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 filed 6/24/2026, with regards to the single means rejection, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument: “Claims 1-7, and 17-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or 35 U.S.C. §I12(pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
The Office Action alleges that the term "terminal" and "device" represent "means" and that the claims are indefinite as claiming only a single "means". Applicant disagrees. Nevertheless, the claims are amended and the rejection is overcome accordingly. Moreover, Applciant [sic] submits that the claim terms "terminal" and "network device" are known terms of art, particularly in the field of wireless communication technology to which the present application is directed to.
Those of skill in the art would fully understand how to make and use the invention claimed based on the specification, and thus the claim is fully enabled.”
Examiner’s response: First, in response to assertation that the terms should not invoke 112(f), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per MPEP 2181(I)(A) “For a term to be considered a substitute for "means," and lack sufficient structure for performing the function, it must serve as a generic placeholder and thus not limit the scope of the claim to any specific manner or structure for performing the claimed function. It is important to remember that there are no absolutes in the determination of terms used as a substitute for "means" that serve as generic placeholders. The examiner must carefully consider the term in light of the specification and the commonly accepted meaning in the technological art. Every application will turn on its own facts.” In the case of the current application, both ‘terminal’ and ‘device’ do not provide any indication of structure because it sets forth the same black box recitation of structure for providing the same specified function as if the term ‘means’ (or terms like ‘apparatus’ or ‘unit’ or ‘component’) had been used. Therefore, the initial consideration of the limitations for 112(f) is still interpreted to indicate an attempt to invoke 112(f) due to the claim language. However, and secondly, the amendments entered do not correct for the single means issue. For example, claim 1 still claims a terminal for sending. There is still only one ‘means’ performing only the function of ‘sending’. Turning to MPEP 2181(V), the amended claims would not invoke an interpretation of extrapolating the terminal to the other steps, rather the claim remains focused on only one ‘means’ with additional details to the context of the ‘sending’ function performed by that singular ‘means’. Thus, the issue persists through each of the noted independent claims. As such, the 112(a) rejections previously applied are maintained, with the grounds for rejection updated to address changes in the present claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 6/24/2026, with respect to the application of the Fok reference as detailed have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejection of the claims has been withdrawn in light of the filed amendments.
Please note the claim objections are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Please note the USC 101 rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Please note the USC 112(b) rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 17-21, 23-25, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claim 1 recites ‘sending, by the terminal, indication information’; wherein ‘terminal’ represents the generic placeholder of ‘means’ and the ‘sending indication information’ represents the claimed function. As such claim 1 is interpreted as intending to invoke a 112(f) interpretation of this limitation. Claim 6 further recites ‘receiving, by a network device, indication information’; wherein ‘device’ represents the generic placeholder of ‘means’ and the ‘receiving indication information’ represents the claimed function. As such claim 6 is also interpreted as intending to invoke a 112(f) interpretation of this limitation. However, in each instance, there is only a single ‘means’ claimed, which causes the invocation of 112(f) to fail and the application of 112(a) to be applied to the claims to address the claiming of a ‘single means’. See MPEP 2164.08(a) and 2181 (V). None of dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7, 19-21, 23-25 and 27 clearly provide an additional structural element to eliminate the single means concern and are in turn also rejected under USC 112(a). For clarity, claims 15-16 recite multiple elements and are not rejected as single means, despite 16 incorporating claim 6. Claims 17-18 comprises CRM claims that incorporate the rejected claims 1 and 6 respectively. These claims are rejected under USC 112(a) by bringing in the merits of the claims 1 and 6, as the CRM represents the scope of the embodiment and not a claimed additional element to the ‘single means’ claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the above cited claims. Re claims 15-16 the prior art fails to disclose the specified composition of the indication information related to the duration of a fixed position for the terminal under consideration.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/MICHAEL R NEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights