DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-11, 13-15, 17, 20-23, 25, 26, and 28 have been examined and are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/21/2024 and 5/05/2025 have been found to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawings were received on 6/21/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
6. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM AND STORAGE MEDIUM FOR DETERMINING TO TRANSMIT A RETRANSMISSION REQUEST.
7. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claims 2, 4, 10, 15, 17, and 22 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.
a) Claim 2 recites the hybrid conjunction “and/or” which renders the claim indefinite since the limitations that follow cannot be determined to be disclosed by the prior art of record. The term “and” is inclusive of all language that follows, while the term “or” is exclusive to one or the other of the language that follows. By combining these terms in its current, hybrid format, the claim as a whole is ambiguous, at best, in defining what is required to be disclosed by the prior art and to what the invention seeks actual protection.
b) Claim 4, dependent upon claim 2, does not satisfy the deficiencies of the rejected base claims and is therefore also rejected.
c) Claim 4, dependent upon claim 2, does not necessarily further narrow the respective base claim. Claim 2 lists alternative language in which one or more of the alternating languages may or may not be selected for prosecution. Claim 4 includes limitations further narrowing one of the alternatives, and thus when the other alternative is selected for prosecution, claim 4 is indefinite. Examiner respectfully suggests amending either claim 2 or claim 4 to positively recite the limitations that clearly sets forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In its current form, claim 4 cannot be required to be rejected by the prior art of record.
d) Claim 4 recites the hybrid conjunction “and/or” which renders the claim indefinite since the limitations that follow cannot be determined to be disclosed by the prior art of record. The term “and” is inclusive of all language that follows, while the term “or” is exclusive to one or the other of the language that follows. By combining these terms in its current, hybrid format, the claim as a whole is ambiguous, at best, in defining what is required to be disclosed by the prior art and to what the invention seeks actual protection.
e) Claim 10 recites the hybrid conjunction “and/or” which renders the claim indefinite since the limitations that follow cannot be determined to be disclosed by the prior art of record. The term “and” is inclusive of all language that follows, while the term “or” is exclusive to one or the other of the language that follows. By combining these terms in its current, hybrid format, the claim as a whole is ambiguous, at best, in defining what is required to be disclosed by the prior art and to what the invention seeks actual protection.
f) Claim 15 recites the hybrid conjunction “and/or” which renders the claim indefinite since the limitations that follow cannot be determined to be disclosed by the prior art of record. The term “and” is inclusive of all language that follows, while the term “or” is exclusive to one or the other of the language that follows. By combining these terms in its current, hybrid format, the claim as a whole is ambiguous, at best, in defining what is required to be disclosed by the prior art and to what the invention seeks actual protection.
g) Claim 17, dependent upon claim 15, does not satisfy the deficiencies of the rejected base claims and is therefore also rejected.
h) Claim 17, dependent upon claim 15, does not necessarily further narrow the respective base claim. Claim 15 lists alternative language in which one or more of the alternating languages may or may not be selected for prosecution. Claim 17 includes limitations further narrowing one of the alternatives, and thus when the other alternative is selected for prosecution, claim 17 is indefinite. Examiner respectfully suggests amending either claim 15 or claim 17 to positively recite the limitations that clearly sets forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In its current form, claim 17 cannot be required to be rejected by the prior art of record.
i) Claim 17 recites the hybrid conjunction “and/or” which renders the claim indefinite since the limitations that follow cannot be determined to be disclosed by the prior art of record. The term “and” is inclusive of all language that follows, while the term “or” is exclusive to one or the other of the language that follows. By combining these terms in its current, hybrid format, the claim as a whole is ambiguous, at best, in defining what is required to be disclosed by the prior art and to what the invention seeks actual protection.
j) Claim 22 recites the hybrid conjunction “and/or” which renders the claim indefinite since the limitations that follow cannot be determined to be disclosed by the prior art of record. The term “and” is inclusive of all language that follows, while the term “or” is exclusive to one or the other of the language that follows. By combining these terms in its current, hybrid format, the claim as a whole is ambiguous, at best, in defining what is required to be disclosed by the prior art and to what the invention seeks actual protection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
11. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
12. Claims 1, 2, 7-11, 13-15, 20-23, 25, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0162864 A1 to Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses an electronic device for a wireless communication system (Lee: Figure 15), comprising:
a processing circuitry (Lee: Figure 15, element 1100) configured to:
transmit first control information to one or more second electronic devices, wherein the first control information at least comprises information indicating a communication range threshold of the electronic device (Lee: [0146-0147] – corresponds to receiving control information (through a PSCCH) regarding a radio distance (RSRP/RSRQ) defined as a threshold range for radio communications. A PSCCH is a physical sidelink control channel in which two wireless devices, operable to perform communications in a sidelink (i.e., V2V, V2E, etc.), to exchange control signaling.) [and is used for determining one or more Positioning Reference Signals (PRS)] (bracketed limitation is interpreted as an intended use, and such claim limitation are not required to be disclosed by the prior art of record since said limitation do no impose any restriction on the claim as a whole. Examiner respectfully suggests amending such limitations to positively recite an aspect of the claim in which Applicant seeks protection. However, Lee discloses using positioning reference signals in at least [0146-0147] for distance measurement.), wherein the one or more PRSs are transmitted by the electronic device and are used by the second electronic device to estimate a distance between the electronic device and the second electronic device (Lee: [0146-0148] – positioning reference/signals are used to estimate a distance between two user equipments (UEs).),
wherein, the second electronic device is able to determine whether to transmit a retransmission request to the electronic device in response to failing to decode a data packet transmitted by the electronic device, according to a comparison between the communication range threshold and the estimated distance (Lee: [0145-0154] – a decision is determined to transmit feedback (ACK/NACK) based on the actual distance (estimated position) and the radio distance (range threshold) as part of a HARQ process for data packet transmission/reception. See also [0005-0006], [0119-0122].).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein
the first control information further comprises
information for determining a time-frequency resource and/or a sequence of the one or more PRSs (Examiner respectfully asserts “and/or” language is ambiguous, and therefore restricts the interpretation to its broader form of “or”. Therefore, the preceding limitation is presented in alternative form, and the prior art of record is only required to disclose one of these said alternative limitations. Lee discloses control information for scheduling resources may be communicated in the sidelink via PSCCH in at least [0092-0100].); and/or
the first control information is further used for determining a first time window, wherein only one or more positioning reference signals within the first time window can be determined as said one or more PRSs (alternative or dispositive limitation not required to be disclosed by the prior art of record.); and/or
the first control information does not comprise information indicating a zone identifier
(zone ID) (alternative or dispositive limitation not required to be disclosed by the prior art of record.).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein, the processing circuitry is further configured to dynamically determine the communication range threshold (Lee: [0129] – since the radio distance may be above or below a threshold in terms of a strength of signal, the range is thus determined dynamically, as this value may be changed.).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 7, wherein, the communication range threshold is dynamically determined based on one or more of:
a moving speed of the electronic device (alternative or dispositive limitation),
a number of the second electronic device (Lee: [0130-0132], [0139] – corresponds to a source/destination ID of one (or more) of the UEs.), and
a quantity of time-frequency resources available for transmitting the retransmission request by the second electronic device (Lee: [0146-0152] – representative of the resources determined for HARQ retransmission.).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein, the first control information further indicates to enable a second time window, such that the second electronic device determines whether to transmit, in response to failing to decode one or more data packets transmitted within the second time window by the electronic device, one or more corresponding retransmission requests to the electronic device, according to the comparison between the communication range threshold and the estimated distance (Corresponds to a time for retransmission that is scheduled via sidelink control information (SCI) in the PSCCH as disclosed by Lee in at least [0099-0100]. See also [0145-0154] – a decision is determined to transmit feedback (ACK/NACK) based on the actual distance (estimated position) and the radio distance (range threshold) as part of a HARQ process for data packet transmission/reception. See also [0005-0006], [0119-0122].).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 9, wherein, a position and/or length of the second time window is determined based on the first time window (alternative or dispositive limitation), or the position and/or length of the second time window is indicated by the first control information (alternative or dispositive limitation), or the position and/or length of the second time window is specified in advance (Corresponds to a time for retransmission that is scheduled via sidelink control information (SCI) in the PSCCH as disclosed by Lee in at least [0099-0100].).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein, the processing circuitry is further configured to transmit second control information to the one or more second electronic devices before transmitting the first control information, wherein the second control information is used for indicating a format of the first control information (Lee: [0096-0100]- SCI format information is transmitted first as part of the scheduling information. The claim does not require this information be carried in a separate message, only that is “first”, and formatting is required before scheduling, as is known in the art.).
Claim 13, directed to a method embodiment of claim 1, recites similar features as claim 1 and is therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claim 1. Please see above rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, Lee discloses an electronic device for a wireless communication system (Lee: Figure 15), comprising:
a processing circuitry (Lee: Figure 15, element 1100) configured to:
receive first control information from a first electronic device, wherein the first control information at least comprises information indicating a communication range threshold of the first electronic device (Lee: [0146-0147] – corresponds to receiving control information (through a PSCCH) regarding a radio distance (RSRP/RSRQ) defined as a threshold range for radio communications. A PSCCH is a physical sidelink control channel in which two wireless devices, operable to perform communications in a sidelink (i.e., V2V, V2E, etc.), to exchange control signaling.),
determine one or more positioning reference signals transmitted by the first electronic device based on the first control information (Lee discloses using positioning reference signals in at least [0146-0147] for distance measurement.),
estimate a distance between the first electronic device and the electronic device based on the one or more PRSs (Lee: [0146-0148] – positioning reference/signals are used to estimate a distance between two user equipments (UEs).), and
compare the communication range threshold with the estimated distance, and determine whether to transmit a retransmission request to the first electronic device in response to failing to decode a data packet transmitted by the first electronic device, based on the comparison result (Lee: [0145-0154] – a decision is determined to transmit feedback (ACK/NACK) based on the actual distance (estimated position) and the radio distance (range threshold) as part of a HARQ process for data packet transmission/reception. See also [0005-0006], [0119-0122].).
Claims 15 and 20-23, dependent upon claim 14, recite similar features as claims 2 and 8-11, respectively, and are therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claims 2 and 8-11. Please see above rejections of claims 2 and 8-11.
Regarding Claim 25, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 14, wherein, the processing circuitry is further configured to:
in response to the estimated distance being less than or equal to the communication range threshold, determine to transmit a retransmission request to the first electronic device in response to failing to decode a data packet transmitted by the first electronic device (Interpreted to correspond to determining to send ACK/NACK when the distance and signaled strength (a strong RSRP/RSRQ) are within a range, and as described in Lee in at least [0008], [0020-0021], [0124], [0126], [0142].), and
in response to the estimated distance being greater than the communication range threshold, determine not to transmit a retransmission request to the first electronic device in a case of failing to decode a data packet transmitted by the first electronic device (Interpreted to correspond to determining to NOT send ACK/NACK when the distance and signaled strength (a weak RSRP/RSRQ) are outside a range, and as described in Lee in at least [0013-0015], [0129], [0138], [0143], [0150].).
Claim 26, directed toa method embodiment of claim 14, recites similar features as claim 14 and is therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claim 14. Please see above rejections of claim 14.
Claim 28, directed to an apparatus embodiment of claim 1 recites similar features as claim 1 and is therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claim 1. Please see above rejection of claim 1. Claim 28 is noted as a hybrid claim that includes a processor and a storage apparatus, and is disclosed by Lee at least in Figure 15.
Conclusion
13. Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV whose telephone number is (571)270-7163. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, R, F 5:00 AM-5:00 PM, W 5:00 AM-3:00 PM (EDT).
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
BENJAMIN H. ELLIOTT IV
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2474
/BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights