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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/5/26 has been entered.
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 20-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12010053 in view of Roth et al (US 2020/0404624) [R2].
For claim 20, ‘053 discloses the limitations in claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 8 except reduce the number of elements of the PRB based on a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) indication; however, R2 discloses reduce the number of elements of the PRB based on a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) indication (paragraphs 40-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify ‘053 to reduce the number of elements of the PRB based on a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) indication taught by R2. The rationale to combine would be to use a known technique in a similar device, to allow for channel configuration, to decrease overhead, and design choice.
For claim 21, ‘053 discloses the limitations in claims 1, 6, and 8.
For claim 22, ‘053 discloses the limitations in claims 1, 8, and 13.
For claim 23, ‘053 discloses the limitations in claims 1 and 8.
For claim 24, ‘053 discloses the limitations in claims 1, 2, and 8.
For claim 25, ‘053 discloses the limitations in claims 1-6 and 8.
For claim 26, ‘053 discloses the limitations in claims 1-5 and 8.
For claim 27, ‘053 discloses the limitations in claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 8 except reduce the number of elements of the PRB based on a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) indication; however, R2 discloses reduce the number of elements of the PRB based on a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) indication (paragraphs 40-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify ‘053 to reduce the number of elements of the PRB based on a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) indication taught by R2. The rationale to combine would be to use a known technique in a similar device, to allow for channel configuration, to decrease overhead, and design choice.
For claim 28, ‘053 discloses the limitations in claims 1, 6, and 8.
For claim 29, ‘053 discloses the limitations in claims 1, 8, and 13.
For claim 30, ‘053 discloses the limitations in claims 1, 6, and 8.
For claim 31, ‘053 discloses the limitations in claims 1-5 and 8.
For claim 32, ‘053 discloses the limitations in claims 1-5 and 8.
For claim 33, ‘053 discloses the limitations in claims 1-5 and 8.
For claim 34, ‘053 discloses the limitations in claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 8 except reduce the number of elements of the PRB based on a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) indication; however, R2 discloses reduce the number of elements of the PRB based on a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) indication (paragraphs 40-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify ‘053 to reduce the number of elements of the PRB based on a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) indication taught by R2. The rationale to combine would be to use a known technique in a similar device, to allow for channel configuration, to decrease overhead, and design choice.
For claim 35, ‘053 discloses the limitations in claims 1,6, and 8.
For claim 36, ‘053 discloses the limitations in claims 1, 8, and 13.
For claim 37, ‘053 discloses the limitations in claims 1-6 and 8.
For claim 38, ‘053 discloses the limitations in claims 1-5 and 8.
For claim 39, ‘053 discloses the limitations in claims 1-5 and 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: For the claims, if the Double Patenting Rejection was overcome with a Terminal Disclaimer, although the closest prior art of record, Lee et al (US 20210127377), discloses determining a TBS for a PSSCH based on overhead, Lee does not appear to disclose “wherein identifying the TBS includes determining a total number of resource elements by subtracting first value related to a number of subcarriers in an OFDM symbol that carry 2nd stage physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) symbols from a second value based, at least in part, on a scheduled bandwidth of the PSSCH transmission “ in combination with the other claimed limitations
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R CROMPTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3678. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-4PM ET M-Th.
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, Asad Nawaz can be reached on (571)272-3988. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CROMPTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights