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 titled “Claim Objections”, with respect to claims 5, 13, 20-21, and 28 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection of claims 5, 13, 20-21, and 28 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112”, with respect to claims 3, 5, 11, 13, 18, 20, 26, and 28 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claims 3, 5, 11, 13, 18, 20, 26, and 28 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103”, with respect to claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-20, 22-28, and 30 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive (unpersuasive remarks with respect to “each PRS hop occupying a specified set of one or more contiguous physical resource blocks” and persuasive remarks with respect to “the PRS frequency hopping configuration comprises information that identifies a location of each PRS hop in a time domain and a frequency domain, including information that indicates a slot that contains the PRS hop”). The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-20, 22-28, and 30 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see section titled “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103”, with respect to claims 6, 14, 21, and 29 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. However, in view of Applicant’s remarks for the amendment to independent claims of claims 6, 14, 21, and 29 to recite/similarly recite “the PRS frequency hopping configuration comprises information that identifies a location of each PRS hop in a time domain and a frequency domain, including information that indicates a slot that contains the PRS hop”, the Examiner withdraws the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 6, 14, 21, and 29.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 7 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “the UE” in line 3 to “the at least one UE”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 8 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “the UE” in line 5 to “the at least one UE”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “the frequency” in line 6 to “the PRS frequency”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 22 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “the UE” in line 3 to “the at least one UE”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 23 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “the UE” in line 5 to “the at least one UE”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 24 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “the frequency” in line 9 to “the PRS frequency”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 3-9, 11-16, 18-24, and 26-30 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 1, Applicant has amended this claim to recite “identifies a location of each PRS hop in a time domain and a frequency domain”. Applicant state that support is found in claims 2-3 without further explanation. After a review of originally filed claims 2-3 and the rest of the specification, it appears that the specification does not support the above limitation. It appears that the specification does not support “each PRS hop” but “a PRS hop”. Claims 3-8 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 1 and are thus rejected under similar rationale. Claims 9, 16, and 24 recite similar limitations of claim 1 and is thus rejected under similar rationale. Claims 11-15, 18-23, and 26-30 fails to resolve the deficiency of their respective independent claim and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
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, 3-9, 11-16, 18-24, and 26-30 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 what “including” of “including information that indicates a slot that contains the PRS hop” is referring to, either the PRS frequency hopping configuration or a location of each PRS hop in a time domain or a frequency domain. Furthermore, it is unclear what “the PRS hop” in line 10 is referring to since there are a plurality of PRS hops in claim 1. Claims 3-8 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 1 and are thus rejected under similar rationale. Claims 9, 16, and 24 recite similar limitations of claim 1 and is thus rejected under similar rationale. Claims 11-15, 18-23, and 26-30 fails to resolve the deficiency of their respective independent claim and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the information that identifies the location of the PRS hop" in lines 1-2. Claim 1 recites “information that identifies a location of each PRS hop in a time domain”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear what “the PRS hop” in lines 2-4 are referring to since there are a plurality of PRS hops in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the information that identifies the location of the PRS hop" in lines 1-2. Claim 1 recites “information that identifies a location of each PRS hop in a time domain”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear what “the PRS hop” in line 2 is referring to since there are a plurality of PRS hops in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the information that identifies the location of the PRS hop" in lines 1-2. Claim 1 recites “information that identifies a location of each PRS hop in a time domain and a frequency domain”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear what “the PRS hop” in lines 2-4 are referring to since there are a plurality of PRS hops in claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the information that identifies the location of the PRS hop" in lines 1-2. Claim 1 recites “information that identifies a location of each PRS hop in a time domain and a frequency domain”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear what “the PRS hop” in line 2 is referring to since there are a plurality of PRS hops in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the information that identifies the location of the PRS hop" in lines 1-2. Claim 9 recites “information that identifies a location of each PRS hop in a time domain”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear what “the PRS hop” in lines 2-4 are referring to since there are a plurality of PRS hops in claim 9.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the information that identifies the location of the PRS hop" in lines 1-2. Claim 9 recites “information that identifies a location of each PRS hop in a time domain”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear what “the PRS hop” in line 2 is referring to since there are a plurality of PRS hops in claim 9.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the information that identifies the location of the PRS hop" in lines 1-2. Claim 9 recites “information that identifies a location of each PRS hop in a time domain and a frequency domain”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear what “the PRS hop” in lines 2-4 are referring to since there are a plurality of PRS hops in claim 9.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the information that identifies the location of the PRS hop" in lines 1-2. Claim 9 recites “information that identifies a location of each PRS hop in a time domain and a frequency domain”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear what “the PRS hop” in line 2 is referring to since there are a plurality of PRS hops in claim 9.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the information that identifies the location of the PRS hop" in lines 1-2. Claim 16 recites “information that identifies a location of each PRS hop in a time domain”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, it is unclear what “the PRS hop” in lines 2-4 are referring to since there are a plurality of PRS hops in claim 16.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the information that identifies the location of the PRS hop" in lines 1-2. Claim 16 recites “information that identifies a location of each PRS hop in a time domain”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 19, it is unclear what “the PRS hop” in line 2 is referring to since there are a plurality of PRS hops in claim 16.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the information that identifies the location of the PRS hop" in lines 1-2. Claim 16 recites “information that identifies a location of each PRS hop in a time domain and a frequency domain”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 20, it is unclear what “the PRS hop” in lines 2 and 4 are referring to since there are a plurality of PRS hops in claim 16.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the information that identifies the location of the PRS hop" in lines 1-2. Claim 16 recites “information that identifies a location of each PRS hop in a time domain and a frequency domain”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 21, it is unclear what “the PRS hop” in line 2 is referring to since there are a plurality of PRS hops in claim 16.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the information that identifies the location of the PRS hop" in lines 1-2. Claim 24 recites “information that identifies a location of each PRS hop in a time domain”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 26, it is unclear what “the PRS hop” in lines 2 and 4 are referring to since there are a plurality of PRS hops in claim 24.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the information that identifies the location of the PRS hop" in lines 1-2. Claim 24 recites “information that identifies a location of each PRS hop in a time domain”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 27, it is unclear what “the PRS hop” in line 2 is referring to since there are a plurality of PRS hops in claim 24.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the information that identifies the location of the PRS hop" in lines 1-2. Claim 24 recites “information that identifies a location of each PRS hop in a time domain and a frequency domain”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 28, it is unclear what “the PRS hop” in lines 2 and 4 are referring to since there are a plurality of PRS hops in claim 24.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the information that identifies the location of the PRS hop" in lines 1-2. Claim 24 recites “information that identifies a location of each PRS hop in a time domain and a frequency domain”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 29, it is unclear what “the PRS hop” in line 2 is referring to since there are a plurality of PRS hops in claim 24.
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