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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the double patenting rejections corresponding to the following patents:
US 12058699 B2
US 10588120 B2
US 11219009 B2
However, the Examiner notes that upon further review of new claims 11-30, double patenting rejections corresponding to patents US 10555291 B2 and US 11729791 B2 still apply. See new grounds for the double patenting rejection below.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 13-15, 18-20, 23-25, and 28 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to the claim(s), the prior art of record fails to disclose singly or in combination or render obvious all the limitations of the claim(s).
The closest prior art relating to Applicant' s claimed invention is:
US 20180132137 A1 Dai; Bo et al.
US 20130064215 A1 Gao; Shiwei et al.
US 20130242904 A1 Sartori; Philippe et al.
Dai discloses a resource use method, device and system. The method comprises: a transmission node dynamically changes, according to information detected on a current carrier the size of a resource corresponding to the carrier, and uses the changed carrier to perform data transmission. The present invention solves the problem of lowness of spectrum resource utilization rate, and increases the spectrum utilization rate.
Gao discloses communication in a wireless telecommunications network. The method comprises transmitting an extended physical downlink control channel to a user equipment using transmit diversity from at least one demodulation reference signal port.
Sartori discloses that encoded control information can be mapped to an enhanced physical downlink control channel (ePDCCH) search space of a user equipment (UE) in accordance with an offset and aggregation level. The ePDCCH search space may include a physical resource block (PRB) set located in a data region of a downlink subframe. The encoded control information may be mapped into one or more enhanced control channel elements (eCCEs) of the ePDCCH search space beginning from a starting location. The starting location is an eCCE location within the PRB set. The PRB set, as well as the starting/eCCE location within the PRB set, are identified in accordance with an offset associated with the UE. A number of eCCEs carrying encoded information corresponds to an aggregation level.
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.”
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 11, 12, 16, 17, 21, 22, 26, 27, 29, 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 22 of U.S. Patent No. US 10555291 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 11 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 3, 4.
Claim 12 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 6.
Claim 16 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1.
Claim 17 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1.
Claim 21 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 8, 10, 11.
Claim 22 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 13.
Claim 26 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 8.
Claim 27 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 8.
Claim 29 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 15.
Claim 30 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 8, 10, 11, 22.
Claims 11, 16, 21, 26, 29, 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6 of U.S. Patent No. US 11729791 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 11 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1.
Claim 16 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1.
Claim 21 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 6.
Claim 26 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 6.
Claim 29 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1.
Claim 30 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 6.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KASHIF SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-3188. The examiner can normally be reached on M-R 6:00 EST to 16:00 EST.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KASHIF SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights