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 1, 3, 14, 16, and 53-54 are pending wherein claims 1, 14, and 53 are in independent form.
3. Claims 1, 3, 14, 16, and 53 have been amended.
4. Claims 2, 4-13, 15, 17-52, and 55-58 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 14, and 53 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Examiner indicated in the office action, dated 03/19/2026, that claims 5, 7, 10, 18, 20, 23 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The independent claims have been amended by including limitations from the objected claims. However, the claim amendments raised clarity issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 3, 14, 16, and 53-54 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.
Claim 1 recites, “generating the first HPN according to the second HPN and the first HPN adjustment value”. Claim further recites, “determining the first HPN according to an identifier of a slot where the PDSCH corresponding to the SPS transmission is located, a number of HARQ processes in the SPS transmission, a cycle of the SPS transmission, a number of slots comprised in a radio frame, and a GS-RNTI”. Claimed first HPN is generated based on a second HPN and the first HPN adjustment value and the first HPN is determined based on a current slot identifier, number of HARQ processes, SPS transmission cycle, number of slots and GS-RNTI. Is generating the first HPN different than determining the first HPN? The difference between generating the first HPN and determining the first HPN is not clear.
Claim further recites, “the first HPN is determined by one of the following equations: HPN1= {floor [ CURRENT slot x 10 / (numberOfSlotsPerFrame x periodicity) + GS-RNTI]}”. The phrase “one of the following equations” (“the first HPN is determined by one of the following equations”) indicates to use one equation from a plurality of different equations. All the HPN1 equations in claim 1 are same and therefore, it is not possible to select one equation from a plurality of different equations to determine the first HPN. As the claim does not recite a plurality of different equations to select one equation for determining the first HPN, the claim limitation “the first HPN is determined by one of the following equations” is not clear.
Claim 1 further recites, “Or wherein the SPS configuration information comprises a starting time domain position or an ending time domain position of the PDSCH corresponding to the SPS transmission, ……………..”. Does “OR” indicate an alternate way to determine the first HPN?
Claim1 recites, “wherein the first HPN is determined by one of the following equations: HPN1 = {floor [CURRENT slot X 10 /(numberOfSlotsPerFrame X periodicity) + Oending- symbol ]} modulo nrofHARQ-Processes”. The phrase “one of the following equations” (“the first HPN is determined by one of the following equations”) indicates to use one equation from a plurality of different equations. All the HPN1 equations in claim 1 (corresponding to ending symbol) are same and therefore, it is not possible to select one equation from a plurality of different equations to determine the first HPN. As the claim does not recite a plurality of different equations to select one equation for determining the first HPN, the claim limitation “the first HPN is determined by one of the following equations” is not clear.
Claim 3 depends upon claim 1 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 14 recites limitations similar to claim 1 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 16 and 54 depend upon claim 14 and thereby, are rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 14.
Claim 53 recites limitations similar to claim 1 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Examiner’s comment
It has been discussed above that the claim limitations are not clear. As a result, examiner cannot perform a proper search to identify the available prior arts relevant to the claimed subject matter. Therefore, rejection/allowability of the claims 1, 3, 14, 16, and 53-54 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