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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7/26/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Note: Lacks a place for Examiner initials.
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12082207. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
For claim 1, ‘207 discloses the limitations in claim 1 and 3.
For claims 2, 9, and 16, ‘207 discloses the limitations in claims 1 and 3.
For claims 3 and 10, ‘207 discloses the limitations in claim 1, except for the SCI comprises a frequency assignment field. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of the SCI comprises a frequency assignment field. was common and well known in the art prior to the effective filing date. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the previous combination to use the SCI comprises a frequency assignment field. The technical reasoning to combine would be to use a commonly used field standard, to increase efficiency, and design choice.
For claims 4, 11, and 17, ‘207 discloses the limitations in claims 1 and 3.
For claims 5, 12, and 18, ‘207 discloses the limitations in claims 1, 4, 8, and 9, except for explicitly stating the RRC message indicates that the PSCCH transmission corresponds to a unicast transmission. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of wherein the RRC message indicates that the PSCCH transmission corresponds to a unicast transmission was common and well known in the art prior to the effective filing date. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify ‘207 to use wherein the RRC message indicates that the PSCCH transmission corresponds to a unicast transmission. The technical reasoning to combine would be to use a commonly used field standard, to increase efficiency, and design choice.
For claims 6, 13, and 19, ‘207 discloses the limitations in claims 1, 7, and 12, except for the configuration information indicates respective frequency information for each of the plurality of PUCCH resources. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of the configuration information indicates respective frequency information for each of the plurality of PUCCH resources was common and well known in the art prior to the effective filing date. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify ‘207 to use the configuration information indicates respective frequency information for each of the plurality of PUCCH resources. The technical reasoning to combine would be to use a commonly used field standard, to increase efficiency, and design choice.
For claims 7, 14, and 20, ‘207 discloses the limitations in claims 1, 3, 7, and 12.
For claim 8, ‘207 discloses the limitations in claim 1, 3, 7.
For claim 15, ‘207 discloses the limitations in claims 1, 3, 7, and 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: If The closest prior art of record, Wang et al (US 2020/0068609) discloses sidelink communications and feedback, but does not appear to disclose “receive a radio resource control (RRC) message, the RRC message comprising an indication of a sidelink radio network temporary identifier (SL-RNTI); receive downlink control information (DCI) from a base station using the SL-RNTI” in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Park et al (US 2019/0230685) discloses DCI resource pool scheduling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R CROMPTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3678. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-4PM ET M-Th.
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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at (571)272-3988. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CROMPTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights