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
The information disclosure statement(s) was/were submitted on 3/21/24 and 9/19/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2-8 and 10-16 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “Claim” in line 1 to “claim”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “further comprising” in line 4 to “the method further comprising” to make it clear that the method further comprising. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “a first” in line 9 to “the first” and “a second” in line 11 to “the second”. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-8, 10-13, and 17-20 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(s) 1, 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., a transceiver or a processor, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the UE 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 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., a transceiver or a processor, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the UE 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 are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear what “the TAG” in line 12 is referring to since there are multiple instances of a TAG in claims 1-2. Claims 3-4 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 2 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear what “the serving cell” in lines 4-5 is referring to since there are multiple instances of a serving cell in claims 1 and 3.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear what “the serving cell” in lines 4-5 is referring to since there are multiple instances of a serving cell in claims 1 and 4.
Regarding claim(s) 5, it is unclear what “the serving cell” in lines 7-10 are referring to since there are multiple instances of a serving cell in claims 1 and 5. Furthermore, 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., a transceiver or a processor, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the UE 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., a transceiver or a processor, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the UE 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 10, it is unclear what “the TAG” in line 11 is referring to since there are multiple instances of a TAG in claims 9-10. Claims 11-12 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 10 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear what “the serving cell” in lines 4-5 is referring to since there are multiple instances of a serving cell in claims 9 and 11.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear what “the serving cell” in lines 4-5 is referring to since there are multiple instances of a serving cell in claims 9 and 12.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear what “the serving cell” in lines 6-9 is referring to since there are multiple instances of a serving cell in claims 9 and 13.
Regarding claim(s) 17, the boundaries of “whether the serving cell…the first HARQ process on the serving cell is determined”, “whether the serving cell…a second HARQ process on the serving cell is determined”, “a determination that the serving cell is configured with more than one TAG and a timer…”, “a data transmission in a transport block”, “a determination that the serving cell is configured with more than one TAG and the timer…”, 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., a processor or a transceiver, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the base station 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 18-20 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 17 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim(s) 18, the boundaries of “a determination that more than more TAG is configured for the SpCell” 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., a transceiver or a processor, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the base station 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the SpCell" in lines 4-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim(s) 19, it is unclear what “the serving cell” in lines 5-6 are referring to since there are multiple instances of a serving cell in claims 17 and 19. Furthermore, the boundaries of “a determination that more than more TAG is configured for a 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., a transceiver or a processor, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the base station 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) 20, the boundaries of “receiving a random access response” 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., a transceiver or a processor, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the base station 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 and 14-16 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WO 2024065493 discloses determining if the serving cell is associated with more than one TAG, determining if a second condition is preventing a physical layer to generate an acknowledgment in a transport block (TB) and if the second condition is met, a MAC entity may not instruct a physical layer to generate acknowledgement (s) of data in this TB and for slink-SCH (SL-SCH) , if sidelink PUCCH configuration (sl-PUCCH-Config) is configured by RRC and if the second condition is met, the MAC entity may not instruct the physical layer to generate acknowledgement (s) of the data in this TB.
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