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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Abstract, Paragraphs 7,16,22 of the specification state, “…grating authority…”. There is a typographical error “grating”…Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1,7,13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 line 7 recites, “…grating authority…”. There is a typographical error “grating”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 line 10 recites, “…grating authority…”. There is a typographical error “grating”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 13 line 8 recites, “…grating authority…”. There is a typographical error “grating”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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 line 4 recites, “…receiving a message of granting authority from a transport node (TN)…”, it is unclear whether the granting authority is based on the determined signal quality.it is also unclear which device and for what purpose the granting authority is being received. Further stated in line lines 9-10 of claim 1, “… receiving from the TN a message of bandwidth allocation (BA) comprising an index of a modulation and coding scheme (IMCS)…” it is unclear how a bandwidth allocation message comprises an index of a modulation and coding scheme (IMCS). Further recited in lines 11-12 of claim 1, “…determining a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) corresponding to the index of the modulation and coding scheme (IMCS) on the basis of the BA message.” It is unclear how a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) corresponding to the index of the modulation and coding scheme (IMCS) determined on the basis of the BA message.
Similarly claim 7 line 8 recites, “…receiving a message of granting authority from a transport node (TN)…”, it is unclear whether the granting authority is based on the determined signal quality. It is also unclear for what purpose the granting authority is being received. Further stated in line lines 12-13 of claim 7, “… receiving from the TN a message of bandwidth allocation (BA) comprising an index of a modulation and coding scheme (IMCS)…” it is unclear how a bandwidth allocation message comprises an index of a modulation and coding scheme (IMCS). Further recited in lines 14-15 of claim 9, “…determining a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) corresponding to the index of the modulation and coding scheme (IMCS) on the basis of the BA message.” It is unclear how a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) corresponding to the index of the modulation and coding scheme (IMCS) determined on the basis of the BA message.
Further claim 13 line 7 recites, “…transmitting a message of granting authority to a transport unit (TU)…”, it is unclear the criteria or purpose of transmitting granting authority. Further stated in line lines 12-13 of claim 13, “… transmitting to the TN a message of bandwidth allocation (BA) comprising an index of a modulation and coding scheme (IMCS)…” it is unclear how a bandwidth allocation message comprises an index of a modulation and coding scheme (IMCS). Further recited in lines 14-15 of claim 13, “…determining a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) corresponding to the index of the modulation and coding scheme (IMCS) on the basis of the BA message.” It is unclear how a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) corresponding to the index of the modulation and coding scheme (IMCS) determined on the basis of the BA message.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIBRET A WOLDEKIDAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5145. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, DAVID C PAYNE can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
/HIBRET A WOLDEKIDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights