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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Applicant's response filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 in response to a Non-Final Office Action. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 17, 20, 22-24, 26-28, and 30 are amended; No claims have been added or canceled. Claims 1-30 are subject to examination.
Acknowledgement is made to the Applicant’s amendment to claim 5, 9, 12, 17, 22, 26, and 30 to obviate the previous 112(b) rejection. The previous 112(b) rejection to claim 1-30 is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claim 1-30 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-30 of copending Application No. 18183944 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the same steps are implemented by the first TRP.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application 18183935
Co-pending Application 18183944
13. (Currently Amended) An apparatus for wireless communication at a wireless device, comprising: memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to:
receive a first indication that indicates indicating a potential grant of resources for a downlink (DL) transmission associated with a first transmission and reception point (TRP), wherein the first indication comprises a first set of parameters associated with the potential grant of the resources;
determine, based on the first set of parameters, at least one of whether one or more other potential grants conflict with the potential grant of the resources or which of a set of conflicting potential grants to accept;
transmit a feedback that indicates indicating that the potential grant of the resources is accepted by the wireless device; and
receive at least one of:
a second indication that indicates indicating a grant of the resources for the DL transmission associated with the first TRP, or
the DL transmission via the resources indicated in the first indication or the second indication.
14. (Currently Amended) An apparatus for wireless communication at a wireless device, comprising: memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to:
receive a configuration for at least a first resource pool associated with a first transmission and reception point (TRP) and a second resource pool associated with both the first TRP and a second TRP; and
receive, for a first communication with the first TRP, a first resource-granting control message that indicates a grant of a first resource in the first resource pool, wherein the wireless device is configured to receive the first resource-granting control message in association with the first resource pool; and
receive, for a second communication with the first TRP, a second potential-resource- granting control message that indicates a potential grant of a second resource in the second resource pool, wherein the wireless device is configured to receive the second potential- resource-granting control message in association with the second resource pool.
17. (Currently Amended) The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the second potential-resource-granting control message is a downlink control information (DCI) that indicates the potential grant of the second resource in the second resource pool for the second communication with the first TRP, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
transmit, for the first TRP, _a feedback indicating that the potential grant of the second resource is accepted; and
transmit or receive, via the first TRP and based on the potential grant of the second resource indicated in the DCI and the feedback, the second communication associated with the first TRP via the second resource.
19. (Currently Amended) The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the second potential-resource- granting control message is a downlink control information (DCI) that indicates the potential grant of the second resource in the second resource pool for the second communication with the first TRP, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
transmit, for the first TRP, a first feedback indicating that the potential grant of the second resource is rejected.
20. (Currently Amended) The apparatus of claim 19, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive, from the second TRP, an additional DCI that indicates an additional potential grant of a third resource in the second resource pool for a third communication with the second TRP, wherein there is an overlap between the second resource and the third resource,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to transmit the first feedback indicating that the first potential grant of the second resource is rejected based on the overlap between the second resource and the third resource.
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.
Claim 1-30 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, 13, 23, and 27 recites in second and third limitations:
“wherein the first set of parameters is for use to determine at least one of whether one or more other potential grants conflict with the potential grant of the resources or which of a set of conflicting potential grants to accept;
receive a feedback that indicates that the potential grant of the resources is accepted by a wireless device of the at least one wireless device. “
If “whether one or more other potential grants conflict with the potential grant of the resources” is selected as the “at least one” determination step, the feedback indicates that the potential grant of the resources is accepted irrespective of the outcome of the determination. Purpose of the determination step is not clear.
If “which of a set of conflicting potential grants to accept” is selected as the “at least one” determination step, the feedback indicates that the potential grant of the resources is accepted irrespective of the outcome of the determination. Purpose of the determination step is not clear.
If “which of a set of conflicting potential grants to accept” is selected as the “at least one” determination step, it is not clear whether the “set of conflicting potential grants” conflicts with the potential grant.
Claim(s) 2-12, 14-22, 24-26, and 28-30 are also rejected because they are dependent upon rejected claims 1, 13, 23, and 27 as set forth above and include limitations of the clams 1, 13, 23, and 27 respectively.
Tentative Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-30 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and double patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reference US 20250220680 A1 and US 20230292303 A1 teaches SPS PDSCH in multi-TRP configuration in Par. 0127 and Par. 0084 respectively.
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 SHARMIN CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-6419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Noel Beharry can be reached at 5712705630. 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.
/SHARMIN CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights