Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. It would be of great assistance to the office if all incoming papers pertaining to a filed application carried the following items:
i. Application number (checked for accuracy, including series code and serial no.).
ii. Group art unit number (copied from most recent Office communication).
iii. Filing date.
iv. Name of the examiner who prepared the most recent Office action.
v. Title of invention.
vi. Confirmation number (See MPEP § 503).
3. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
4. Claim interpretation: When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations doesn’t have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Double Patenting
6. The non-statutory 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 non-statutory obviousness-type 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); and 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 non-provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
a. Claims 1, 3-11 & 13-20 of instant application are non-provisionally rejected on the ground non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of application No. 16/889 172 (US Pat. : 11228983) and claims 1-13 of application No. 16/242 651 (US Pat. : 10681645). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because both the claims of the instant application and the claims of the co-pending application are almost the same in scope. Omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
b. Parent application also includes additional limitations. As a result, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentable distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, “a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentable distinct from, an earlier claim”, In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, “Thus, the generic invention is ‘anticipated’ by the species of the patented invention” and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”)
c. An omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re KARLSON(CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
d. See the tabulation below for the claims analysis.
Claims are not identical, however, the scope of the invention are the same.
Instant Application
Application (16/889172)
Claim 1:
A method of transmitting a signal by a terminal in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station, information indicating a cell through a radio resource control (RRC) signaling for a physical unlink control channel (PUCCH);
receiving, from the base station, information indicating a bandwidth part(BWP) of the cell through a physical laver signaling;
identifying path loss information based on a reference signal (RS) received on the BWP of the cell;
and controlling a transmission power for the PUCCH based on the path loss information.
Claim 1:
A method, performed by a terminal, of transmitting and receiving a signal in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving cell information indicating a serving cell via a radio resource control (RRC) signaling for a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH); receiving a reference signal (RS) on a bandwidth part (BWP) of the serving cell based on the received cell information; identifying path loss information based on the RS received on the BWP of the serving cell; and controlling a transmission power of the PUCCH based on the path loss information.
Application (16/242651)
Claim 1:
A method, performed by a terminal, of transmitting and receiving a signal in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving a radio resource control (RRC) signaling for a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), wherein cell information is included in the RRC signaling for the PUCCH; identifying a bandwidth part (BWP) of a cell corresponding to the cell information, wherein the BWP of the cell is indicated by a physical layer signaling; identifying path loss information based on a reference signal (RS) on the BWP of the cell; and controlling a transmission power of the PUCCH based on the path loss information.
All other independent, dependents and conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because both the claims of the instant application and the claims of the parent application are almost the same in scope.
CONCLUSION
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Patent Examiner Md Talukder whose telephone number is (571) 270-3222. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Th 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors, Wesley Kim can be reached on 571-272-7867.
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.
/MD K TALUKDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights