20180310333510DETAILED 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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 15 U.S. Patent No.11, 445, 487. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of U.S. Patent No.11, 445, 487 are part of claims of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-4, 6-18, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoellner et al. (hereinafter Zoellner)(US 2020/0374174) in view of Park et al. (hereinafter Park)(US 2019/0208510) and Akkarakaran et al. (hereinafter Akkarakaran)(US 2018/0310333).
Regarding claim 1, Zoellner teaches the method, comprising: remapping, by network equipment comprising a processor, via a first remapper, a first coding chain for a first transport block of a first data channel, resulting in first remapped data; remapping, by the network equipment, via a second remapper, a second coding chain for a first transport block of a second data channel, resulting in second remapped data; remapping, by the network equipment, via a third remapper, a third coding chain for a second transport block of the first data channel, resulting in third remapped data; remapping, by the network equipment, via a fourth remapper, a fourth coding chain for a second transport block of the second data channel, resulting in fourth remapped data(Fig. 7, items 731, 732, and also 741 and 742, P[0084-0086]; P[0120], subcarriers from different coding chains);
transmitting, by the network equipment, via a first antenna, first transformed output to a user equipment based on the first remapped data and the second remapped data; and
transmitting, by the network equipment, via a second antenna, second transformed output to the user equipment based on the third remapped data and the fourth remapped data, wherein the first transformed output and the second transformed output are transmitted concurrently(RF1 and RF2 in Fig. 7; P[0132], RF1, RF2 two transmit antennas; combiner 736 with item 734 and item 744 and combiner 746 with item 735 and 745).
Zoellner did not teach specifically wherein the first coding chain uses a first modulation and coding scheme and the second coding chain uses a second modulation and coding scheme that is less than the first modulation and coding scheme. However Park teaches in an analogous art wherein the first coding chain uses a first modulation and coding scheme and the second coding chain uses a second modulation and coding scheme that is less than the first modulation and coding scheme(abstract, P[0011, 0012, 0092, 0105], transport block size value greater; first MCS level and second MCS level). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method wherein the first coding chain uses a first modulation and coding scheme and the second coding chain uses a second modulation and coding scheme that is less than the first modulation and coding scheme in order to have optimal throughput.
Zoellner in view of Park did not teach specifically wherein the first data channel is configured and scheduled via a first downlink control channel; wherein the second data channel is configured and scheduled via a second downlink control channel that is different from the first downlink control channel and wherein a HARQ process number in each of the first transformed output and the second transformed output is the same. However, Akkarakaran teaches in an analogous art wherein the first data channel is configured and scheduled via a first downlink control channel; wherein the second data channel is configured and scheduled via a second downlink control channel that is different from the first downlink control channel(P[0094], each DCI is scrambled to identify the recipient of the DCI, thus limiting the types of grants that may be scheduled simultaneously) and wherein a HARQ process number in each of the first transformed output and the second transformed output is the same(P0096], same HARQ process ID). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method wherein the first data channel is configured and scheduled via a first downlink control channel; wherein the second data channel is configured and scheduled via a second downlink control channel that is different from the first downlink control channel and wherein a HARQ process number in each of the first transformed output and the second transformed output is the same in order to have improved efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Zoellner teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the network equipment, the first transformed output by combining the first remapped data with the second remapped data, resulting in first combined remapped data; and transforming, by the network equipment, based on a transformation function, the first combined remapped data into the first transformed output(Fig. 7, combiner items 736 and 746 ; P[0084]).
Regarding claim 3, Zoellner teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the transforming based on the transformation function comprises applying an inverse Fourier transform function to the first combined remapped data(P[0073], demodulator(including combined unit) with FFT).
Regarding claim 4, Zoellner teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the network equipment, the second transformed output by combining the third remapped data with the fourth remapped data, resulting in second combined remapped data; and transforming, by the network equipment, based on a transformation function, the second combined remapped data into the second transformed output(Fig. 7, item 746 leading to RF2; also P[0084]); wherein the transforming based on the transformation function comprises applying an inverse Fourier transform function to the second combined remapped data(P[0073], demodulator(including combined unit) with FFT).
Regarding claim 6, Zoellner teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a first demodulation reference signal port associated with the first data channel is different than a second demodulation reference signal port associated with the second data channel(items 731 and 741 in Fig. 7, BICM are different for different channel; modulation; P[0136], no co-channel interference).
Regarding claim 7, Zoellner teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a first beamforming matrix associated with the first data channel is different than a second beamforming matrix associated with the second data channel(channel matrix in P[0136]).
Regarding claim 14, Zoellner teaches the transmitter device of claim 8, wherein a same resource element is associated with the first data channel and the second data channel(P[0132], interference between two antennas; therefore same resource element).
Regarding claim 20, Zoellner teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 15, wherein a first group of resource elements associated with the first data channel partially overlaps a second group of resource elements associated with the second data channel(P[0132], channel matrix with off diagonal terms indicate overlapping).
Claims 8-9, 13, 15-18 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 1-2, 6 and 1-3, 4 respectively.
Regarding claim 10, Zoellner teaches the transmitter device, wherein the transformation function comprises an inverse Fourier transform function (P[0073], demodulator(including combined unit) with FFT).
Regarding claim 11, Zoellner teaches the transmitter device wherein the operations further comprise: generating the second transformed output by combining the third remapped data with the fourth remapped data, resulting in second combined remapped data; and generating, based on a transformation function, the second combined remapped data into the second transformed output(Fig. 7, item 746 leading to RF2; also P[0084])
Regarding claim 12, Zoellner teaches the transmitter device, wherein the transformation function comprises an inverse Fourier transform function (P[0073], demodulator(including combined unit) with FFT).
Regarding claim 21, Zoellner in view of Park and Akkarakaran teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the user equipment removes interference from the first transformed output as part of decoding the first transport block of the first data channel and the first transport block of the second data channel(ParK: P[0006], reception end interference cancellation; Akkarakaran: P[0066], receiver with interference cancellation).
Regarding claim 22, Zoellner teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first downlink control channel is based on a use of a first DCI that is transmitted to the user equipment and the second downlink control channel is based on a use of a second DCI that is transmitted to the user equipment(P[0094], each DCI is scrambled with a different radio network identifier to identify the recipient of the DCI, thus limiting the types of grants that may be scheduled simultaneously).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MUTHUSWAMY GANAPATHY MANOHARAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5515. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am-3:00pm.
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, Alison T Slater can be reached on 571-270-0375. 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.
/MUTHUSWAMY G MANOHARAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights