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 .
Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7 May 2024 and 10 January 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 4-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11910403. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons.
Claims 1 and 7 of the instant application are anticipated, respectively, by Claims 1 and 5 in U.S. Patent No. 11910403. Specifically, the claims recite the same language with the exception of the last limitation. However, while the last limitation is phrased differently (emphasis added) (wherein, the REG bundles of the CCE are mapped to physical resources at a regular interval, based on the interleaver which uses a value of the second information being equal to a number of REG bundles included in a control channel element (CCE) of the CORESET), this limitation is also anticipated as the “REG bundles” are interleaved based on the second information in Claims 1 and 5 in U.S. Patent No. 11910403.
Further, Claim 4 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11910403.
Further, Claim 5 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11910403.
Further, Claim 6 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11910403.
Claims 8 and 11-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11564219. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons.
Claims 8 and 14 of the instant application are anticipated, respectively, by Claims 1 and 5 in U.S. Patent No. 11564219. Specifically, the claims recite the same language with the exception of the last limitation. However, while the last limitation is phrased differently (emphasis added) (wherein, the REG bundles of the CCE are mapped to physical resources at a regular interval, based on the interleaver which uses a value of the second information being equal to a number of REG bundles included in a control channel element (CCE) of the CORESET), this limitation is also anticipated as the “REG bundles” are interleaved based on the second information in Claims 1 and 5 in U.S. Patent No. 11910403.
Further, Claim 11 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11564219, reciting the same language.
Further, Claim 12 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11564219, reciting the same language.
Further, Claim 13 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11564219, reciting the same language.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11246128 in view of Papaskellariou (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2018/0227156). Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11246128 recites the same limitations as Claim 1 of the instant application with the exception of “the plurality of REG bundles are interleaved within the CORESET based on the interleaver.” However, in an analogous art, this is disclosed by Papaskellariou at paragraph 0125 . Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Claim 1 of the instant application with Papaskellariou. One would have been motivated to do so in order to address latency, energy efficiency, and capacity requirements in 5G networks (paragraph 0003 of Papaskellariou).
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 5 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 10912073. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons. Claim 1 of the instant application recites the same language as Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 10912073 (incorporating the scope of parent claims 1 and 3) with the exception of the last limitation. However, while this limitation is phrased differently (emphasis added) (wherein, the REG bundles of the CCE are mapped to physical resources at a regular interval, based on the interleaver which uses a value of the second information being equal to a number of REG bundles included in a control channel element (CCE) of the CORESET), this limitation is also anticipated as the “REG bundles” are interleaved based on the second information. Claim 7 of the instant application is rejected for similar reasoning based on Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 10912073 (incorporating the scope of parent claims 9 and 11).
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.
Claims 1-14 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 7, 8 and 14 lack antecedent for the term “the CCE”, as this phrase is introduced at a later point in the claim language (“a control channel element (CCE) of the CORESET”). Further, the language “wherein, the REG bundles of the CCE are mapped to physical resources at a regular interval, based on the interleaver which uses a value of the second information being equal to a number of REG bundles included in a control channel element (CCE) of the CORESET” is unclear as to whether the last clause (“based on the interleaver which uses…”) further narrows the physical resource mapping recited in the preceding clause or is intended to define a further step/function in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 9-13 fail to resolve these issues and are rejected due to dependence on the independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the non-statutory double patent rejections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Xiong et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0092946) is directed to decoding a signal that includes a REG bundling size for a coreset (refer to Figure 4).
Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20202/0021419) discloses mapping REGs to CCE using REG pairs (refer to Figure 6).
Papaskellariou (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2018/0227156) discloses a UE determining CCE aggregation levels and indexes for PDCCH candidates (refer to Figure 19).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472