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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, submitted on 10/20/2025, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground(s).
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-11, and 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 11,736,232 (Nimbalker ‘232). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by Nimbalker ‘232.
Nimbalker ‘232 claims recite all the features in claims 1, 4-8, 10-11, and 14-20 of the instant application. Therefore Nimbalker ‘232 claims are in essence a “species” of the generic invention of claims 1, 4-8, 10-11, and 14-20 of the instant application.
It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 10-11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 20210391960) in view of Yang et al. (US 20200313745).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a method of operating a communication device in a wireless communication network (Fig. 1), the method comprising:
communicating utilizing data signaling based at least in part on a code block length (a size of the first HARQ codebook is determined according to the number of channels in the first channel group. For example, the size of the first HARQ codebook is determined according to the number of PDSCHs in the first PDSCH group),
the code block length being an integer number of allocation units when the data signaling extends for an unspecified duration (for PDSCH in group #0 whose feedback resource indicated by the HARQ timing indication information is temporarily undetermined, its corresponding HARQ codebook is set as NACK or placeholder information, that is, the HARQ codebook transmitted on PUCCH 0 is as shown in Table 5 below. When preparing the HARQ codebook corresponding to the PDSCHs in group #0 for PUCCH 0, the terminal device determines the size of the HARQ codebook according to the number of PDSCHs included in group #0 before PUCCH 0, which can avoid the misunderstanding and ambiguity between the base station and the terminal device. In addition, valid HARQ timing indication information and invalid HARQ timing indication information (HARQ timing indication information which indicates a temporarily undetermined feedback resource) are fed back in groups to avoid the misunderstanding and ambiguity when they belong to the same group but the HARQ timing indicates different uplink feedback resources; [0128]).
Wu does not expressly disclose the code block length being based on a first indication implicitly signaled by a signaling characteristic of a control information message received from a network node, the signaling characteristic being determined from a measurement on a beam carrying the control information message, the measurement being at least one of a signal strength, a signal quality and a delay.
In an analogous art, Yang discloses the code block length being based on a first indication implicitly signaled by a signaling characteristic of a control information message received from a network node (ability of a transmitting UE 115 to perform correct encoding of the payload may depend on whether the UE 115 knows an exact codebook size anticipated by the base station 105. However, a reliability of eMBB codebooks may depend on a reliability of an eMBB physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) (e.g., a PDCCH scheduling eMBB resources) which may be less reliable than that of a URLLC PDCCH (e.g., a PDCCH scheduling URLLC resources). a UE 115 to monitor for a first transmission of a first service type (e.g., eMBB) and a second transmission of a second service type (e.g. URLLC). The UE 115 may identify a feedback codebook size for the first service type based on monitoring for the first transmission of the first service type. The feedback codebook size may refer to a number of bits of HARQ-ACK to send for the first service type (e.g., for eMBB); [0143, 0145]),
the signaling characteristic being determined from a measurement on a beam carrying the control information message, the measurement being at least one of a signal strength, a signal quality and a delay (monitor for a first transmission of a first service type and a second transmission of a second service type, the second service type having a lower latency specification and a higher reliability specification than the first service type, identify a feedback codebook size for the first service type based on monitoring for the first transmission of the first service type, multiplex, based on a feedback multiplexing condition being satisfied, a first feedback codebook having the feedback codebook size generated for the first transmission with a second feedback codebook generated for the second transmission to generate a multiplexed feedback codebook, and transmit the multiplexed feedback codebook in a control channel or a shared data channel; [0192]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features of Yang into the System of Wu in order to enable the UE to calculate the defined number of information bits that may be transmitted over the scheduled PUCCH resource without changing to a new resource that is designed to convey a larger payload (Yang; [0168]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wu and Yang, particularly Wu discloses wherein the data signaling comprises at least one code block (a size of the first HARQ codebook is determined according to the number of channels in the first channel group. For example, the size of the first HARQ codebook is determined according to the number of PDSCHs in the first PDSCH group).
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 1.
Claims 4-5, 7, 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 20210391960) in view of Yang et al. (US 20200313745) and in view of Xu et al. (US 20180123847).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wu and Yang does not expressly disclose wherein the at least first indication at least one of comprises a Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS) indication and indicates a MCS.
In an analogous art, Xu discloses wherein the at least first indication at least one of comprises a Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS) indication and indicates a MCS (first information packet length K.sub.R=N.sub.RE?M?R?N.sub.layer of the code block may be determined according to the maximum number N.sub.RE of REs allowed to be occupied by each code block, the modulation scheme M of the transfer signal, the transfer rate R of the TB, and the number N.sub.layer of spatial layers occupied by the transfer signal; [0300]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features of Xu in the System of Wu and Yang in order to reduce the delay brought by the code block division to a system, avoid influences on the work of the system due to the delay caused by the code block division, and improve system performance (Xu; [0150]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wu and Yang does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one of a code block size and the code block length is based on a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) used for the data signaling.
In an analogous art, Xu discloses wherein the at least one of a code block size and the code block length is based on a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) used for the data signaling (first information packet length K.sub.R=N.sub.RE?M?R?N.sub.layer of the code block may be determined according to the maximum number N.sub.RE of REs allowed to be occupied by each code block, the modulation scheme M of the transfer signal, the transfer rate R of the TB, and the number N.sub.layer of spatial layers occupied by the transfer signal; [0300]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features of Xu in the System of Wu and Yang in order to reduce the delay brought by the code block division to a system, avoid influences on the work of the system due to the delay caused by the code block division, and improve system performance (Xu; [0150]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wu and Yang does not expressly disclose wherein the at least first indication comprises at least one of a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) indication, an explicit code block size and a code block length indication.
In an analogous art, Xu discloses wherein the at least first indication comprises at least one of a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) indication, an explicit code block size and a code block length indication (first information packet length K.sub.R=N.sub.RE?M?R?N.sub.layer of the code block may be determined according to the maximum number N.sub.RE of REs allowed to be occupied by each code block, the modulation scheme M of the transfer signal, the transfer rate R of the TB, and the number N.sub.layer of spatial layers occupied by the transfer signal; [0300]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features of Xu in the System of Wu and Yang in order to reduce the delay brought by the code block division to a system, avoid influences on the work of the system due to the delay caused by the code block division, and improve system performance (Xu; [0150]).
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 7.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Yang, and further in view of Sagae et al. (US 20130229958).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wu and Yang does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one of a code block size and the code block length is lower for a higher modulation and coding scheme (MCS) than for a lower MCS.
In an analogous art, Sagae discloses wherein the at least one of a code block size and the code block length is lower for a higher modulation and coding scheme (MCS) than for a lower MCS (Depending on the MCS level, the size of the code block may be several symbols, one symbol, or plural subcarriers in one symbol. In general, for a MCS level for a low throughput, the size of the code block is several symbols. In contrast, for a MCS level for a high throughput, the size of the code block is, for example, an amount corresponding to a single OFDM symbol; [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features of Sagae in the System of Wu and Yang in order to obviate the issues of assigning only a low MCS level in spite of an environment in which a high MCS level can be utilized (Sagae; [0015]).
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wengerter et al. (US 20250048376), “CONFIGURATION OF CONTROL CHANNELS IN A MOBILE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OUSSAMA ROUDANI whose telephone number is (571)272-4727. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 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, UN C CHO can be reached on (571) 272 7919. 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.
/OUSSAMA ROUDANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413