reporting the information that indicates the priority to another communication device” are incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakani et al. (Pub. No. 20040240443) in view of Khoryaev et al. (Patent No. 10412754).
- With respect to claims 1, 6, Kakani teaches a communication device comprising: a control unit configured to determine a priority to apply to a data signal (e.g. step 312 in Fig. 3b that determining priority to packets); and a transmitting unit configured to transmit information that indicates the determined priority (e.g. steps sending packet after determining priority in Fig. 3B), and the data signal to which the determined priority is applied, in autonomously selected resources, to another communication device (e.g. based on the priority selection the resource selected as in Fig. 3B). Kakani fails to teach the information that indicates the priority varies depending on a signal type. Khoryaev expressly discloses that the manner in which priority information is reported differs based on signal type (col. 11, lines 45-53), therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to implement the method of indicates the priority depending on a signal type as PSCCH and PSSCH for transmitting information with priority based on signal type.
- With respect to claim 3, Kakani teaches wherein the priority is also applied to a control signal that is associated with the data signal (e.g. the quality of service apply as in Fig. 3A).
- With respect to claim 4, Kakani teaches wherein the transmitting unit transmits the information that indicates the priority, in a preamble or a dedicated signal, to the another communication device (see par. 41 discloses “When a new connection with priority packets is being set up, the data rate requirements for the priority packets are determined. These can be determined on the basis of a Quality of Service class of the connection and system settings of the network operator. The connection is allocated to dedicated resources such that the data rate requirements of the priority packets can be met. For the rest of the packets the connection uses shared resources or dedicated resources if there is capacity unused by the priority packets”).
- With respect to claim 5, Kakani teaches the transmitting unit transmits a location of resources in which the dedicated signal is transmitted to the another communication device (e.g. Fig. 1 and 2 shows coverage areas of base station).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
. Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUC H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Flex.
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, Sujoy K. Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/PHUC H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights