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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-3, 5-21 and 23-30 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,984,983 in view of Papasakellariou et al. (US 2022/0295392). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-21 and 23-30, the parent patent recites similar features such as configuring CCs in a PUCCH group for transmission (for example, claims 1 and 5) but in different combinations of claim limitations. However, Papasakellariou discloses these features as noted in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 below. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recite the various limitations in the parent patent. The motivation to have the modifications and/or well-known benefits of the modifications include, but are not limited to, achieving aspects of PUCCH transmissions as is known in the art (note: see the corresponding citations of Papasakellariou below; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Claims 4 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,984,983 in view of Papasakellariou et al. (US 2022/0295392) as applied to claims 2 and 20 above, and in further view of Babaei (US 2023/0102290). Babaei (US 2023/0102290).
Regarding claims 4 and 22, the parent patent recites these limitations but in different combinations. However, these limitations would have been obvious to recite in the parent patent on the same ground as noted in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-16, 18-21, 23-25 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Papasakellariou (US 2022/0295392).
Regarding claim 1, Papasakellariou discloses a method of wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (fig. 11), comprising: receiving a radio resource control (RRC)-configured time pattern from a base station for switching between component carriers (CCs) in a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) group for PUCCH transmissions (step 1110; paras. 161 and 165; note: bitmap of cells; para. 94; note: carrier aggregation; paras. 95-96 and 108; note: cells having carriers and PUCCH transmission on each cell/carrier; para. 107; note: high layer signaling including RRC); determining a time pattern of the CCs for the PUCCH transmissions from the RRC-configured time pattern (steps 1120-1130); and transmitting the PUCCH transmissions in the CCs according to the time pattern (step 1140).
Regarding claim 2, Papasakellariou discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, from a configuration from the base station, a subset of the CCs in the PUCCH group for the PUCCH transmissions, the configuration indicating only the subset of CCs, and the subset having a lesser quantity of CCs than a number of CCs in the PUCCH group (paras. 161; note: a number of cells from a set of cells).
Regarding claim 3, Papasakellariou discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the subset is determined based on at least one of a CC index or a CC duplexing scheme (para. 115, first sentence; paras. 117 and 119-121; note: serving cell index; paras. 161 and 165; paras. 95-96 and 108; note: carriers related to serving cells and PUCCH transmission on each cell/carrier).
Regarding claim 5, Papasakellariou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the time pattern of the CCs for the PUCCH transmissions is the same as the RRC-configured time pattern (paras. 107 and 161; note: the time pattern used is the bitmap signaled by RRC).
Regarding claim 6, Papasakellariou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the time pattern of the CCs for the PUCCH transmissions is different than the RRC-configured time pattern (paras. 87-89; para. 161 (penultimate sentence - “slots may not include any valid PUCCH resource”) and 169; note: transmission only on valid resources (symbols or cells) or high priority overlapping slots in the indicated set of cells; para. 126).
Regarding claim 7, Papasakellariou discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a resource allocation for each of the PUCCH transmissions (paras. 161 and 165; note: bitmap of time slots on cells as a resource allocation), wherein each of the resource allocations is configured for an individual one of the CC (para. 161; note: bitmap indicating slots for carriers of cells; para. 115, last two sentences; note: configured differently per cell/carrier based on subcarrier spacing; para. 126).
Regarding claim 8, Papasakellariou discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the resource allocations include different PUCCH starting symbols and different PUCCH transmission durations (para. 161; note: starting slot (symbol) and number of slots (symbols) differs per cell - paras. 70, 75, 77, 92-94 and 158-159).
Regarding claim 10, Papasakellariou discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a resource allocation and a count for each of the PUCCH transmissions (paras. 161 and 165; note: bitmap (count) of time slots on cells as a resource allocation; fig. 13; paras. 105, 105 and 172-178), wherein the count for each of the PUCCH transmissions is based on a corresponding one of the resource allocations for a corresponding one of the CCs (fig. 13 and paras. 173-176; note: number of repetitions is based on allocation of repetition for a primary cell and the SCS of another cell used for repetition).
Regarding claims 11-16 and 18, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 1-3, 5-7 and 10, respectively. In addition, Papasakellariou discloses an apparatus for wireless communication (fig. 3; para. 50), comprising: one or more processors; one or more memories each coupled with at least one of the one or more processors; and instructions stored in the one or more memories, individually or in combination, and operable, when executed by the one or more processors, individually or in combination, to cause the apparatus to (para. 53) perform the method of claims 1-3, 5-7 and 10.
Regarding claims 19-21 and 23-25, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 1-3 and 5-7, respectively, from the perspective of the base station communicating with the UE (paras. 101 and 160).
Regarding claims 27-28, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 19-20, respectively. In addition, Papasakellariou discloses an apparatus for wireless communication (fig. 2; para. 39), comprising: one or more processors; one or more memories each coupled with at least one of the one or more processors; and instructions stored in the one or more memories, individually or in combination, and operable, when executed by the one or more processors, individually or in combination, to cause the apparatus to (para. 43) perform the method of claims 19-21 and 23-25.
Regarding claim 29, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 23 and 24.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papasakellariou in view of Babaei (US 2023/0102290).
Regarding claim 4, Papasakellariou fails to disclose the method of claim 2, wherein a maximum size of the subset is fixed, indicated from the base station, or based on UE capability. However, Babaei discloses a maximum number of PUCCH cells in a group based on UE capability (para. 144). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a maximum size of the subset as fixed based on UE capability in the invention of Papasakellariou. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing communication parameters within the limits of a UE as is known in the art (Babaei, paras. 143-144; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 22, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 17, 26 and 30 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, and if the double patenting rejection is overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM ET.
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. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights