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 .
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, 7-9, 11, 33, 37, and 39 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 claim 1, there is some confusion resulting from the added claim language “parsing the measurement signal to acquire a terminal device identifier, wherein a signal type of the measurement signal configured by the network device is an inter user equipment cross link interference reference signal (UE-CLI-RS)” … and … generating the reporting data according to the receiving time period of the measurement signal and the measurement data, wherein the network device does not configure the signal type of the measurement signal”. Based on the above claim language, it is unclear whether the claimed network device does or does not configure the signal type of the measurement signal. Therefore, this claim is considered indefinite. It appears that including some “when” conditional language as recited in similarly amended claim 12 would overcome this particular rejection.
Regarding claim 9, there is similarly some confusion resulting from the added claim language “wherein a network device configures the signal type of the measurement signal” … and … “wherein a network device does not configure the signal type of the measurement signal”. Based on the above claim language, it is unclear whether the claimed network device does or does not configure the signal type of the measurement signal. Therefore, this claim is considered indefinite. It appears that including some “when” conditional language as recited in similarly amended claim 12 would overcome this particular rejection.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 33, 37, and 39 are also rejected as being dependent on claims 1 and 9 and containing the same deficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-16, 34, and 38 are allowed.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11, 33, 37, and 39 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/9/26, with respect to amended claims 1-3, 7-9, 11-16, 33, 34, and 37-39 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections of these claims have accordingly been withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 MICHAEL J. MOORE, JR., whose telephone number is (571)272-3168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9am-4pm).
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, Hassan A. Phillips can be reached at (571)272-3940. 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.
/MICHAEL J MOORE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights