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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 04/26/2024.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending.
Claims 1-10 are rejected.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the resource used for the reference signal is determined based on the resource used for the uplink signal or the sidelink signal in a first case, the resource of the reference signal when the control information indicates a first resource of the uplink signal or the sidelink signal being different from the resource of the reference signal when the control information indicates a second resource of the uplink signal or the sidelink signal”.
However, the Examiner in unable to construe the metes and bounds of this portion of the limitation, “the resource of the reference signal when the control information indicates a first resource of the uplink signal or the sidelink signal being different from the resource of the reference signal when the control information indicates a second resource of the uplink signal or the sidelink signal”.
Thus, the scope of the subject-matter for which protection is sought is not clearly defined, contrary to the requirements of 35 USC 112. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected for being vague and indefinite. Claims 2-6 are also rejected for depending from a rejected base claim.
Additionally, claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein, in the first case, the second resource in a case of the control information indicating a first value for the sidelink signal is different from the second resource in a case of the control information indicating a second value for the sidelink signal”.
It is not clear to the Examiner if “in a case” is referring to the first case or the second case. A similar confusion exists in claim 9.
Therefore, claims 7 and 9 are rejected for being vague and indefinite. Claims 8 and 10 are also rejected for depending from rejected base claims.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-6 of prior Patent No. US 12004155 B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 7-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 7, 1-2 of Patent No. US 12004155 B2.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 7 of the instant application merely broaden the scope of claim 7 of Patent No. US 12004155 B2 by replacing the claimed first resource with a resource used for the uplink signal or the sidelink signal, in the patent.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA), also note Exparte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); the omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
The table below maps the claims in the instant applications to corresponding claims which have substantially the same limitations in U.S. Patent No. US 12004155 B2.
Claim # in Instant Application
( 18647519)
Claim # in Patent No. US 12004155 B2
7. A transmission method, comprising: receiving control information relating to a first resource used for a sidelink signal other than a reference signal;
determining the first resource based on the control information, and determining a second resource used for the reference signal,
wherein the second resource is determined based on the first resource in a first case and is determined without using the first resource in a second case, wherein, in the first case, the second resource in a case of the control information indicating a first value for the sidelink signal is different from the second resource in a case of the control information indicating a second value for the sidelink signal; and transmitting at least one of the sidelink signal or the reference signal.
7. A transmission method, comprising: receiving control information relating to a resource used for an uplink signal or a sidelink signal other than a reference signal; determining the resource used for the uplink signal or the sidelink signal based on the control information, and determining a resource used for the reference signal, wherein the resource used for the reference signal is determined based on the resource used for the uplink signal or the sidelink signal in a first case, the resource of the reference signal when the control information indicates a first resource of the uplink signal or the sidelink signal being different from the resource of the reference signal when the control information indicates a second resource of the uplink signal or the sidelink signal, wherein the resource used for the reference signal is determined without using the resource of the uplink signal or the sidelink signal in a second case which is different from the first case; and transmitting at least the reference signal.
9
1
10
2
Claim 8 is rejected for depending from a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kishiyama et al (US 20130039305 A1) is pertinent to a reference signal transmission method wherein a base station apparatus (eNode B) transmits a scheduling grant including an instruction for transmission of a Sounding Reference Signal (SRS), and a mobile station apparatus (UE) transmits the SRS in response to the scheduling grant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A KAMARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached at 5712707191. 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.
/MOHAMED A KAMARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412