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 .
Specification
The applicant is requested to update the status of related application on page 1 of the specification. Application No. 16/898,817 is now US Patent No. 12,082,201.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, line 1, it is suggested to replace “thefirst-stage DCI” with “the first-stage DCI”.
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 1-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-6, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,082,201. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claims 1, 10, and 19 have the same feature as claims 1 of 12,082,201 has except that the features “indicating an absence…” and “an unsuccessful decoding…” are removed from the independent claim of 12,082,201. Other features claimed in dependent claims are described in independent and/or dependent claims of 12,082,201. Claims 1-27 are, therefore, obvious in view of claims 1-2, 4-6, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,082,201.
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, 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 1-8, 10-17, and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayasinghe et al (2019/0312679) in view of Takeda et al (2021/0204308).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19, Jayasinghe discloses a wireless device and a method comprising: receiving, by a wireless device, one or more radio resource control messages indicating one or more configuration parameters for multi-stage downlink control information (DCI) (see DCI is sent to the user device as multi-stage DCI or a segmented DCI in paragraph 0034); receiving first-stage DCI of the multi-stage DCI, wherein the first-stage DCI comprises an indication of allocated resources (see the first stage or DCI segment 1 in paragraph 0058; a first information word that includes a first downlink control information segment of a segmented downlink control information and a pointer to a second resource to receive a second information word including a second downlink control information segment of the segmented downlink control information in paragraph 0039); receiving, by the wireless device and via the allocated resources, data (see receiving and/or transmitting data in paragraph 0057); Jayasinghe further discloses that if the attempting to decode is unsuccessful, making an assumption of a non-segmented downlink control information (see paragraph 0007). This means that no transmission of feedback (skip a scheduled transmission) is needed for the second segment because no second segment is received. Takeda discloses The user terminal does not have to feed back the HARQ-ACK (ACK and NACK) for the PDSCH. Alternatively, the user terminal may feed back only the ACK for the PDSCH (see paragraphs 0115). The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20, Takeda discloses the scheduled transmission comprises hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) feedback associated with the data (see HARQ-ACK in paragraph 0110).
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 21, Takeda discloses the scheduled transmission comprises a sounding reference signal (see sounding reference signal (SRS) in paragraph 0172).
Regarding claims 4, 13, and 22, Takeda discloses the scheduled transmission comprises channel state information (CSI) feedback associated with the multi-stage DCI (see channel state information (CSI in paragraphs 0199; a two-stage DCI including the first and second DCIs in paragraph 0214).
Regarding claims 5, 14, and 23, Jayasinghe discloses a search space associated with the multi-stage DCI (see the search space for DCI in paragraphs 0062) and Takeda discloses a default behavior associated with skipping the scheduled transmission (see behavior and default operation in paragraphs 0116-0118).
Regarding claims 6, 15, and 24, Jayasinghe discloses the allocated resources comprise at least one of: a downlink resource for a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) (see PDSCH resource in paragraph 0059); or a resource for a sidelink.
Regarding claims 7, 16, and 25, Jayasinghe discloses the first-stage DCI indicates at least one resource for second-stage DCI of the multi-stage DCI (see a first downlink control information segment and a pointer to a second downlink control information segment of a segmented downlink control information in paragraph 0006).
Regarding claims 8, 17, and 26, Jayasinghe discloses the first-stage DCI comprises information associated with second-stage DCI of the multi-stage DCI, and wherein the determining to skip the scheduled transmission is based on the information associated with the second-stage DCI (see a pointer to a second downlink control information segment in step 410 and if the attempting to decode is unsuccessful, making an assumption of a non-segmented down link control information in step 430 of figure 4).
Claims 9, 18, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayasinghe in view of Takeda as applied to claims 1, 10, and 19 above, and further in view of Guo et al (2019/0297603).
Regarding claims 9, 18, and 27, Jayasinghe doesn't specifically disclose the first-stage DCI indicates an absence of second-stage DCI of the multi-stage DCI. However, Guo discloses this feature (see the first level DCI, DCI.sub.1, can include a B-bit field addtionalCW to indicate the absence or presence of second level DC in paragraph 0124). The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3084. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at 571-270-3770. 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.
/BRIAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights