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 .
Terms
Data signalling – user data
Data blocks – transport blocks, code blocks
Allocation units – slots, mini-slots, PRB
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Double Patenting
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1-14, 16-21 remain rejected under non-statutory double patenting.
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.
Claim1, 2, 3, 4, 14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 7178089 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 14 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over
claim(s) 5 of copending Application No. 18546488,
claim(s) 1 of copending Application No. 17109954,
claim(s) 1 of copending Application No. 18261931
claim(s) 1 of copending Application No. 16965169
claim(s) 1 of copending Application No. 18263054
claim(s) of 1 copending Application No. 18553603
claim(s) 1 of copending Application No. 18551304
claim(s) 24 of copending Application No. 14380089
claim(s) of 1 copending Application No. 16401741
claim(s) 27 of copending Application No. 14380081
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Independent Claims
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeo (WO-2018084515-A1).
As to claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 14: Yeo teaches a method of operating a transmitting radio node in a wireless communication network, the method comprising: transmitting data signalling, the data signalling representing a plurality of data blocks, each of the plurality of data blocks corresponding to a code block bundle, CBB (And transmitting data through a sub transport block, wherein the sub transport block is a code block bundle including at least one code block).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 5, 11, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeo (WO-2018084515-A1) in view of Guo (US-20230217447).
As to claim 5, 16: Guo teaches the method according to claim 1, 3, wherein the data signalling is transmitted over a plurality of consecutive allocation units (fig.6, [0005]).
As to claim 11: Guo teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the data signalling is scheduled with a control information message ([0072]).
Claim(s) 6, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeo (WO-2018084515-A1) in view of Yu (US-9232512).
As to claim 6, 17: Yeo teaches the method according to claim 1, 3.
Yeo may not explicitly teach wherein the data signalling has unspecified duration when triggered. However, Yu teaches wherein the data signalling has unspecified duration when triggered (claim 1, claim 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement unspecified duration uplink, taught by Yu, into the data signaling, taught by Yeo, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable uplink transmission. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Yu and Yeo in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 7, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeo (WO-2018084515-A1) in view of Mallik (US-20160234820).
As to claim 7, 18: Yeo teaches the method according to claim 1, 3.
Yeo may not explicitly teach wherein different data blocks of the data signalling are transmitted with one or both different modulation and different coding. However, Mallik teaches wherein different data blocks of the data signalling are transmitted with one or both different modulation and different coding ([0035, 68] each transport block can have a different MCS).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement different MCS for each TB, taught by Mallik, into the uplink, taught by Yeo, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and account for different QoS requirements. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Yeo and Mallik in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 8, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeo (WO-2018084515-A1) in view of Wang (US-20180098316).
As to claim 8, 19: Yeo teaches the method according to claim 1, 3.
Yeo may not explicitly teach wherein different data blocks are associated to different acknowledgement processes. However, Wang teaches wherein different data blocks are associated to different acknowledgement processes ([0062] for each TB, a separate ACK may be sent in a separate frame by the UE to acknowledge receipt of the TB).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement separate ACK for data blocks, taught by Wang, into the uplink, taught by Yeo, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable granularity by responding to only those TBs that have failed. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Wang and Yeo in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 9, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeo (WO-2018084515-A1) in view of Sun (US-20190058553).
As to claim 9, 20: Guo teaches the method according to claim 1, 3.
Yeo may not explicitly teach wherein one of both: one or more of the data blocks are associated to new transmissions; and one or more of the data blocks are associated to retransmissions. However, Sun teaches wherein one of both: one or more of the data blocks are associated to new transmissions; and one or more of the data blocks are associated to retransmissions ([0065] retransmit TBs).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement retransmit TBs, taught by Sun, into the uplink, taught by Yeo, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable reliable reception of transmissions. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Sun and Yeo in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 10, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeo (WO-2018084515-A1) in view of Papasakellariou (US-20140269454).
As to claim 10, 21: Yeo teaches the method according to claim 1, 3.
Yeo may not explicitly teach wherein the Modulation and Coding Scheme used for transmitting a data block is based on whether the data block is transmitted in a new transmission or retransmission. However, Papasakellariou teaches wherein the Modulation and Coding Scheme used for transmitting a data block is based on whether the data block is transmitted in a new transmission or retransmission ([0029, 133, 134] it can be beneficial for the MCS used for the retransmission of the data TB to be higher than the MCS used for the initial transmission of the same data TB).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement MCS depends on whether a TB is transmitted or retransmitted, taught by Papasakellariou, into the uplink, taught by Yeo, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and improve reliability of a transmission. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Yeo and Papasakellariou in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (US-20230217447) in view of Yokomakura (US-20200196332).
As to claim 12: Yeo teaches the method according to claim 1.
Yeo may not explicitly teach wherein Phase Tracking Reference signalling is associated to the data signalling. However, Yokomakura teaches wherein Phase Tracking Reference signalling is associated to the data signalling (abstract the transmitter transmits the PUSCH to which the PTRS is mapped).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement PTRS, taught by Yokomakura, into the uplink, taught by Yeo, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and compensate for phase error. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Yeo and Yokomakura in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeo (WO-2018084515-A1) in view of Yang (US-20240048319).
As to claim 13: Yeo teaches the method according to claim 1.
Yeo may not explicitly teach wherein different Phase Tracking Reference signalling is used for different types of data signalling. However, Yang teaches wherein different Phase Tracking Reference signalling is used for different types of data signalling ([0108], claim 14).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement PTRS, taught by Yang, into the uplink, taught by Yeo, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and compensate for phase error. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Yeo and Yang in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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 C OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466