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
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 1-3, 11-13, 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 23-25 of copending Application No. 18/409285 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because elimination of an element and its function provides no patentable difference. Claims 1-3, 11-13, 20 are encompassed by claims 23-25 of U. S. Application 18/409,285. It is well settle that elimination of elements and their function is considered to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at. In re Karlson, 453 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application
Application No. 18/409285
A user equipment (UE),
comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
receive a control message indicating a configured grant configuration, the configured grant configuration comprising a plurality of uplink transmission occasions within a time period; and
transmit, using at least one of the plurality of uplink transmission occasions in accordance with the configured grant configuration, an uplink control information message comprising an indication of a quantity of unused uplink transmission occasions of the plurality of uplink transmission occasions, wherein the indication excludes one or more invalid uplink transmission occasions that correspond to one or more uplink transmission occasions of the plurality that at least partially overlap with one or more interruption durations associated with a measurement duration.
23. A method for wireless communication by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
receive a control message indicating a plurality of resources allocated for one or more uplink shared channel messages, the plurality of resources corresponding to a plurality of uplink transmission occasions within a time period of a configured grant configuration, wherein the plurality of resources include one or more full-duplex resources; and
transmitting, using at least one of the plurality of uplink transmission occasions in accordance with the configured grant configuration, an uplink control information message comprising an indication of a quantity of unused uplink transmission occasions of the plurality of uplink transmission occasions, wherein the indication excludes one or more invalid uplink transmission occasions that are based at least in part on a collision between one or more downlink messages and the one or more uplink shared channel messages associated with the one or more full-duplex resources.
Regarding claim 11-13 and 20, the claims are either method or process claims with the same scope and similar limitations of claim 1 -thus they are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 23-25 of copending Application No. 18/409285 (reference application).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 15-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YIN et al. (US 2024/0381358 A1), hereinafter “YIN,” and in view of 3GPP (R1-2306086, Incheon, Korea, May 22nd - 26th, 2023, hereinafter “3GPP.”
Regarding claim 1, YIN discloses a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
receive a control message indicating a configured grant configuration, the configured grant configuration comprising a plurality of uplink transmission occasions within a time period (the UE receiving circuitry configured to receive a configuration for a configured grant (CG) with multiple physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission occasions in a CG period, see ¶ 0018); and
transmit, using at least one of the plurality of uplink transmission occasions in accordance with the configured grant configuration, an uplink control information message comprising an indication of a quantity of unused uplink transmission occasions of the plurality of uplink transmission occasions (UE includes a configuration for the unused transmission PUSCH occasion uplink control information (UTO-UCI). The UE also includes transmitting circuitry configured to transmit the UTO-UCI on a CG PUSCH, wherein the UTO-UCI provides a bitmap comprising a bit corresponding to a transmission occasion (TO) within a time duration, see ¶ 0018).
YIN fails to disclose wherein the indication excludes one or more invalid uplink transmission occasions that correspond to one or more uplink transmission occasions of the plurality that at least partially overlap with one or more interruption durations associated with a measurement duration.
In the same field of endeavor, 3GPP discloses the indication excludes one or more invalid uplink transmission occasions that are based at least in part on a collision between one or more downlink messages and the one or more uplink shared channel messages associated with the one or more full-duplex resources (3GPP, section 4 Dynamic indication of unused CG PUSCH occasion(s) based on UCI by the UE; The UTO- UCI provides a bitmap where a bit corresponds to a TO within a time duration/range. The bit indicates whether the TO is "unused"; where the configured CG PUSCH occasion(s) may overlap with DL symbol(s) (i.e. full- duplex); A configured CG PUSCH is invalid if the CG PUSCH is dropped due to collision with DL symbol(s) indicated by tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon or tdd- UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated or SSB).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to includes 3GPP’s teaching in the network taught by YIN to provide the network entity accurate information of unused transmission occasion(s) by avoiding overlap transmission occasion.
Regarding claim 5, YIN discloses the uplink control information message is multiplexed with each of one or more uplink shared channel messages that are transmitted during one or more valid uplink transmission occasions (the cg-UCI multiplexing with PUSCH, see ¶ 0190).
Regarding claim 6, YIN discloses one or more interruption durations are associated with inter-band measurements or intra-band measurement in a time division duplexing band (the network may be in TDD operation, see ¶ 0053).
Regarding claim 8, YIN discloses the one or more uplink transmission occasions partially overlap or completely overlap with the one or more interruption durations in a time domain (for dynamic indication of unused CG PUSCH transmission occasion(s) based on a UCI, the indicated “unused” CG PUSCH TO(s), if any, by the UCI in a CG PUSCH for a CG configuration: can be consecutive or non-consecutive CG PUSCH TO(s) in time domain [in one CG period], see ¶ 0296-0297).
Regarding claim 9, 3GPP discloses the uplink control information message comprises a bitmap indicating exclusion of the one or more invalid uplink transmission occasions (the bitmap provides excludes transmission occasion, see section 4).
Regarding claim 11, YIN discloses a method for wireless communication by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
receiving a control message indicating a configured grant configuration, the configured grant configuration comprising a plurality of uplink transmission occasions within a time period (the UE receiving circuitry configured to receive a configuration for a configured grant (CG) with multiple physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission occasions in a CG period, see ¶ 0018); and
transmitting, using at least one of the plurality of uplink transmission occasions in accordance with the configured grant configuration, an uplink control information message comprising an indication of a quantity of unused uplink transmission occasions of the plurality of uplink transmission occasions (UE includes a configuration for the unused transmission PUSCH occasion uplink control information (UTO-UCI). The UE also includes transmitting circuitry configured to transmit the UTO-UCI on a CG PUSCH, wherein the UTO-UCI provides a bitmap comprising a bit corresponding to a transmission occasion (TO) within a time duration, see ¶ 0018).
YIN fails to disclose wherein the indication excludes one or more invalid uplink transmission occasions that correspond to one or more uplink transmission occasions of the plurality that at least partially overlap with one or more interruption durations associated with a measurement duration.
In the same field of endeavor, 3GPP discloses the indication excludes one or more invalid uplink transmission occasions that are based at least in part on a collision between one or more downlink messages and the one or more uplink shared channel messages associated with the one or more full-duplex resources (3GPP, section 4 Dynamic indication of unused CG PUSCH occasion(s) based on UCI by the UE; The UTO- UCI provides a bitmap where a bit corresponds to a TO within a time duration/range. The bit indicates whether the TO is "unused"; where the configured CG PUSCH occasion(s) may overlap with DL symbol(s) (i.e. full- duplex); A configured CG PUSCH is invalid if the CG PUSCH is dropped due to collision with DL symbol(s) indicated by tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon or tdd- UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated or SSB).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to includes 3GPP’s teaching in the network taught by YIN to provide the network entity accurate information of unused transmission occasion(s) by avoiding overlap transmission occasion.
Regarding claim 15, YIN discloses the uplink control information message is multiplexed with each of one or more uplink shared channel messages that are transmitted during one or more valid uplink transmission occasions (the cg-UCI multiplexing with PUSCH, see ¶ 0190).
Regarding claim 16, YIN discloses one or more interruption durations are associated with inter-band measurements or intra-band measurement in a time division duplexing band (the network may be in TDD operation, see ¶ 0053).
Regarding claim 18, YIN discloses the one or more uplink transmission occasions partially overlap or completely overlap with the one or more interruption durations in a time domain (for dynamic indication of unused CG PUSCH transmission occasion(s) based on a UCI, the indicated “unused” CG PUSCH TO(s), if any, by the UCI in a CG PUSCH for a CG configuration: can be consecutive or non-consecutive CG PUSCH TO(s) in time domain [in one CG period], see ¶ 0296-0297).
Regarding claim 19, 3GPP discloses the uplink control information message comprises a bitmap indicating exclusion of the one or more invalid uplink transmission occasions (the bitmap provides excludes transmission occasion, see section 4).
Regarding claim 20, YIN discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communication, the code comprising instructions executable by one or more processors to:
receive a control message indicating a configured grant configuration, the configured grant configuration comprising a plurality of uplink transmission occasions within a time period (the UE receiving circuitry configured to receive a configuration for a configured grant (CG) with multiple physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission occasions in a CG period, see ¶ 0018); and
transmit, using at least one of the plurality of uplink transmission occasions in accordance with the configured grant configuration, an uplink control information message comprising an indication of a quantity of unused uplink transmission occasions of the plurality of uplink transmission occasions (UE includes a configuration for the unused transmission PUSCH occasion uplink control information (UTO-UCI). The UE also includes transmitting circuitry configured to transmit the UTO-UCI on a CG PUSCH, wherein the UTO-UCI provides a bitmap comprising a bit corresponding to a transmission occasion (TO) within a time duration, see ¶ 0018).
YIN fails to disclose wherein the indication excludes one or more invalid uplink transmission occasions that correspond to one or more uplink transmission occasions of the plurality that at least partially overlap with one or more interruption durations associated with a measurement duration.
In the same field of endeavor, 3GPP discloses the indication excludes one or more invalid uplink transmission occasions that are based at least in part on a collision between one or more downlink messages and the one or more uplink shared channel messages associated with the one or more full-duplex resources (3GPP, section 4 Dynamic indication of unused CG PUSCH occasion(s) based on UCI by the UE; The UTO- UCI provides a bitmap where a bit corresponds to a TO within a time duration/range. The bit indicates whether the TO is "unused"; where the configured CG PUSCH occasion(s) may overlap with DL symbol(s) (i.e. full- duplex); A configured CG PUSCH is invalid if the CG PUSCH is dropped due to collision with DL symbol(s) indicated by tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon or tdd- UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated or SSB).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to includes 3GPP’s teaching in the network taught by YIN to provide the network entity accurate information of unused transmission occasion(s) by avoiding overlap transmission occasion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 7, 10, 12-14, 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2 and 12 are considered allowable over the prior art of record since the prior art of record fails to show or fairly suggest transmit one or more acknowledgment or negative acknowledgment messages in accordance with an identifier, the identifier is based at least in part on a first uplink shared channel occasion corresponding to a first uplink transmission occasion of the plurality of uplink transmission occasions, wherein the identifier is further based at least in part on the quantity of unused uplink transmission occasions excluded from the indication.
Claims 3 and 13 are considered allowable over the prior art of record since the prior art of record fails to show or fairly suggest receiving a second control message indicating a configuration of a measurement gap pattern, wherein the one or more interruption durations are based at least in part on the measurement gap pattern.
Claims 4, and 14 are considered allowable over the prior art of record since the prior art of record fails to show or fairly suggest wherein the one or more interruption durations comprise one or more visible interruption lengths associated with a network controlled small gap.
Claims 7 and 17 are considered allowable over the prior art of record since the prior art of record fails to show or fairly suggest determining to exclude the one or more invalid uplink transmission occasions based at least in part on a collision of the one or more uplink transmission occasions with the one or more interruption durations, and wherein the measurement duration corresponds to a synchronization signal measurement timing configuration (SMTC) window.
Claim 10 is considered allowable over the prior art of record since the prior art of record fails to show or fairly suggest a bitmap comprising one or more first bits indicating a first subset of the plurality of uplink transmission occasions comprising the quantity of unused uplink transmission occasions and one or more second bits indicating a second subset of the plurality of uplink transmission occasions comprising a quantity of used uplink transmission occasions.
Conclusion
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
The following address mail to be delivered by the United States Postal Service (USPS) only:
Mail Stop _____________
Commissioner for Patents
P. O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bob A. Phunkulh whose telephone number is (571) 272-3083. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. (first week of the bi-week) and Monday-Friday (for second week of the bi-week).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor CHARLES C. JIANG can be reach on (571) 270-7191.
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).
/BOB A PHUNKULH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412