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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section II, with respect to claims 2-8 and 10-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 2-8 and 10-17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see section III, with respect to claims 1-2 and 5-6 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant state that the various recited functions are a result of operating an electronic device in a certain manner. However, these claims never recite that the various recited functions are operated/performed by the electronic device.
Applicant’s arguments, see section III, with respect to claims 2-5, 10-13, and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claims 2-5, 10-13, and 19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section III, with respect to claims 17-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claims 17-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section III, with respect to claim 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claim 18 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, in view of “A method of a base station”, the specification does not appear to support a BS performing “whether the serving cell is configured with more than one TAG and a timer of a TAG associated with a TCI state stops or expires” “is determined”, “a determination that the serving cell is configured…the first HARQ feedback is stopped or expired”, and “a determination that the serving cell…the second HARQ feedback is stopped or expired”. Claims 18-20 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 17 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18, in view of “A method of a base station” of claim 17, the specification does not appear to support a BS performing “a determination that more than more TAG is configured for the SpCell”.
Regarding claim 19, in view of “A method of a base station” of claim 17, the specification does not appear to support a BS performing “a determination that more than more TAG is configured for a serving cell”.
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(s) 1-8 is/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, it is unclear, in view of “at least one processor” being one processor, what is meant by “the at least one processor” “collectively” (one processor collectively with what?). Claims 2-8 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 1 and are thus rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, the boundaries of “a transmission of a first hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback”, “a transmission of a second HARQ feedback”, “a determination that the serving cell is configured with more than more TAG”, “a data transmission in a transport block”, “a determination that the serving cell is configured with more than one TAG”, and “a data transmission in a TB” is/are unclear because the claim(s) does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function(s). The recited function(s) does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., at least one processor, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the electronic device in a certain manner. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim(s). See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. Claims 2-8 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 1 and/or recite the same/similar issue(s) and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim(s) 2, the boundaries of “a determination that more than more TAG is configured for a special cell” is/are unclear because the claim(s) does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function(s). The recited function(s) does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., at least one processor, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the electronic device in a certain manner. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim(s). See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. Claims 3-4 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 2 and/or recite the same/similar issue(s) and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim(s) 5, the boundaries of “a determination that more than more TAG is configured for the serving cell” is/are unclear because the claim(s) does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function(s). The recited function(s) does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., at least one processor, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the electronic device in a certain manner. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim(s). See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Regarding claim(s) 6, the boundaries of “transmitting a random access preamble” is/are unclear because the claim(s) does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function(s). The recited function(s) does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., at least one processor, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the electronic in a certain manner. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim(s). See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 9-16 is/are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of record that teaches claim 9 is US 20240267866 by Cirik et al. which discloses determining whether a serving cell is configured with more than one timing advance group (TAG) and a timer of a TAG associated with a transmission configuration indication (TCI) state stops or expires for (i) a transmission of a first hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback in a first HARQ process on the serving cell or (ii) a transmission of a second HARQ feedback in a second HARQ process on the serving (at least ¶ 225; ¶ 28; ¶ 227; ¶ 596; ¶ 706). However, Cirik does not explicitly disclose determining, based on a determination that the serving cell is configured with more than one TAG and the timer of the TAG associated with the TCI state for the transmission of the first HARQ feedback is stopped or expired, to not generate a first indication indicating a lower layer to generate an acknowledgement (ACK) corresponding to a data transmission in a transport block (TB) in the first HARQ process, and determining, based on a determination that the serving cell is configured with more than one TAG and the timer of the TAG associated with the TCI state for the transmission of the second HARQ feedback is stopped or expired, to not generate a second indication indicating the lower layer to generate an ACK corresponding to a data transmission in a TB in the second HARQ process when the serving cell is configured with a sidelink physical uplink control channel configuration (sl-PUCCH-Config).
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 PETER P CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7152. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 A.M - 6 P.M. ET M-F.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/PETER P CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights