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 .
Priority
Applicant states that this application is a continuation or divisional application of the prior-filed application. A continuation or divisional application cannot include new matter. Applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship (continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part because this application contains the following matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application: claim 6’s “the CBR indicated by a …(SIB)”, claim 7’s “decreases…”, claim 14’s “decreases…”, and claim 20’s “the CBR indicated by a …(SIB)” and “decreases…CBR increases”.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 6/9/26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent 11,510,079 and U.S. Patent 12,003,989 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Claims 3, 10, and 17”, with respect to claims 3, 10, and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive only because of Applicant’s revision of claims 3, 10, and 17 for clarification. The priority objections of claims 3, 10, and 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Claims 5, 12, and 19”, with respect to claims 5, 12, and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive only because of Applicant’s amendment of claims 5, 12, and 19. The priority objections of claims 5, 12, and 19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see section titled “Claims 6, 13, and 20”, with respect to claims 6, 13, and 20 have been fully considered but they are partially persuasive (withdrawing with respect to claim 13 since claim 13 is amended, but maintained for claims 6 and 20). Applicant states that support is found in ¶ 233 and ¶ 245 of provisional application 62/932,479. These paragraphs clearly do not support a CBR indicated by a configuration message from a base station via a RRC message or a SIB nor does these paragraphs support a range (indicated by a configuration from a base station via a RRC message or a SIB) of a CBR. Paragraph 0233 discuses that signaling of an offset value is based on CBR range, not that a range of CBR is indicated (e.g., by a configuration message) and paragraph 0245 discloses nothing about a range of CBR.
Applicant's arguments, see section titled “Claims 7, 14, and 20”, with respect to claims 7, 14, and 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that support is found in ¶ 233 of provisional application 62/932,479. This paragraph clearly shows that a CBR value being large results in a small offset value. This does not support a relationship between offset and CBR value (i.e. offset decreases as CBR value increases) and just discuses a single instance (a CBR value being large results in a small offset value).
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Non-statutory Double Patenting”, with respect to claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejections of claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Claim Objections”, with respect to claims 3, 10, 15, and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 3, 10, 15, and 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112”, with respect to claims 10-11 and 13-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claims 10-11 and 13-14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103”, with respect to claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 12, 15-16, and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 12, 15-16, and 19 has been withdrawn.
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 13 is 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 13, Applicant has amended this claim to recite “the configuration indicate a range of the CBR; and the offset is per the range of the CBR”. Applicant state that support is found in ¶ 233 and ¶ 245 of provisional application 62/932,479. After a review of these paragraphs and the specification of the instant Application, the provisional application and the specification of the instant application do not support the above features.
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 13 is 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 13 recites the limitation "the configuration" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In view Applicant stating “recitation of "selecting ... one or more resources based on the signal quality of the PSSCH; and transmitting one or more transport blocks via the one or more resources," as recited by independent claim 1, inherently means that transmission, of the one or more transport blocks, is based on the signal quality of the PSSCH” (which is similarly recited in claims 8 and 15), Applicant admits on the record and the Examiner agrees that transmission of the one or more transport blocks of claims 1, 8, and 15 is based on the signal quality of the PSSCH, which is already recited in claims 5, 12, and 19. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 14-16, 18, and 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the amendments made to the independent claims incorporating allowable subject matter (with clarifying amendments) cited in the non-final rejection indicates the reason(s) the claims are patentable over the prior arts of record.
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