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 .
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 18-21 and 25-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11363629. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of patent 11363629 anticipate the limitation of the instant application as shown in the table below.
Claim 18 of the instant application
Claims 12 and 19 of patent 11363629
A method, comprising: monitoring, by an apparatus a collision indication indicating a collision occurs, the collision is about multiple apparatuses including the apparatus are configured to perform transmissions on a same transmission opportunity, the transmission opportunity is in a mini slot of a slot; and determining, by the apparatus, a transmission of the apparatus in the transmission opportunity is unsuccessful.
A method for medium access control, the method comprising, by a device in a communication network: receiving a schedule indicating a transmission opportunity on a shared channel for the device, the transmission opportunity corresponding to a mini slot forming part of a time slot, the mini slot and the time slot specified by the schedule; when the device is to use the transmission opportunity to transmit data, performing following actions: if the specified mini slot is a first mini slot of all mini slots in the specified time slot, transmitting the data using the shared channel; and if the specified mini slot is after the first mini slot: monitoring a prior mini slot which is part of the time slot and which precedes the specified mini slot; and transmitting the data using the shared channel upon detecting that the shared channel is idle during said prior mini slot, and refraining from transmitting the data at the transmission opportunity otherwise,
upon or after transmission of the data using the shared channel: monitoring a portion of the specified time slot for a collision indication transmitted by an access point; and upon detecting the collision indication, determining that the transmission of the data is unsuccessful
Claims 18-21 and 25-28 are also rejected under double patenting over claims 1-17 of patent 11991744.
Appropriate correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19, 21, 26, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 19 and 26 recites the limitation "the end of the time slot". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 21 and 28 recite the limitation “the same time slot” “the number of mini slots” “the beginning point”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Appropriate correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 18, 20, 25, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tuset Peiro et al. “Tuset” US 2016/0112824.
Regarding claims 18 and 25, Tuset teaches a method and an apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 3 CPU 11); and
a memory (Fig. 3 memory 13) storing instructions, wherein when the instructions are executed by the at least one processor cause the apparatus to:
monitor a collision indication indicating a collision occurs, the collision is about multiple apparatuses including the apparatus are configured to perform transmissions on a same transmission opportunity, the transmission opportunity is in a mini slot of a slot (after node 4 (i.e. apparatus) sends ARP 25, the node checks for a FBP (i.e. monitoring a collision indication). This will tell the node if the transmitted ARP was received successfully or not based on if there is a mini-slot collision between multiple nodes; Paragraph 64 and Figure 5); and
determine a transmission of the apparatus in the transmission opportunity is unsuccessful (based on the received information from the gateway, the node 4 can determine the transmission was unsuccessful; Paragraph 64).
Regarding claims 20 and 27, Tuset teaches the apparatus monitors the collision indication once the transmission ends (after node 4 (i.e. apparatus) sends ARP 25, the node checks for a FBP (i.e. monitoring a collision indication); Paragraph 64 and Figure 5. Since the ARP is sent then the check for the indication is after, this reads on the monitoring once the transmission ends).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 19 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuset in view of Kondylis et al. “Kondylis” US 2003/0012176.
Regarding claims 19 and 26, while Tuset discusses the use of beacons, Tuset does not expressly disclose the indication is a beacon/alarm sent at the end of the time slot; however, Kondylis teaches the transmitting nodes await reception of a receive beacon which dictates if there is a collision or not in the minislot; Paragraph 67. This is received after a transmission is made and thus at the end of the time slot as claimed.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Tuset to include the collision indication is a beacon/alarm sent at the end of the time slot as taught by Kondylis.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the transmitter node can properly receive indication, via a beacon, regarding if there is a collision in the minislot as taught by Kondylis; Paragraph 67.
Claim(s) 21 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuset in view of Choi et al. “Choi” US 2021/0143948.
Regarding claims 21 and 28, Tuset does not expressly disclose receiving system information which includes mini slot length; however, Choi teaches the mini-slot length is transmitted through system information for the terminal; Paragraph 76.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Tuset to include receiving the mini-slot length as taught by Choi.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the terminal knows the length of the mini-slot as taught by Choi; Paragraph 76.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm EST.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights