DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 7, 9, 11, and 14 are pending wherein claims 7 and 14 are in independent form.
3. Claims 7, 9, 11, and 14 have been amended.
4. Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12-13 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7 and 14 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
6. 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.
7. Claims 7, 9, 11, and 14 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.
Claim 7 recites, “when the higher layer parameter is configured, the operation is determined to be an execution of sensing a non-empty subset of monitoring slots, the monitoring slots being determined according to the partial sensing”. According to the claim limitation, a sensing operation is performed on a subset of non-empty/occupied monitoring slots (“sensing a non-empty subset of monitoring slots”). However, specification discloses in paragraph [0116] “For example, in a case where the sensing method is partial sensing, during DRX inactivity time, the terminal 20 may perform sensing in some of the monitoring slots determined by partial sensing”. Specification does not disclose to perform sensing operation on non-empty/occupied monitoring slots. As the specification does not provide support for sensing non-empty/occupied monitoring slots, claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 14 recites limitations similar to claim 7 above and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 above.
Claims 9 and 11 depend upon claim 7 above and thereby, are rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 above.
8. Claims 7, 9, 11, and 14 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.
Claim 7 recites that the control unit determines whether to execute the partial sensing during the DRX inactive period based on the higher layer parameter. The limitation “whether to execute” may result in performing partial sensing during the DRX inactive period or not performing partial sensing during the DRX inactive period. Claim does not ascertain that the partial sensing is performed during the DRX inactive period based on the higher layer parameter. In a case, when the partial sensing is not performed, how can the monitoring slots be determined according to the partial sensing.
Moreover, claim recites monitoring slots but does not specify the location of the monitoring slots. Are the monitoring slots located within the DRX inactive period?
Claim 14 recites limitations similar to claim 7 above and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 above.
Claims 9 and 11 depend upon claim 7 above and thereby, are rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 above.
Examiner’s comment
It has been discussed above that the claim limitations are not defined properly. As a result, examiner cannot perform a proper search and identify the available prior arts relevant to the claimed subject matter. Therefore, rejection/allowability of the claims cannot be made on the basis of available prior arts.
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 HARUN UR R CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-3895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Kwang B Yao can be reached at 5712723182. 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.
/HARUN CHOWDHURY/
Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights