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 .
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 1-20 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.
In reference to claim 1
The term “latter” in line 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “latter” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The language “or any combination thereof” in line 22 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the phrase “or any combination thereof” is referring to rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
In reference to claim 3
The term “lower layer” in line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lower layer” is not defined by the claim or the specification and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In reference to claim 15
The term “latter” in line 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “latter” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The language “or any combination thereof” in lines 19-20 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the phrase “or any combination thereof” is referring to rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
In reference to claim 17
The term “lower layer” in line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lower layer” is not defined by the claim or the specification and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In reference to claim 20
The term “latter” in line 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “latter” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The language “or any combination thereof” in line 22 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the phrase “or any combination thereof” is referring to rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
The language “or any combination thereof” in lines 20-21 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the phrase “or any combination thereof” is referring to rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
In reference to claims 2, 4-14, 16, 18-19
Claims 2, 4-14, 16, 18-19 are rejected because they depend on a rejected parent claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pg. 10 of the remarks, the applicant states “The term "latter portion" is positionally defined by contrast with the "beginning of a respective subframe" recited earlier in the same claims. This may correspond, for example, to a second half of an LTE subframe as described in the specification. See Specification, paragraph [0086].
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the term "latter portion" is positionally defined by contrast with the "beginning of a respective subframe" recited earlier in the same claims. The Applicant should amend the claim to explicitly define it as above. Furthermore, paragraph 0086 fails to define the term. The rejection is maintained because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
On Pg. 10 of the remarks, the applicant states “The phrase "or any combination thereof' plainly refers to the two immediately preceding recited conditions”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the phrase "or any combination thereof' plainly refers to the two immediately preceding recited conditions”. Furthermore, it is unclear what the two immediately preceding recited conditions the Applicant is referring to. The rejection is maintained because it is unclear what the phrase “or any combination thereof” is referring to rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
On Pg. 10 of the remarks, the applicant states, “The term "lower layer" is relative to the higher layer that receives the indication, e.g. corresponding to the PHY layer indicating candidate resources to the MAC layer. See Specification, paragraphs [0084], [0095]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of each term.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 0084 and 0095 give examples but fail to explicitly define the term “lower layer”. The rejection is maintained because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. If the applicant intends for the lower layer to be the physical layer, the applicant should define it as such.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-3095. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at (571) 272-7969. 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.
BRIAN S. ROBERTS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2466
/BRIAN S ROBERTS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights