CTNF 18/726,083 CTNF 83748 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims 2. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 07/01/2024 . Claims 1 and through 18 are presently pending and are presented for examination. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 3. 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 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. Claim Objections 4. Claims 1-18 are objected because they use the cluses “adapted to”, “adapted so”, “adapted for”, “next by”. The contingent clauses “CAPABLE OF”,"ADAPTED TO," "ADAPTED FOR,", “adapted so”, "WHEREIN," and "WHEREBY" recited in claims are not positively recited claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure-see MPEP 2111.04 . Therefore, the limitations after the phrase are not considered limitations. It is suggested applicant to remove the phrase. Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112 07-30-03 AIA 5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. - An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-04 AIA Regarding claim(s) 1 uses of the word "means" or “module” in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that§ 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word "means" (module or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that§ 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function. Claim elements in this application that use the word "means" (module or "step for'') are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word "means" (module or "step for'') are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. The limitations of claim(s) 1 recite(s) an storage means, prediction module, state estimation module, resource control module, state control module, and model improvement module are being treated in accordance with 112(f). Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1 are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), sixth paragraph limitation: (a) Regarding claims 1, the specification in paragraph(s) [0005]-[0009] discloses a user equipment (UE) being equipped with an storage means, prediction module, state estimation module, resource control module, state control module, and model improvement module . Also in Fig.1 and Fig. 3 show a user equipment (UE) being equipped with an storage means, prediction module, state estimation module, resource control module, state control module, and model improvement module (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011 ). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 6. 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. 07-34-01 Claim 1 and 9 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph because it recites “next by”, “so that”, “is used by”, “next in”, “adapted for”, “adapted to”, “adapted so”, and similar phrases that makes the limitations which comprise them unclear and vague. Claims 2-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph because of their dependency from claim 1. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph because it recites the limitation “intended to”. This limitation is indefinite. Claims 10-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph because of their dependency from claim 9. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph because it is a process claim depends on a UE claim 1. In addition, claim 12 preamble begins with “the”. If the claim 12 is to be claimed as independent claim, it then needs to begin with “A”. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph because it recites the limitation “Set of user equipments adapted to implement a control, wherein at least one of said user equipments is in accordance with claim 1”. This claim it is not clear whether it is to be interpreted as dependent or independent claim since it does not begin with “A” or “The”. Conclusion 07-96 AIA 7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : FUJISHIRO et al. (US 2022/0167198 A1) and GE et al. (US 2020/0366385 A1) . 8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David M OVEISSI whose telephone number is (571)270-3127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8Am-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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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. /MANSOUR OVEISSI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/726,083 Page 2 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/726,083 Page 3 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/726,083 Page 4 Art Unit: 2415
Prosecution Insights