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 office action is a response to application no. 18/294,030 filed on 01/31/2024.
Claims 1 – 8 are canceled.
Claims 9 – 12 are added as new.
Claims 9 – 12 are pending and ready for examination.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT Application No. PCT/JP2021/029030, filed on 08/04/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/31/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 – 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 9 – 12 recite in line 3 – 5, “physical downlink shared channel (PUSCH)”; it should read as “physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH)”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) as being unpatentable over claims 7+9 of application no. 18/294,366. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions are directed towards a terminal for receiving a downlink control information (DCI), indicating whether a transform precoder is disabled or enabled for a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH). With respect to the independent claims of the instant application and the co-pending application, please see the direct claim comparison in the Table 1 below. This is a provisional double patenting rejection, since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Table 1: Claim comparison between the instant and the Co-pending applications.
Instant application no. 18/294,030
Co-pending application No. 18/294,366
9. A terminal comprising:
a receiver that receives,
from downlink control information (DCI), indication indicating whether a transform precoder is disabled or enabled for a physical downlink shared channel (PUSCH); and
a processor that determines, based on the indication, whether the transform precoder is disabled or enabled for the PUSCH,
wherein a size of each field in the DCI is a larger one of a size of a field in a case where the transform precoder is disabled and a size of a field in a case where the transform precoder is enabled.
7. A terminal comprising:
a receiver that receives a radio resource control (RRC) parameter indicating dynamic switching, by downlink control information (DCI), between disabling and enabling of a transform precoder for a physical downlink shared channel (PUSCH); and
a processor that determines, based on indication included in the DCI, whether the transform precoder is disabled or enabled for the PUSCH.
9. The terminal according to claim 7, wherein a size of each field in the DCI is a larger one of a size of a field in a case where the transform precoder is disabled and a size of a field in a case where the transform precoder is enabled.
Dissimilar parts of the claims are underlined. As can be seen from the direct claim comparison of Table 1, claim 9 of instant application recites similar limitation as that of claim 7 of the co-pending application, except the last paragraph. All the limitations of the instant claim 9 are recited by the combination of the co-pending claims 7 and 9. Therefore, claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of ODP as being unpatentable over claims 7+9 of co-pending application no. 18/294,366.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 – 12 are allowable over prior arts. But claim objections and ODP rejection need to be overcome for considering the application for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jung et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0107353 A1) – “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR COMMUNICATING USER DATA VIA A PHYSICAL SHARED CHANNEL” discloses information of a PDCCH search space associated with a DCI format. DCI of the DCI format can dynamically indicate a transmission mode of a plurality of transmission modes. The plurality of transmission modes can include at least transmission of multiple associated physical shared channels and non-coherent joint transmission in a physical shared channel.
Yi et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0422788 A1) – “Wireless Communications And Control Information Transmission/Reception” discloses wireless communications for control information. A base station may send control information to a wireless device for data scheduling and/or other operations, wherein values of one or more DCI fields may not change very dynamically (e.g., frequently). A value of a transform precoding field (e.g., indicating whether a transform precoder is enabled or disabled) may not change between (e.g., subsequent) PDSCH transmissions (or PUSCH transmissions or PSSCH transmissions).
YUAN et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0026606 A1) – “DOWNLINK CONTROL INFORMATION ALIGNMENT FOR MULTI-PANEL UPLINK MULTIPLE-INPUT MULTIPLE- OUTPUT TRANSMISSION” discloses a user equipment may determine a first configuration for a first sounding reference signal (SRS) set and a second configuration for a second SRS set, the first SRS set to be transmitted using a first group of antennas of the UE and the second SRS set to be transmitted using a second group of antennas of the UE; determine a size of a downlink control information (DCI) field to be included in an uplink DCI communication scheduling a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission, the DCI field to indicate a selected SRS set; receive the uplink DCI communication scheduling the PUSCH transmission; and identify the selected SRS set based at least in part on the determined size of the DCI field and information carried in the DCI field.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROWNAK ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8009. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6 pm (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached on 571-272-2832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information Regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROWNAK ISLAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474