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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remark, filed 07 March 2026, with respect to the
claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yin et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102(a)(2) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the Double Patent rejection have been filly considered and are not persuasive. See detailed rejection below.
Claims 1-4, 7-15, 17 and 19-20 are pending.
Figure 2 of the application illustrates the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
364
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 and 14 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/028,893 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skills in the art to “report of the confliction to the base station”.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Application 18/028,893, claim 1:
A hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback method: comprising: configuring, by a base station, a first timing parameter for a user equipment (UE), wherein the first timing parameter is configured to indicate a time interval between a first time unit for the UE receiving a downlink transmission and a second time unit for the UE transmitting a HARQ feedback signal of the downlink transmission to the base station;
determining, by the base station, that a conflicting occurs in an attempt to transmit the HARQ feedback signal by the UE; and transmitting, by the base station, downlink, downlink control information (DCI), which carries a second timing parameter, to the UE, wherein determining the second time unit based on the second timing parameter is configured to adjust the second time unit to avoid the confliction.
wherein the determining, by the base station, that a confliction occurs in an attempt to transmit the HARQ feedback signal by the UE, comprises: determining, by the base station, that the confliction occurs between the attempt to transmit the HARQ feedback signal by the UE. See claim 3.
Although the limitation “receiving, by the base station, a report of the confliction transmitted by the UE” is not claimed in 18/028,893, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skills in the art to report the confliction to the base station.
Application 18/512,602, claim 1:
A hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback method, comprising: configuring, by a base station, a first timing parameter for a user equipment (UE), wherein the first timing parameter is configured to indicate a time interval between a first time unit for the UE receiving a downlink transmission and a second time unit for the UE transmitting a HARQ feedback signal of the downlink transmission to the base station; determining, by the base station, that a confliction occurs in an attempt to transmit HARQ feedback signal by the UE; and transmitting, by the base station, downlink control information (DCI), which carries a second timing parameter, to the UE, wherein the second timing parameter is different from the first timing and is configured to adjust the second time unit to avoid the confliction;
wherein the determining, by the base station, that a confliction occurs in an attempt to transmit the HARQ feedback signal by the UE, comprises: receiving, by the base station, a report of the confliction transmitted by the UE.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDA H PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3135. The examiner can normally be reached 571-272-3135.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
BRENDA H. PHAM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2412
/BRENDA H PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights