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
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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,943,155. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of Patent No. 11,943,155 contains every elements of claims 1-3 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8, 9 and 11-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,973,704. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 1-6, 8, 9 and 11-17 of Patent No. 11,973,704 contain every elements of claims 1-20 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-5, 13-15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al (US 2021/0321443, “Takeda”, support in provisional application No. 63/008437) in view of Huang et al (US 2021/0204255, “Huang”).
Re claims 1 and 3, Takeda discloses scheduling a first downlink channel for at least a cell (PCell) of a set of cells and a second downlink channel each for at least a cell (SCell) of the set of cells based on a downlink control information (DCI) (figure 4b), but fails to disclose scheduling an uplink channel based on the first downlink channel. However, Huang discloses scheduling an uplink channel based on the first downlink channel (a first acknowledgment for the first downlink channel in claim 3; paragraph [0054]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Takeda with Huang for the benefit of providing reliable data communication by utilizing ack signal.
Re claims 2 and 14, Takeda discloses first downlink channel and second downlink channel are scheduled for different cells (PCell and SCell) of the set of cells (figure 4b).
Re claims 4, 5, 15 and 20, Takeda discloses all of the limitations of the base claim, but fails to disclose the uplink channel is further scheduled for transmitting (claim 15)/ receiving (claim 20) a second acknowledgement of the second downlink channel. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Takeda with Huang to schedule the uplink channel for a second acknowledgement of the second downlink channel (paragraph [0054]) for the benefit of providing reliable data communication by utilizing ack signal.
Re claims 13 and 19, Takeda discloses a device for receiving (figure 11)/transmitting (figure 15) a downlink control information (DC) scheduling a first downlink channel for at least a cell of a set of cells and a second downlink channel for at least a cell of the set of cells; but fails to disclose transmitting/receiving, using an uplink channel, a first acknowledgment for the first downlink channel. However, Huang discloses transmitting/receiving a first acknowledgment for the first downlink channel using an uplink channel (paragraph [0054]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Takeda with Huang for the benefit of providing reliable data communication by utilizing ack signal.
Claims 6-12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Huang and further in view of Gou et al (US 2022/0007404, “Gou”).
Re claims 6-8 and 16, Takeda discloses all of the limitations of the base claim, but fails to disclose determining uplink slot based on at least one of a feedback timing indicator, a time domain resource allocation (TDRA), and a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource indicator (PRI) provided by DCI. However, Gou discloses using uplink slot indicated by PRI in the DCI (paragraph [0113]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Takeda with Gou for the benefit of providing reliable data communication by feeding back ack signal in the uplink slot.
Re claims 9, 10 and 17, the modified system of Takeda discloses uplink slot is determined based on a reference reception (the first downlink channel in claim 10; (paragraph [0113] of Gou).
Re claims 11 and 18, Takeda discloses all of the limitations of the base claim, but fails to disclose uplink slot is determined based, at least in part, on a feedback timing indicator provided in a field of the DCI and a reference reception. Gou discloses determining uplink slot indicated by PRI in the DCI and a reference reception (paragraph [0113]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Takeda with Gou for the benefit of providing reliable data communication by feeding back ack signal in the uplink slot.
Re claim 12, the modified system of Takeda discloses the uplink channel comprises a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) (paragraph [0054] of Huang).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hong Cho whose telephone number is 571-272-3087. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri during 8 am to 4 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 571-272-3940. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HONG S CHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467