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 .
This Office Action is a response to communications dated 03/27/2024. Claims 6-10 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 03/27/2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been considered and placed in the application file.
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 6-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-13 of copending Application No. 18/706,394 in view of Lee et al. (US 11,902,974) (hereinafter “Lee”).
Instant Application Claim 6 Claims
‘394 Application Claim 7 Claims
A terminal comprising:
A terminal comprising:
a receiver that receives downlink control information (DCI) scrambled by a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) which is common to a plurality of terminals, in a multicast/broadcast service (MBS) for performing data delivering to the plurality of terminals; and
a receiver that receives downlink control information (DCI) scrambled by an RNTI, which is common to a plurality of terminals including the terminal in a multicast/broadcast service (MBS) for data delivering to the plurality of terminals; and
a processor that determines a size of a first field among fields included in the downlink control information based on a higher layer parameter for the multicast/broadcast service; wherein the downlink control information includes a frequency domain resource assignment field different from the first field.
a processor that determines a size of a Downlink Assignment Index (DAI) field included in the DCI based on a higher layer parameter, wherein a setting of the higher layer parameter is common to the plurality of terminals.
From the above claim comparison, one can see that claim 7 of the ‘394 application anticipates all recitations of claim 6 of the instant application. Alternatively, claims 6 of the instant application claims variously and essentially similar limitations as those in claim 7 of the ‘394 application. Nevertheless, there is a mere difference between the claims depicted in the bolded words. Such difference appears to be using different parameter in DCI format 1_1 in the claims of both applications. For instant frequency domain resource assignment field in the instant application and downlink assignment index in the ‘394 application. It is deemed obvious to those skilled in the art of claim drafting to draft claims in copending applications using different parameters. A motivation for doing so would be to seek a well-rounded protection for a disclose invention.
To satisfy the 103-paragraph rejection, let’s say claim 7 of the ‘394 application fails to explicitly teach the claim limitation of “first field among fields included in the downlink control information based on a higher layer parameter for the multicast/broadcast service; wherein the downlink control information includes a frequency domain resource assignment field different from the first field.” Nevertheless, such limitation lacks thereof from claim 7 of the ‘394 application appears to be well-known in the art and taught by Lee.
In an analogous art in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches method and apparatus for transmitting/receiving a wireless signal (Lee; col. 1, lines 16-17) comprising, among other things, the limitations of “first field among fields included in the downlink control information based on a higher layer parameter for the multicast/broadcast service; wherein the downlink control information includes a frequency domain resource assignment field different from the first field” (Lee, col. 15, line 55 to col. 16, line 27; specifically TABLE 5 depicts the “DCI information for C-RNTI based MCCH/MTCH TB scheduling” to include Frequency domain resource assignment.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Lee’s teaching into claim 7 of the ‘394 patent to arrive the claim invention. A motivation for doing so would be to overcome shortfalls of existing art in providing a method of efficiently performing wireless signal transmission/reception (Lee, col. 1, lines 40-48).
The dependent claim 7 is included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Specifically, the claim is deemed obvious over the independent claim 7 of '394 application in view of Lee’s TABLE 5 disclosed on pages 15-16 for the same rationale as applied to their parent claim as above discussed.
As per claims 8-10, the claims are deemed obvious over claims 11-13 of the ‘394 application in view of Lee for the same rationale applied to claim 6 as above discussed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee.
Regarding claim 6, in accordance with Lee reference entirety, Lee discloses a terminal (FIG. 12; 100 or 200 and col. 14, line 32 to col. 16, line 27) comprising:
a receiver (FIG. 12; 106 or 206) that receives downlink control information (DCI) scrambled by a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) (G-RNTI) which is common to a plurality of terminals, in a multicast/broadcast service (MBS)(MBMS service data) for performing data delivering to the plurality of terminals (col. 15, lines 6-32: “… the UE … receives the DCI in which the CRC is scrambled with the G-RNTI mapped to the service. The UE receives the PDSCH transmission indicated by the DCI and receives the MBMS service data … .”); and
a processor (FIG. 12; 102 or 202) that determines a size of a first field among fields included in the downlink control information based on a higher layer parameter for the multicast/broadcast service (col. 15, line 44 to col. 16, line 10: “When the DCI includes the MBMS indicator, the UE determines the TB decoded from the PDSCH indicated by the DCI as the MCCH/MTCH TB … The MBMS indicator may be subdivided into an MCCH indicator indicating MCCH TM, and an MTCH indicator indicating MTCH TB. Alternatively, a specific DCI code point mapped to a service ID such as TMGI or G-RNTI may be used as the MBMS indicator. Alternatively, a specific DCI format identifier may be used as the MBMS indicator”); wherein the downlink control information includes a frequency domain resource assignment field different from the first field (pages 15-16 and TABLE 5 depicts DCI information for C-RNTI based MCCH/MTCH TB scheduling to include Frequency domain resource assignment).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to features recited in base claim 6 (see rationale discussed above), Lee also discloses wherein the first field is one or more fields selected from a mapping field from a virtual resource block to a physical resource block, a physical resource block bundling size indicator field, a rate matching field, a zero power channel state information reference signal trigger field, a priority indicator field, a transmission configuration indication field, and a feedback timing indicator field from a physical downlink shared channel to an acknowledgement feedback (pages 15-16 and TABLE 5 depicts DCI information for C-RNTI based MCCH/MTCH TB scheduling to include most of the fields recited in the claim. It is noted that the claim is drafted in an alternative format not requiring all recitations but one of the recitations).
Regarding claim 8, in accordance with Lee reference entirety, Lee discloses a base station (FIG. 11; 200 or FIG. 12; 100 or 200 and col. 12, line 42 to col. 14, line 31) comprising:
a first transmitter (FIG. 12; 106 or 202) that transmits downlink control information (DCI) scrambled by a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) which is common to a plurality of terminals, in a multicast/broadcast service (MBS) for performing data delivering to the plurality of terminals (col. 14, lines 45-60: “… the BS may determine the number of UEs to receive a specific service or G-RNTI-based transmission based on information reported by the UEs … The bs may transmit … DCI in which CRC is scrambled with the C-RNTI of a specific UE … .); and
a second transmitter (FIG. 12; 106 or 206) that transmits a higher layer parameter for the multicast/broadcast service, the higher layer parameter being used for determining a size of a first field among fields included in the downlink control information (col. 14, line 60 to col. 15, line 5: "Upon receiving the DCI, the UE may receive the MTCH TB on the PDSCH indicated by the DCI. In this case, the DCI may include an indicator indicating that the data is MBMS data rather than UE dedicated data on the PDSCH. For example, in the case of MCCH TB, an MCCH indicator may be included. In the case of MTCH TB, an MTCH indicator may be included. Alternatively, the MCCH TB and the MTCH TB received based on the C-RNTI may include an MCCH indicator or an MTCH indicator in the MAC header. Accordingly, the UE may determine whether the TB is a DCCH/ DTCH TB or an MCCH/MTCH TB based on the indicator in the DCI/MAC header");
wherein the downlink control information includes a frequency domain resource assignment field different from the first field (pages 15-16 and TABLE 5 depicts DCI information for C-RNTI based MCCH/MTCH TB scheduling to include Frequency domain resource assignment).
Regarding claim 9, in accordance with Lee reference entirety, Lee discloses a radio communication system (FIG. 12) comprising:
a terminal (FIG. 12; 100); and
a base station (FIG. 12; 200); wherein
the base station (FIG. 12; 200) comprises a transmitter that transmits downlink control information (DCI) scrambled by a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) which is common to a plurality of terminals, in a multicast/broadcast service (MBS) for performing data delivering to the plurality of terminals (col. 14, lines 45-60: “… the BS may determine the number of UEs to receive a specific service or G-RNTI-based transmission based on information reported by the UEs … The bs may transmit … DCI in which CRC is scrambled with the C-RNTI of a specific UE … .),
the terminal (FIG. 12; 100) comprises a processor that determines a size of a first field among fields included in the downlink control information based on a higher layer parameter for the multicast/broadcast service (col. 15, line 44 to col. 16, line 10: “When the DCI includes the MBMS indicator, the UE determines the TB decoded from the PDSCH indicated by the DCI as the MCCH/MTCH TB … The MBMS indicator may be subdivided into an MCCH indicator indicating MCCH TM, and an MTCH indicator indicating MTCH TB. Alternatively, a specific DCI code point mapped to a service ID such as TMGI or G-RNTI may be used as the MBMS indicator. Alternatively, a specific DCI format identifier may be used as the MBMS indicator”); and the downlink control information includes a frequency domain resource assignment field different from the first field (pages 15-16 and TABLE 5 depicts DCI information for C-RNTI based MCCH/MTCH TB scheduling to include Frequency domain resource assignment).
As per claim 10, the claim appears to call for a method having limitations variously and essentially mirrored functional limitations of apparatus claim 6. Thus, it is anticipated by Lee for the same rationales applied to apparatus claim 6 as above discussed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Babaei (US 2023/0371046).
Oh et al. (US 2022/0110148).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3164. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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, MICHAEL THIER can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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.
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
/FRANK DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 March 10, 2026