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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the Applicant’s Response, Applicant: “As amended, claim 21 is now directed primarily to the determination of time and frequency resources (that is the core of original claims as filed). The determination of the HARQ process is not a separate, distinct act, but rather an input upon which the resource determination is based. As taught in the specification, an efficient resource allocation scheme for D2D communications, which involves retransmissions, must inherently account for the HARQ process to be effective. See e.g., Current Application, paragraphs [0225]-[0226] reproduced below for Examiner's convenince.“.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. The original claims 1-20 are directed towards resource allocation of a D2D transmission. While newly added claims 21-40 are directed towards HARQ configuration of a D2D communication. Each set of claims are patentably distinct species. Both sets of claims disclose determining resources; however, the original claims determine resources from a pool through energy sensing, and the newly added claims use a mapping of resources to the HARQ process number which is mapped to D2D links, i.e. source, destination, where the source and destination IDs are provided in the control information. In other words, resource allocation is common to both set of claims, but the methods of determining the resource allocation are distinct.
The general policy of the Office is that applicants are not permitted to shift examination of claims that are distinct from the claims previously claimed and examined. A review of the claims in this application reveals examination of newly added distinct claims 21-40 results in significant search and examination burden. See MPEP 808.02 and 819. Therefore, Applicant is advised to file a continuing application.
In view of the above discussions the restriction of claims 21-40 still stands.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-40 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The originally submitted claims 1-20 disclose the determining of time and frequency resources to transmit during a transmission period. The newly submitted claims 21-40 disclose determining HARQ process based in source and destination of a D2D communication.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-40 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claim 41 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,979,869. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because.
For claim 41, U.S. Patent No. 11,979,869 discloses: determine time and frequency resources to use for device-to-device communications based on (i) first information indicative of any of an availability of at least some time and frequency resources of a plurality of time and frequency resources and an unavailability of at most some of the plurality of time and frequency resources, (ii) a number of transmission periods within a scheduling period, and (iii) a periodicity of the transmission periods within the scheduling period; transmit second information during a plurality of the transmission periods, wherein the second information indicates the time and frequency resources and a duration of the scheduling period; and transmit data via device-to-device communications during the plurality of the transmission periods using the time and frequency resources (claim 1: determine time and frequency resources to use for device-to-device communications based on (i) first information indicative of any of an availability of at least some time and frequency resources of a plurality of time and frequency resources and an unavailability of at most some of the plurality of time and frequency resources, (ii) a number of transmission periods within a scheduling period, and (iii) a periodicity of the transmission periods within the scheduling period; transmit second information during a plurality of the transmission periods, wherein the second information indicates the time and frequency resources and a duration of the scheduling period; and transmit data via device-to-device communications during the plurality of the transmission periods using the time and frequency resources).
Claim 41 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,462,802. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because.
For claim 41, U.S. Patent No. 10,462,802 discloses: determine time and frequency resources to use for device-to-device communications based on (i) first information indicative of any of an availability of at least some time and frequency resources of a plurality of time and frequency resources and an unavailability of at most some of the plurality of time and frequency resources, (ii) a number of transmission periods within a scheduling period, and (iii) a periodicity of the transmission periods within the scheduling period; transmit second information during a plurality of the transmission periods, wherein the second information indicates the time and frequency resources and a duration of the scheduling period; and transmit data via device-to-device communications during the plurality of the transmission periods using the time and frequency resources (claim 1: determine whether the first WTRU has D2D data to transmit to a second WTRU; and on a condition that the first WTRU has D2D data to transmit to the second WTRU: autonomously select a subset of scheduling assignment (SA) resources for transmission of an SA to the second WTRU from a pre-configured set of allowed SA resources, transmit the SA to the second WTRU according to a first transmission period using the autonomously selected subset of SA resources; determine a set of allowed device-to-device (D2D) data resources for D2D data transmission to the second WTRU, autonomously select one or more transmission patterns for D2D data transmission to the second WTRU, autonomously select one or more transmission parameters for D2D data transmission to the second WTRU, and transmit D2D data to the second WTRU over the set of allowed D2D data resources according to a second transmission period using the autonomously selected one or more transmission patterns, and according to the autonomously selected one or more transmission parameters) (claim 3: wherein a transmission pattern comprises a time pattern) (claim 9: wherein the set of allowed D2D data resources for D2D data transmission to the second WTRU or the set of allowed SA resources for transmission of an SA to the second WTRU are pre-configured).
Claim 41 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,277,849. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because.
For claim 41, U.S. Patent No. 11,277,849 discloses: determine time and frequency resources to use for device-to-device communications based on (i) first information indicative of any of an availability of at least some time and frequency resources of a plurality of time and frequency resources and an unavailability of at most some of the plurality of time and frequency resources, (ii) a number of transmission periods within a scheduling period, and (iii) a periodicity of the transmission periods within the scheduling period; transmit second information during a plurality of the transmission periods, wherein the second information indicates the time and frequency resources and a duration of the scheduling period; and transmit data via device-to-device communications during the plurality of the transmission periods using the time and frequency resources (claim 1: determine, for an upcoming scheduling period, a transmission period resource and a periodicity for the transmission period resource to use for transmissions during a plurality of transmission periods within the scheduling period; transmit a scheduling assignment transmission indicating the transmission period resource, wherein the scheduling assignment transmission is transmitted during any one or more transmission periods of the plurality of transmission periods in which the WTRU has data to transmit via device-to-device communications; and transmit data via a device-to-device communications using the transmission period resource, wherein the data is transmitted during any one or more transmission periods of the plurality of transmission periods in which the scheduling assignment transmission indicating the transmission period resource is transmitted) (claim 2: receive one or more transmissions of one or more prior transmission periods to determine which resources are available, and wherein the circuitry is configured to determine the transmission period resource and the periodicity for the transmission period resource for the upcoming scheduling period based on the resources determined to be available) (claim 10: wherein each of the plurality of transmission periods defines a set of N successive time resources, and wherein the transmission period resource is subset of the set of N successive time resources).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ko et al. (US 2015/0092689); Ko discloses D2D scheduling of resources. Yilmaz et al. (US 2016/0143052); Yilmaz discloses D2D scheduling of discontinuous reception and restricted periods.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D BLANTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3933. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-6pm EST, Mon-Thu.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/JOHN D BLANTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights