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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,048,057 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because comparing claims 1 and 11 of the application with claims 1 and 11 of the patent, claims 1 and 11 of the application are anticipated by patent claims 1 and 11 in that claims 1 and 11 of the patent contain all the limitations of claim 1 and 11 of the application. Claims 1 and 11 of the application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,778,687 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because comparing claims 1 and 11 of the application with claims 1 and 11 of the patent, claims 1 and 11 of the application are anticipated by patent claims 1 and 11 in that claims 1 and 11 of the patent contain all the limitations of claim 1 and 11 of the application. Claims 1 and 11 of the application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,064,560 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because comparing claims 1 and 11 of the application with claims 1 and 14 of the patent, claims 1 and 11 of the application are anticipated by patent claims 1 and 14 in that claims 1 and 14 of the patent contain all the limitations of claim 1 and 11 of the application. Claims 1 and 11 of the application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,986,695 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because comparing claims 1 and 11 of the application with claim 1 of the patent, claims 1 and 11 of the application are anticipated by patent claim 1 in that claim 1 of the patent contain all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 of the application. Claims 1 and 11 of the application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art of record, once TDs are filed for US patents 12,048,057 B2, 11,778,687 B2, 11,064,560 B2, 10,986,695 B1.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Applicants have claimed uniquely distinct features in the application, which are not found in the prior art, either singularly or in combination. The independent claims identify the following uniquely distinct features:
V. The primary reason for the allowance of the claims are the inclusion of the limitation in the claims which are not found in the prior art references. The following claim elements “receive cancellation indications, cancel a scheduled transmission based on a first cancellation indication, of the cancellation indications, that: starts at the first starting position within the bit sequence when the scheduled transmission is for a normal carrier, and starts at the second starting position within the bit sequence when the scheduled transmission is for a supplementary carrier.” together with the other elements are the reasons for allowance.
1. Regarding claim 1 – A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a wireless device to: receive configuration parameters comprising: a first starting position indicating a first bit number of a bit sequence, and a second starting position indicating a second bit number of the bit sequence, wherein the first bit number and the second bit number are based on a payload size, receive cancellation indications, cancel a scheduled transmission based on a first cancellation indication, of the cancellation indications, that: starts at the first starting position within the bit sequence when the scheduled transmission is for a normal carrier, and starts at the second starting position within the bit sequence when the scheduled transmission is for a supplementary carrier.
2. Regarding claim 11 – 11. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a base station to: transmit configuration parameters comprising: a first starting position indicating a first bit number of a bit sequence, and a second starting position indicating a second bit number of the bit sequence, wherein the first bit number and the second bit number are based on a payload size, transmit cancellation indications comprising a first cancellation indication, and wherein the first cancellation indication: indicates cancellation of a scheduled transmission, starts at the first starting position within the bit sequence when the scheduled transmission is for a normal carrier, and starts at the second starting position within the bit sequence when the scheduled transmission is for a supplementary carrier.
The closest prior art, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the above limitations obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Cirik et al. (US 11,950,279 B2) discloses communication channel failure detection and recovery.
2. Hosseini et al. (US 11,805,528 B2) communication preemption applicability techniques
3. Fakoorian et al. (US 11,419,123 B2) discloses uplink transmission cancellation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Pezzlo whose telephone number is (571) 272-3090. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayman A. Abaza, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-0422. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form .
John Pezzlo
5 August 2026
/John Pezzlo/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465B
Prosecution Insights