DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a response to an Application No. 18/514,533 filed on 11/20/2023 in which claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Provisional Application No. 60/992,237 and Provisional Application No. 61/029258, (as reference) fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The claimed limitation(s) in this instant application of “a downlink (DL) resource mapping that indicates unavailable portions of the DL time frequency resources” do not have the support in the prior applications. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior-filed applications.
Drawings
The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 11/20/2023 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 06/21/2024.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the status of a reference U.S. Patent Application No. 17/234,287 recited in page 1, paragraph 1 must be updated as “now issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,824,800”.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). The specification fails to provide the support for antecedent basis of “a downlink (DL) resource mapping that indicates unavailable portions of the DL time frequency resources” as recited in the claims. In light of the published specification of the parent Application No. 12/327,732, ¶ [0034] recites “The zone may represent a portion of available resources… A coordinated DL zone may coordinate a logical portion of any one or more of the available resources.” ¶ [0054] recites “A serving base station, e.g. 110-1, can allocate available resources in the coordinated DL zone to a subscriber station, e.g. 120a.”, but the specification does not recite or suggest unavailable portions of the DL time frequency resources in related to coordinated DL zone. [Note: Examiner requests the Applicant to identify the exact location in the specification.]
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 8 and 18 recites “such that” in line 1 and line 2 respectively. Language that suggests or makes optional (i.e., such that) but does not require step to be performed or does not limit the scope of the claim to a particular structure or does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation(s). Such clauses may render parts of the claim(s) optional (see MPEP 2106 and 2111.04).
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,348,463 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-20 are generally broader than the respective claims 1-20 in U.S. Patent No. 10,348,463 B2. Broader claims in a later application constitute obvious double patenting of narrow claims in an issued patent. See In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214, USPQ 761, 766, and 767 (CCPA) (the court sustained an obvious double patenting rejection of generic claims in a continuation application over narrow species claims in an issued patent); In re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619, 622, and 623 (CCPA 1970) (generic application claim specifying “meat” is obvious double patenting of narrow patent claim specifying “pork”).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,985,881 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-20 are generally broader than the respective claims 1-20 in U.S. Patent No. 10,985,881 B2. Broader claims in a later application constitute obvious double patenting of narrow claims in an issued patent. See In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214, USPQ 761, 766, and 767 (CCPA) (the court sustained an obvious double patenting rejection of generic claims in a continuation application over narrow species claims in an issued patent); In re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619, 622, and 623 (CCPA 1970) (generic application claim specifying “meat” is obvious double patenting of narrow patent claim specifying “pork”).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,824,800 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-20 are generally broader than the respective claims 1-16 in U.S. Patent No. 11,824,800 B2. Broader claims in a later application constitute obvious double patenting of narrow claims in an issued patent. See In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214, USPQ 761, 766, and 767 (CCPA) (the court sustained an obvious double patenting rejection of generic claims in a continuation application over narrow species claims in an issued patent); In re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619, 622, and 623 (CCPA 1970) (generic application claim specifying “meat” is obvious double patenting of narrow patent claim specifying “pork”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 16, and 20 recite “a downlink (DL) resource mapping that indicates unavailable portions of the DL time frequency resources”; however, Examiner cannot find the support these claimed limitations in this current specification and prior-filed applications’ specification and its related drawings.
In light of the published specification of the parent Application No. 12/327,732, ¶ [0034] recites “The zone may represent a portion of available resources… A coordinated DL zone may coordinate a logical portion of any one or more of the available resources.” ¶ [0054] recites “A serving base station, e.g. 110-1, can allocate available resources in the coordinated DL zone to a subscriber station, e.g. 120a.”, but the current specification nor the prior-filed applications’ specification does not recite or suggest unavailable portions of the DL time frequency resources in related to coordinated DL zone.
In view of the above analysis, this instant specification and the previous applications claimed for a priority that fails to support an adequate written description of the current claims. Thus, the instant claims introduce elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. Under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), the written description and drawing(s) (if any) of the provisional application must adequately support and enable the subject matter claimed in the nonprovisional application that claims the benefit of the provisional application. In New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294, 63 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the court held that for a nonprovisional application to be afforded the benefit date of the provisional application, “the specification of the provisional must ‘contain a written description of the invention and the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms,’ 35 U.S.C. 112¶1, to enable an ordinarily skilled artisan to practice the invention claimed in the nonprovisional application.” See MPEP 211.05. Therefore, the claims must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of adequate written description.
[Note: Examiner requests the Applicant to identify the exact location in the specification. If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already expressly discloses the corresponding acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by “stating on the record what corresponding acts, which are expressly, implicitly, or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function.”]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 7,602,843 B2) hereinafter “Cho” in view of McBeath et al. (US 8,614,985 B2, along with Provisional application No. 60/944,477) hereinafter “McBeath”. The U.S. reference, Cho, was cited in IDS filed 06/21/2024.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Cho discloses Claim 1 of a method performed by a subscriber station, and Claim 11 of a subscriber station comprising: a transceiver; and a processor (see FIG. 6; see Col. 7, line 11-38, processor and antenna), the method comprising:
transmitting, to a base station, capability information of the subscriber station including capability to support a downlink (DL) resource mapping (see FIG. 7, 704; see Col. 14, line 1-10, the subscriber station transmits a REP-RSP message; see Col. 5, line 53 to Col. 6, line 13, the SS transmits a CQI to the BS using a newly defined Report-Response (REP-RSP) message where the CQI can be CINR or RSSI and the REP-RSP message is a message used for recording therein a CINR value for each of individual subchannels or either measuring the channel quality for subchannels in a downlink frame or measuring the channel quality; see Col. 10, line 45-55, the SS measures CQI for subchannels associated with frequency reuse factor);
Although Cho discloses allocating resources based on multiple frequency reuse factors in OFDMA scheme (see Col. 2, line 6-15), but does not explicitly disclose available portions of DL.
However, in the same analogous art, McBeath, discloses a downlink (DL) resource mapping that indicates available portions of DL time frequency resources and unavailable portions of the DL time frequency resources (see FIG. 5-8; see Col. 3, line 64-67, the time-frequency resources are divided into OFDM symbols and OFDM carriers for allocation to the mobile station; see Col. 5, line 10-28, a resource availability bitmap (RAB), a mobile station presence bitmap, and an SDMA bitmap).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide available portions of DL as taught by McBeath, in the system of Cho, so that it would provide to increase the spectral efficiency of the wireless communication system (McBeath: see Col 1. Line 41-50).
The combined system of Cho and McBeath discloses receiving, from the base station, resource configuration information indicating available portions of DL time frequency resources and unavailable portions of the DL time frequency resources (Cho: see FIG. 7, 706; see Col. 14, line 11-20, the BS allocates a dedicated CQI channel to the SS through a DL/UL-MAP of a downlink frame; see Col. 2, line 36-43, DL-MAP to SSs to inform the change in the allocation region using a frequency reuse factor and McBeath: see FIG. 11; see Col. 5, line 10-28, a resource availability bitmap (RAB), a group of mobile stations is assigned a set of shared time-frequency resources; see Col. 5, line 60-64; see Col. 9, line 22-49, the bitmaps are used by the base station to indicate the allocation of specific resources to specific mobile stations); and
receiving, from the base station, a signal using resources in accordance with the indicated available portions of DL time frequency resources and the indicated unavailable portions of the DL time frequency resources (McBeath: see FIG. 11; see Col. 9, line 22-49, the base station transmits packets to the determined mobile stations using the radio resource corresponding to the resource indicated in the group scheduling bitmap).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the combined system of Cho and McBeath discloses the resources including a plurality of Orthogonal Frequency Multiple Access (OFDM) resources (Cho: see Col. 1, line 37-55, a system that employs an OFDM scheme and use the resources i.e., frequency resource and time slot resources and McBeath: see FIG. 3; Col. 4, line 25-37, time-frequency resources in OFDM based network).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the combined system of Cho and McBeath discloses each of the plurality of OFDM resources being associated with a plurality of subcarriers and a plurality of OFDM symbols (Cho: see Col. 1, line 37-55, a system that employs an OFDM scheme and use the resources i.e., frequency resource and time slot resources and McBeath: see FIG. 3; Col. 3, line 65-66, In OFDMA system, the time-frequency resources are divided into OFDM symbols and OFDM subcarriers).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the combined system of Cho and McBeath discloses the DL resource mapping being associated with a permutation type (McBeath: see Col. 4, line 27-37, the mapping of logical time-frequency resources to physical time-frequency resources depends on which subcarrier permutation is being used, such as the subcarrier permutations defined by the IEEE 802.16 standard).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the combined system of Cho and McBeath discloses the capability information of the subscriber station being transmitted in response to a query message received from the base station (Cho: see FIG. 7, 702; see Col. 13, line 62-65, a BS transmits a REP-REQ message for requesting channel quality measurement to an SS).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the combined system of Cho and McBeath discloses the available portions of DL time frequency resources and the unavailable portions of the DL time frequency resources being indicated as a bitmap (McBeath: see FIG. 11; see Col. 5, line 10-28, a resource availability bitmap (RAB), a group of mobile stations is assigned a set of shared time-frequency resources; see Col. 5, line 60-64; see Col. 9, line 22-49, the bitmaps are used by the base station to indicate the allocation of specific resources to specific mobile stations).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the combined system of Cho and McBeath discloses the signal carrying DL data (McBeath: see FIG. 11; see Col. 9, line 22-49, the base station transmits packets to the determined mobile stations using the radio resource corresponding to the resource indicated in the group scheduling bitmap).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the combined system of Cho and McBeath discloses the resource configuration information selected such that interference with neighboring cells is mitigated (Cho: see Col. 2, line 10-17, a base station allocates a resource with K=1 to a subscriber station because it has a higher carrier-to-interference and noise ratio; see Col. 6, line 1-13, the REP-RSP message includes information indicating whether the SS has taken into account the interference from neighboring cells or sectors).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the combined system of Cho and McBeath discloses further comprising: performing interference cancelation on the received signal (Cho: see Col. 2, line 10-17, a base station allocates a resource with K=1 to a subscriber station because it has a higher carrier-to-interference and noise ratio and McBeath: see Col. 4, line 64-66, the base station uses two distinct effective antenna patterns for interference is minimized).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cho in view of McBeath further in view of Yang et al. (US 2007/0223606 A1) hereinafter “Yang”. The U.S. reference, Yang, was cited in IDS filed 06/21/2024.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the combined system of Cho and McBeath discloses the indicated available portions of the DL time frequency resources and the indicated unavailable portions of the DL time frequency resources (McBeath: see FIG. 11; see Col. 5, line 10-28, a resource availability bitmap (RAB), a group of mobile stations is assigned a set of shared time-frequency resources; see Col. 5, line 60-64; see Col. 9, line 22-49, the bitmaps are used by the base station to indicate the allocation of specific resources to specific mobile stations), but does not explicitly disclose in coordination with at least one other base station.
However, in the same analogous art, Yang, discloses the indicated available portions of the DL time frequency resources and the indicated unavailable portions of the DL time frequency resources are in coordination with at least one other base station (see FIG. 5-9; see ¶ [0007] [0049-50] [0056-57], some portion of the distributed assignment zone among these base stations is aligned in time and base stations are coordinated through backhaul among the interfering base stations using reuse parameters such as a combination of a time reuse parameter or a frequency reuse parameter (i.e., frequency and time resources)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide in coordination with at least one other base station as taught by Yang, in the combined system of Cho and McBeath, so that it would provide to minimize inter-cell interference by a combination of time and frequency reuse within a frame thereby improving the cell coverage through interference avoidance (Yang: see ¶ [0025]).
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am to 5:00pm.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571) 272-3927. 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.
/PETER CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462