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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/16/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-4 and 6 in the reply filed on 7/24/26 is acknowledged. Accordingly, Group II claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. It is requested that Applicant cancel non-elected claim 5 in response to this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a communication unit” and “a control unit” in claims 1-4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-4 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 limitations “a communication unit” and “a control unit” each invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, Applicant’s Figure 25 (and supporting disclosure on pages 22-23 of Applicant’s specification) generally describes the functionality of transmission unit 210, reception unit 220, and control unit 240. However, there is no description of the specific internal structure of these units. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee at al. (U.S. 2021/0377884) (hereinafter “Lee”). Lee teaches all of the limitations of the specified claims with the reasoning that follows.
Regarding claim 1, “a terminal comprising: a communication unit configured to perform transmission and reception in a first RAT (Radio Access Technology)” is anticipated by the hand-held device 100 (terminal) shown in Figure 30 that includes a communication unit 110 that transmits/receives signals to and from other wireless devices or base stations as spoken of on page 23, paragraphs [0297]-[0298]; where a UE (terminal) performs sidelink/V2X communication (Radio Access Technology) as spoken of on page 7, paragraph [0120].
Lastly, “a control unit configured to control communications in the first RAT, wherein the control unit performs a synchronization in the first RAT based on a synchronization in a second RAT” is anticipated by the hand-held device 100 (terminal) of Figure 30 that includes a control unit 120 that performs various operations by controlling constituent elements of the hand-held device as spoken of on page 23, paragraph 0298]; where a UE (terminal) obtains synchronization associated with NR sidelink communication (first RAT) from (based on) synchronization associated with LTE sidelink communication (second RAT) as shown in Figure 20 and spoken of on page 13, paragraph [0183].
Regarding claim 2, “wherein in a case where the communication unit transmits a synchronization signal in the first RAT, the control unit indicates that the synchronization signal is based on the synchronization in the second RAT” is anticipated by the UE that informs another UE that the UE obtains synchronization associated with NR sidelink communication from (based on) synchronization associated with LTE sidelink communication, through information on a PSBCH (e.g., 1 bit) as spoken of on page 16, paragraph [0241].
Regarding claim 3, “wherein the control unit determines an operation in the first RAT based on a resource reservation in the second RAT” is anticipated by the UE that may schedule sidelink transmission of another UE as spoken of on page 7, paragraph [0123]; where a UE drops (operation) a NR sidelink transmission (of first RAT) over a slot based on a priority of LTE sidelink transmission (resource reservation of second RAT) as spoken of on page 13, paragraph [0183].
Regarding claim 4, “a terminal comprising: a communication unit configured to perform transmission and reception in a first RAT (Radio Access Technology)” is anticipated by the hand-held device 100 (terminal) shown in Figure 30 that includes a communication unit 110 that transmits/receives signals to and from other wireless devices or base stations as spoken of on page 23, paragraphs [0297]-[0298]; where a UE (terminal) performs sidelink/V2X communication (Radio Access Technology) as spoken of on page 7, paragraph [0120].
Lastly, “a control unit configured to control communications in the first RAT, wherein the control unit prioritizes a synchronization signal in a second RAT higher than a synchronization signal in the first RAT and uses the synchronization signal in the second RAT as a synchronization source” is anticipated by the hand-held device 100 (terminal) of Figure 30 that includes a control unit 120 that performs various operations by controlling constituent elements of the hand-held device as spoken of on page 23, paragraph 0298]; where a UE (terminal) obtains synchronization associated with NR sidelink communication (first RAT) from synchronization associated with LTE sidelink communication (second RAT used as synchronization source) as shown in Figure 20 and spoken of on page 13, paragraph [0183]; and where priority associated with LTE sidelink transmission (of second RAT) is higher than priority associated with NR sidelink transmission (of first RAT) as spoken of on page 13, paragraph [0183].
Regarding claim 6, “A communication method performed by a terminal, the communication method comprising: performing transmission and reception in a first RAT (Radio Access Technology)” is anticipated by the hand-held device 100 (terminal) shown in Figure 30 that includes a communication unit 110 that transmits/receives signals to and from other wireless devices or base stations as spoken of on page 23, paragraphs [0297]-[0298]; where a UE (terminal) performs sidelink/V2X communication (Radio Access Technology) as spoken of on page 7, paragraph [0120].
Lastly, “controlling communications in the first RAT; and performing a synchronization in the first RAT based on a synchronization in a second RAT” is anticipated by the hand-held device 100 (terminal) of Figure 30 that includes a control unit 120 that performs various operations by controlling constituent elements of the hand-held device as spoken of on page 23, paragraph 0298]; where a UE (terminal) obtains synchronization associated with NR sidelink communication (first RAT) from (based on) synchronization associated with LTE sidelink communication (second RAT) as shown in Figure 20 and spoken of on page 13, paragraph [0183].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References considered relevant to this application are listed in the attached “Notice of References Cited” (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J. MOORE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9am-4pm).
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, Hassan A. Phillips can be reached at (571)272-3940. 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 J MOORE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights