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 .
Election/Restrictions
The applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-8 and 16-22 in the reply filed on 8/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner has not shown a serious burden for requiring restriction. This is not found persuasive because the applicant’s arguments do not take into account the claimed actions performed by the UE and the claimed actions performed by the network entity and how they are disclosed. The Examiner acknowledges that the UE and network entity interact by the UE sending an indication to the network entity and the network entity sending a second indication to the UE. These communications do not represent the examination burden. It is the divergent actions performed after the second indication is received by the UE and sent by the network entity that require the search and consideration burden. The claimed actions performed by the UE are not actions that would every be performed by the claimed network entity and therefore require a unique search strategies and considerations for determining the patentability of the scope of the claims presented. The actions in the UE are indicated as 635, 640, and 645 in Figure 6. The “one or more actions” performed by the network entity cover unrelated actions 650 that would require a differing search strategy and considerations. Since the applicant is presenting the actions of the two different devices independently as inventions, the examiner must consider the divergent actions claimed completely separately. The applicant can always claims the system depicted in Figure 6, including both the UE and the network entity, if they want to cover both devices operating together.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-15 and 23-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/13/2026.
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 1-8 and 16-22 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.
Claims 1 and 16 recite the limitation "the operation associated with at least one of the second carrier or a third carrier" in the “performing” limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The first limitation only recites that “an operation associated with one or more carriers” but does not specify that the operation is specific to the second carrier or a third carrier as claimed in the performing limitation.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: The applicant uses “time” to indicate an instance in which an action occurs. The first time is the instance where the UE is to switch a transmitting RF chain from a second carrier to a first carrier. The second time is the instance when the operation is performed. It is not clear how two instances of time would “partially overlap” as an instance covers a moment in time and not a period of time. The Examiner notes that the applicant defines only one example involving overlapping time periods in paragraph 108 but that deals with an overlap between transmitting a first uplink transmission and the UE performing an SRS carrier switching operation. According to paragraph 108-110, the SRS carrier switching operation includes tuning the transmitting RF chain so it cannot support the currently claimed embodiment where the operation associated with carrier switching is different from the configuring the RF chain.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: in the final limitation, the claim covers “configuring the transmitting RF chain to be tuned to the first carrier or the second carrier”. The second limitation implies that the RF chain is already tuned to the second carrier so it is not “to be tuned… to the second carrier” because it already is “tuned to the second carrier” in the second of the alternative interpretations of the final limitation of claims 1 and 16.
Claims 8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the two limitations of claims 8 and 22 appear to contradict each other as one configures and one refrains from configuring. It is not clear how both limitations can be performed together.
Prior Art
Claims 1-8 and 16-22 are not rejected with prior art because the prior art was not found to teach or suggest the claimed subject matter, as best understood despite the clarity issues.
The Examiner considered the International Search Report supplied in the 3/24/2026 IDS. The Search Report mapped U.S. 2012/0083278 by Kazmi et al. as anticipating the claimed invention. The mapping did not address the first limitation of claim 1 and 8 and the Examiner did not find the UE sending the claimed indication to be taught by Kazmi. The mapping in the search report also maps four limitations using steps 206 and 208 without providing adequate explanation of how these two steps anticipate four separate limitations. The Search Report also alleges that U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0112399 by Gopal et al. anticipates claims 1 and 8 but the Search Report only cites paragraph 89 and provides a lengthy explanation which does not address the mapping the claim limitations. The Examiner did not find Gopal to anticipate the claims.
U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0159080 by Zhang et al. taught a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) (UE 110), comprising: transmitting, to a network entity, a first indication of one or more carriers, including a first carrier, that are affected by an operation associated with one or more other carriers (step 306 in Figure 3 and first step 404 in Figure 4); receiving, from the network entity, a second indication of transmission resources to the UE as indicated in paragraphs 52 and 57. Zhang does not teach performing an operation and suspending a switch based performing the operation and then performing configuring of the transmitting RF chain. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0245649 by Siomina taught two embodiments (Figure 5 and 6) of adaptively performing operations during SRS switching operations but Siomina does not teach performing an operation and suspending a switch based performing the operation and then performing configuring of the transmitting RF chain.
Although the claims are not found to be anticipated or suggested by the prior art, they were found to be unclear. The Examiner will make a final determination on patentability when the applicant addresses the clarity issues.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights