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 .
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.
Claims 20 is being interpreted under 35 USC 112 (f) because it explicitly states means for. A review of the specification reveals the means for is a processor executing an algorithm stored in memory and/or receive processor, transmit processor, TX MIMO processor, communication manager. (See Published Spec para. 59-60; fig. 2)
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 2, 7-12, 15, 18-19 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.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites ‘the sidelink communication’. Claim 1 upon which claim 2 depends recites in lines 4-5 ‘a sidelink communication’ and in line 12 ‘a sidelink communication’. Therefore, it is unclear which of these ‘a sidelink communication’ of claim 1 the ‘the sidelink communication of claim 2 refers to. It is suggested that Applicant change ‘a sidelink communication’ in line 12 to ‘the sidelink communication’ in claim 1 which fixes the issues with this claim and the other claims as outlined in the 112 rejections below.
Regarding claims 7-12, claim 7 recites ‘the sidelink communication’. Claim 1 upon which claim 7 depends recites in lines 4-5 ‘a sidelink communication’ and in line 12 ‘a sidelink communication’. Therefore, it is unclear which of these ‘a sidelink communication’ of claim 1 the ‘the sidelink communication of claim 7 refers to. It is suggested that Applicant change ‘a sidelink communication’ in line 12 to ‘the sidelink communication’ in claim 1 which fixes the issues with this claim and the other claims as outlined in the 112 rejections above. Claims 8-12 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 7 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites ‘the sidelink communication’. Claim 14 upon which claim 15 depends recites in line 3 ‘a sidelink communication’ and in line 10 ‘a sidelink communication’. Therefore, it is unclear which of these ‘a sidelink communication’ of claim 14 the ‘the sidelink communication of claim 15 refers to. It is suggested that Applicant change ‘a sidelink communication’ in line 10 to ‘the sidelink communication’ in claim 14 which fixes the issues with this claim and the other claims as outlined in the 112 rejections below.
Regarding claims 18-19, claim 18 recites ‘the sidelink communication’. Claim 14 upon which claim 18 depends recites in line 3 ‘a sidelink communication’ and in line 10 ‘a sidelink communication’. Therefore, it is unclear which of these ‘a sidelink communication’ of claim 14 the ‘the sidelink communication of claim 18 refers to. It is suggested that Applicant change ‘a sidelink communication’ in line 10 to ‘the sidelink communication’ in claim 14 which fixes the issues with this claim and the other claims as outlined in the 112 rejections above. Claim 19 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 18 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, 14, and 20 are allowed.
Claims 3-6, 13, 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 2, 7-12, 15, 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hosseini (2022/0190966) – paragraphs 105, 107, 111 – discloses same PSFCH configurations
Chae (2025/0056574) – abstract – carrier aggregation operation with same sidelink symbol length and same sidelink start symbol
3GPP TS 38.331 version 17.5.0 Release 17 – section 6.3.5 Sidelink information elements
R1-23xxxxx – 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #115 – Chicago, USA – Nov 13-Nov 17, 2023 – section 2.2.1 – PSFCH time resource alignment across SL aggregation carriers.
R1-2310854 – section 2 – time resources for PSFCH area aligned across SL aggregated carriers via preconfiguration
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CLAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm est.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at (571) 272-3155. 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.
/Stephen J Clawson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights