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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 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.
Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to include language which can be readily mapped to the claimed features. It is not clear which portion of Applicant’s original disclosure supports “the at least the group is distributed across more than one of the respective sets of groups” of claim 1.
Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant that claim language should be consistent with Applicant’s original disclosure. (see 37 CFR 1.75 (a), (d) (1) The claim or claims must conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description).
Claims 11 and 20 correspond to claim 1, and are similarly rejected under 112A.
Claims 2-9, and 11-19 depend on claim 1 and 11 (respectively), and as such inherit the 112A issues of the parent claims. Therefore these claims are rejected for the same reasoning. Clarification of the claim language is required in order to perform a proper search and comparison with the prior arts, and to understand the claim language with respect to the present specification.
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 1-20 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 recites the limitation "each respective set of groups" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner initially interpreted this term in light of the previous limitation “transfer… the plurality of groups over a plurality of channels,” such that a set of groups is a collection of groups transmit over a single channel. However, this interpretation becomes very unclear in view of the limitation at the end of claim 1: “wherein the at least the group is distributed across more than one of the respective sets of groups.” If “the at least the group” was required to be at least two groups, it would make sense that it could be distributed across multiple sets of groups (i.e., one group could be in one set and the other group could be in another set), but considering the claim language includes the possibility that “the at least the group” can be just one group, examiner is unsure why or how a single group could be distributed across multiple sets of groups. The relationship between the set of groups and the groups themselves is unclear, and requires further clarification.
Claims 11 and 20 correspond to claim 1, and are similarly rejected under 112B.
Claims 2-9, and 11-19 depend on claim 1 and 11 (respectively), and as such inherit the 112B issues of the parent claims. Therefore these claims are rejected for the same reasoning. Clarification of the claim language is required in order to perform a proper search and comparison with the prior arts, and to understand the claim language with respect to the present specification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of recode and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 12093129 (Pawlowski) corresponds to a large portion of the claimed limitations, especially regarding grouping fields, arrangements of fields, and transmitting groups as bursts over a plurality of channels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK K BARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0431. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5, F 8-4 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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at 571-270-3750. 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.
/JACK KENSINGTON BARNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2111
/MARK D FEATHERSTONE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2111