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 .
This Office Action is a response to communications dated 02/02/2026. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-21 are still pending in the application.
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 1-4, 6-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 and 16-21 of copending Application No. 18/546,340. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following rationales.
Instant Application Claim 1 Claims
‘340 Application Claims 1+8+10 Claims
A method of operating a transmitting radio node in a wireless communication network, the method comprising:
A method of operating a transmitting radio node in a wireless communication network, the method comprising:
transmitting data signaling on multiple layers, on each layer there is transmitted a sequence of samples representing data, samples representing phase tracking reference signal, PT-RS, being inserted into the sequence of samples in one or more groups, each group representing a PT-RS sample sequence, and groups of PT-RS of different layers are shifted relative to each other based on orthogonal cover codes, OCC, codes, at each location of a group of PT-RS, on each of the layers, there is applied a different OCC code, a permutation of OCC codes being used at each location of a group of PT-RS, each element of the permutation being applied to a different layer.
transmitting data signaling on multiple layers, on each layer there is transmitted a sequence of samples representing data, samples representing phase tracking reference signaling (PT-RS) being inserted into the sequence of samples in one or more groups, each group representing a PT-RS sample sequence; and groups of PT-RS of different layers being shifted relative to each other, wherein PT-RS sample sequences are shifted relative to each other based on an orthogonal cover code, wherein a PT-RS sample sequence is shifted relative to another based on an orthogonal cover code, wherein the orthogonal cover code is associated to an antenna port associated to the layer the PT-RS sample sequences is transmitted on.
Rationales:
From the above claim comparison, one can see that claims 1+8+10 of the ‘340 copending patent application anticipates all limitations recited in claim 1 of the instant application. Alternatively, claim 1 of the instant application claim variously and essentially similar limitations as those recited in claims 1+8+10 of the ‘340 copending patent application. There is a mere difference depicted in the bolded words. The difference appears to be using different wording or parameters but meaning is the same or similar. It is obvious to those skilled in the art of claim drafting to draft claims using different wording or parameters but meaning is the same in two copending patent application. A motivation for doing so would be to seek a well-rounded protection for a disclose invention.
The dependent claims 6-7 and 19-21 are included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Specifically, the claims are deemed obvious over dependent claims 5-13 of '430 patent application for the same rationale as applied to their parent claim as above discussed.
Group claims 2 and 10-12 of the instant application are deemed obvious over claim 2 of the ‘340 copending application for the same rationales applied to group claims 1, 5-7, and 19-21 as above discussed.
Group claims 3 and 13-15 of the instant application are deemed obvious over group claims 3 and 16-21 of the ‘340 copending application for the same rationales applied to group claims 1, 5-7, and 19-21 as above discussed.
Group claims 4 and 16-18 of the instant application are deemed obvious over claim 4 of the ‘340 copending application for the same rationales applied to group claims 1, 5-7, and 19-21 as above discussed.
Claim 8 of the instant application is deemed obvious over claim 4 of the ‘340 copending application for the same rationales applied to group claims 1, 5-7, and 19-21 as above discussed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not all persuasive.
Pertaining the non-statutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-21, the Applicant appears to state that “Applicant will consider filing a terminal disclaimer when the claims are considered allowable but for the non-statutory double patenting rejection.”
The statement is noted but not persuasive to overcome the outstanding non-statutory double patenting rejection. Perhaps, in a response to this Office Action, the Applicant ought to file a terminal disclaimer to overcome the outstanding rejection.
Pertaining the 35 U.S.C., paragraph 101 rejection of claim 8, the amendment to claim 8 has overcome the outstanding rejection.
Pertaining the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-21 as being anticipated by Moles Cases et al. (US 2019/0215118), the amendment filed on 02/02/2026 to claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-21 has overcome the outstanding rejection.
Examiner believes an earnest attempt has been made in addressing all of the Applicant’s arguments. Due to the response fails to place the instant application in a favorable condition for allowance, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang et al. (US 2021/0044372).
Qi (US 2021/0167925).
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 FRANK DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3164. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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, MICHAEL THIER can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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.
/FRANK DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 March 19, 2026