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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2024 has been entered and considered by the examiner.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one controller” in claim 27.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 27-32 are 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 27, the claim recites “a processor for wireless communication” comprising “at least one controller,” which allows for an interpretation wherein a processor for wireless communication comprises more than one controller. However, the only discussion of such a controller appears to be in paragraph [0050] of Applicant’s specification. Such a portion of Applicant’s specification states “[i]n some implementations, the processor 206 may be configured to operate a memory array using a memory controller. In some other implementations, a memory controller may be integrated into the processor 206.” Such language does not support “a processor for wireless communication” comprising more than one controller. Claim 27 thus 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 claims 28-32, the claims are rejected because they depend from rejected claims.
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 27-32 and 36 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 27, the claim limitation “at least one controller” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Looking to Applicant’s specification for any discussion regarding “a processor for wireless communication” comprising “at least one controller,” the only discussion of such a controller appears to be in paragraph [0050] of Applicant’s specification. Such a portion of Applicant’s specification states “[i]n some implementations, the processor 206 may be configured to operate a memory array using a memory controller. In some other implementations, a memory controller may be integrated into the processor 206.” Such language does not describe any structure for “at least one controller” in “a processor for wireless communication” as is claimed. It is therefore unclear if any structure is required for “at least one controller,” or if “at least one controller may instead be software. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 30, the claim recites “the amount of time for pausing PUSCH transmission” and “the amount of invalid data buffered at the UE,” which both lack antecedent basis and are therefore unclear. It is also unclear if claim 30 is intended to depend from both claims 28 and 29, each of which provide antecedent basis for “the amount of time for pausing PUSCH transmission” and “the amount of invalid data buffered at the UE” respectively. Claim 30 is thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret claim 30 as depending from claim 27 as is recited by the claim. Regarding claim 36, the claim recites “the amount of time for pausing PUSCH transmission” and “the amount of invalid data buffered at the UE,” which both lack antecedent basis and are therefore unclear. It is also unclear if claim 30 is intended to depend from both claims 34 and 35, each of which provide antecedent basis for “the amount of time for pausing PUSCH transmission” and “the amount of invalid data buffered at the UE” respectively. Claim 30 is thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret claim 36 as depending from claim 33 as is recited by the claim. Regarding claims 28-32, the claims are rejected because they depend from rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 21-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradas et al. (US 2025/0126614, Pradas hereinafter, full support for cited subject matter exists in provisional application No. 63/231,564) in view of Christoffersson et al. (US 2024/0267914, Christoffersson hereinafter). Regarding claims 21, 27, and 33, Pradas teaches a method, a processor for wireless communication comprising at least one controller coupled with at least one memory (A User Equipment (UE) may be comprised of processing circuitry coupled with memory; Pradas; Figs. 7-11; [0128]-[0130], [0168]), and a User Equipment (UE) for wireless communication (User equipment (UE); Pradas; Figs. 7-11; [0128]-[0130], [0168]), comprising: at least one memory (The may be comprised of memory; Pradas; Figs. 7-11; [0128]-[0130], [0168]); and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (The may be comprised of processing circuitry coupled with memory; Pradas; Figs. 7-11; [0128]-[0130], [0168]) and configured to cause the UE to: receive a Configured Grant (CG) configuration allocating multiple CG resources (The network may configure a UE with one or more UL configured grant configurations. The UE may thus be interpreted as receiving a Configured Grant (CG) configuration allocating multiple CG resources; Pradas; Figs. 7-9; [0076], [0128]-[0130]); determine whether to use an allocated CG resource for an uplink transmission based at least in part on an amount of data buffered at the UE (The UE determines the periodicity of the traffic and, possibly, the packet size. The UE also determines the time at which a second packet will arrive to the buffer. The UE then determines whether any of activated UL configured grants will not be used before the arrival time of the second packet. The UE may thus be interpreted as determining whether to use an allocated CG resource for an uplink transmission based at least in part on an amount of data buffered at the UE; Pradas; Figs. 7-9; [0080]-[0082], [0093]-[0096], [0128]-[0130]); generate Uplink Control Information (UCI) that indicates one or more unused CG PUSCH resources (If UE will find any unused activated UL configured grants, the UE determines which activated configured grants will not be used and indicates to the network UL configured grants which may be reused by other users. Such an uplink transmission to the network may be interpreted as control information transmitted in the uplink direction, and thus as uplink control information. The UE may thus be interpreted as generating Uplink Control Information (UCI) that indicates one or more unused CG PUSCH resources; Pradas; Figs. 7-9; [0085], [0097]-[0099], [0128]-[0130]); and transmit the UCI (If UE will find any unused activated UL configured grants, the UE determines which activated configured grants will not be used and indicates to the network UL configured grants which may be reused by other users. Such an uplink transmission to the network may be interpreted as control information transmitted in the uplink direction, and thus as uplink control information. The UE may thus be interpreted as transmitting the uplink control information; Pradas; Figs. 7-9; [0085], [0097]-[0099], [0128]-[0130]). However, Pradas does not specifically disclose the CG resources are Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) resources; and the uplink transmission is a PUSCH transmission. Christoffersson teaches the CG resources are Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) resources (CG resources may be CG PUSCH resources; Christoffersson; Figs. 2-6; [0129]); and the uplink transmission is a PUSCH transmission (Uplink transmissions may be PUSCH transmissions; Christoffersson; Figs. 2-6; [0129]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Christoffersson regarding uplink transmission in configured grants with the teachings as in Pradas regarding uplink transmission in configured grants. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance and compatibility by conforming to existing RAN agreements (Christoffersson; [01115]-[0121], [0129]-[0130]). Regarding claims 22, 29, and 34, Pradas and Christoffersson teach the limitations of claims 21, 27, and 33 respectively. Pradas further teaches the UCI further indicates an amount of time for pausing uplink transmission on the one or more unused CG resources (The UE indication may include the timing related information of resource unused activated configured grants, e.g., UL symbol or slot index or a time range that configured grants are not needed; Pradas; Figs. 7-9; [0085], [0097]-[0099], [0128]-[0130]). Christoffersson further teaches the CG resources are Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) resources (CG resources may be CG PUSCH resources; Christoffersson; Figs. 2-6; [0129]); and the uplink transmission is a PUSCH transmission (Uplink transmissions may be PUSCH transmissions; Christoffersson; Figs. 2-6; [0129]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Christoffersson regarding uplink transmission in configured grants with the teachings as in Pradas regarding uplink transmission in configured grants. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance and compatibility by conforming to existing RAN agreements (Christoffersson; [01115]-[0121], [0129]-[0130]). Regarding claims 23, 30, and 35, Pradas and Christoffersson teach the limitations of claims 22, 27, and 33 respectively. Pradas further teaches the UCI further indicates an amount of invalid data buffered at the UE (The UE determines the periodicity of the traffic and, possibly, the packet size. The UE also determines the time at which a second packet will arrive to the buffer. The UE indication may include the timing related information of resource unused activated configured grants, e.g., UL symbol or slot index or a time range that configured grants are not needed. The UE may also indicate the expected packet size; Pradas; Figs. 7-9; [0080]-[0082], [0085], [0093]-[0099], [0118], [0126], [0128]-[0130]). Regarding claims 24, 31, and 36, Pradas and Christoffersson teach the limitations of claims 23, 27, and 33 respectively. Pradas further teaches the amount of time for pausing uplink transmission is associated with the amount of invalid data buffered at the UE (The UE determines the periodicity of the traffic and, possibly, the packet size. The UE also determines the time at which a second packet will arrive to the buffer. The UE then determines whether any of activated UL configured grants will not be used before the arrival time of the second packet. The timing related information of resource unused activated configured grants (i.e., the amount of time for pausing transmission) is thus associated with the amount of invalid data buffered at the UE; Pradas; Figs. 7-9; [0080]-[0082], [0085], [0093]-[0099], [0118], [0126], [0128]-[0130]). Christoffersson further teaches the uplink transmission is a PUSCH transmission (Uplink transmissions may be PUSCH transmissions; Christoffersson; Figs. 2-6; [0129]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Christoffersson regarding uplink transmission in configured grants with the teachings as in Pradas regarding uplink transmission in configured grants. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance and compatibility by conforming to existing RAN agreements (Christoffersson; [01115]-[0121], [0129]-[0130]). Regarding claims 25, 32, and 37, Pradas and Christoffersson teach the limitations of claims 21, 27, and 33 respectively. Pradas further teaches the UCI further indicates a request for one or more subsequent CG resources for a subsequent uplink transmission (The UE indicates to the network in a first UL transmission one or more of the following: i. resources are needed, ii. timing information (e.g. frame number, slot number) which will indicate when the grant is needed, iii. the expected packet size for transmission. At least such information may be interpreted as a request for one or more subsequent CG resources for a subsequent uplink transmission; Pradas; Figs. 7-9; [0085], [0097]-[0099], [0123]-[0126], [0128]-[0130]). Christoffersson further teaches the CG resources are Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) resources (CG resources may be CG PUSCH resources; Christoffersson; Figs. 2-6; [0129]); and the uplink transmission is a PUSCH transmission (Uplink transmissions may be PUSCH transmissions; Christoffersson; Figs. 2-6; [0129]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Christoffersson regarding uplink transmission in configured grants with the teachings as in Pradas regarding uplink transmission in configured grants. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance and compatibility by conforming to existing RAN agreements (Christoffersson; [01115]-[0121], [0129]-[0130]). Regarding claims 26, 33, and 38, Pradas and Christoffersson teach the limitations of claims 21, 27, and 33 respectively. Pradas further teaches the UCI is transmitted in the CG resources allocated by the CG configuration (The indication (i.e., the UCI) may be transmitted in an UL transmission opportunity, and the UL transmission opportunity may comprise an activated UL configured grant; Pradas; Figs. 7-9; [0083]-[0085], [0097]-[0099], [0128]-[0130]). Christoffersson further teaches the CG resources are Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) resources (CG resources may be CG PUSCH resources; Christoffersson; Figs. 2-6; [0129]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Christoffersson regarding uplink transmission in configured grants with the teachings as in Pradas regarding uplink transmission in configured grants. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance and compatibility by conforming to existing RAN agreements (Christoffersson; [01115]-[0121], [0129]-[0130]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC A MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30am to 7:00pm.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/ERIC MYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
