DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application filed on 05/29/2026, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Terminal Disclaimer Note
Examiner left a voice mail to Mr. Ryan A. Peddle (Reg. No. 77, 970) to file a terminal disclaimer for this case in order to overcome with a double patenting rejection, but has not received any response.
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, 3-11 and 13-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-14 and 16-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 902, 024 (Stern-Berkowitz et al. hereinafter, “Stern-Berkowitz”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
In response to claim 1,
Stern-Berkowitz teaches a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising:a processor configured to: receive downlink control information (DCI) via a physical downlink control channel transmission in a search space, wherein the DCI comprises an indication of a frequency allocation for a physical downlink shared channel transmission and an indication of one or more symbols allocated for the physical downlink shared channel transmission (claim 1, paragraph 1 teaches this limitation),
wherein the DCI further indicates a subcarrier spacing to be used for applicable to the physical downlink shared channel transmission (claim 1, paragraphs 1 and 2 teaches this limitation); and
receive the physical downlink shared channel transmission in a bandwidth according to the subcarrier spacing indicated by the DCI (claim 1, paragraph 3 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 3,
Stern-Berkowitz teaches wherein being configured to monitor for the physical downlink control channel transmission comprises being configured to monitor the first search space beginning with a first starting symbol for a duration of a first number of symbols (claim 1, paragraph 1 and claim 7, paragraph 1 teaches together this limitation);or monitor the second search space beginning with a second starting symbol for a duration of a second number of symbols (claim 1, paragraph 1 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 4,
Stern-Berkowitz teaches wherein the first starting symbol comprises a first orthogonal frequency division multiplexing symbol and the second starting symbol comprises a second orthogonal frequency division multiplexing symbol (claim 6, paragraph 1, using one or more multiplexing symbols teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 5,
Stern-Berkowitz teaches wherein the first search space is associated with a common search space, and the second search space is associated with a WTRU-specific search space (claim 9, paragraph 1 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 6,
Stern-Berkowitz teaches wherein the physical downlink shared channel transmission begins at a starting time that is determined based on the DCI (claim 2, paragraph 1 teaches this limitation), and
wherein a length of the physical downlink shared channel transmission is determined based on the DCI (claim 3, paragraph 1 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 7,
Stern-Berkowitz teaches wherein the processor is further configured to receive configuration information associated with the search space, wherein the configuration information indicates a starting symbol associated with the search space and a number of symbols associated with first search space (claim 7, paragraph 1 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 8,
Stern-Berkowitz teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine a time at which the physical downlink shared channel transmission starts based on the DCI (claim 4, paragraph 1 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 9,
Stern-Berkowitz teaches wherein the first search space is associated with a first traffic type and the second search space is associated with a second traffic type (claims 7 and 8 together teach this limitation).
In response to claim 10,
Stern-Berkowitz teaches wherein the one or more symbols allocated for the physical downlink shared channel transmission comprises one or more orthogonal frequency division multiplexing symbols (claim 1, paragraph 1 and claim 6, paragraph 1 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 11,
Stern-Berkowitz teaches a method performed by a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising:receiving downlink control information (DCI) via a physical downlink control channel transmission in a search space, wherein the DCI comprises an indication of a frequency allocation for a physical downlink shared channel transmission and an indication of one or more symbols allocated for the physical downlink shared channel transmission (claim 11,paragraph 1 teaches this limitation),
wherein the physical downlink shared channel transmission is comprised in a portion of a system bandwidth (claim 11, paragraph 1 teaches this limitation);
DCI further indicates a subcarrier spacing applicable to the physical downlink shared channel transmission in (claim 11, paragraph 12 teaches this limitation) ; and
receiving the physical downlink shared channel transmission a bandwidth according to the subcarrier spacing indicated by the DCI (claim 11, paragraph 3 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 13,
Stern-Berkowitz teaches wherein monitoring for the physical downlink control channel transmission comprises monitoring the first search space beginning with a first starting symbol for a duration of a first number of symbols or monitoring the second search space beginning with a second starting symbol for a duration of a second number of symbols (claims 17 and 18 together teach this limitation).
In response to claim 14,
Stern-Berkowitz teaches wherein the first starting symbol comprises a first orthogonal frequency division multiplexing symbol and the second starting symbol comprises a second orthogonal frequency division multiplexing symbol (claim 16, paragraph 1, using one or more multiplexing symbols teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 15,
Stern-Berkowitz teaches wherein the first search space is associated with a common search space, and the second search space is associated with a WTRU-specific search space (claim 19, paragraph 1 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 16,
Stern-Berkowitz teaches wherein the physical downlink shared channel transmission begins at a starting time that is determined based on the DCI (claim 12 teaches this limitation), and wherein a length of the physical downlink shared channel transmission is determined based on the DCI (claim 13 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 17,
Stern-Berkowitz teaches further comprising receiving configuration information associated with the search space, wherein the configuration information indicates a starting symbol associated with the search space and a number of symbols associated with first search space (claim 17 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 18,
Stern-Berkowitz teaches further comprising determining a time at which the physical downlink shared channel transmission starts based on the DCI (claim 14 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 19,
Stern-Berkowitz teaches wherein the first search space is associated with a first traffic type and the second search space is associated with a second traffic type (claims 17 and 18 teach this limitation).
In response to claim 20,
Stern-Berkowitz teaches wherein the one or more symbols allocated for the physical downlink shared channel transmission comprises one or more orthogonal frequency division multiplexing symbols (claim 16 teaches this limitation).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-14 and 16-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 902, 024 (Stern-Berkowitz et al. hereinafter, “Stern-Berkowitz”) in view of KIM et al. (hereinafter, “KIM”; 20170303215).
In response to claim 2 and 12
Stern-Berkowitz does not teach claims 2 and 12.
Kim in view of Stern-Berkowitz teach wherein the search space is a first search space, and wherein the processor is further configured to monitor for the physical downlink control channel transmission in at least one of the first search space or a second search space (paragraph 160,monitoringa search space of a PDCCH during a cross carrier scheduling interpreted to teach this limitation).
It would have been obvious within the scope of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stern-Berkowitz for using a search space is a first search space, and wherein the processor is further configured to monitor for the physical downlink control channel transmission in at least one of the first search space or a second search space as taught by KIM because it would reduce transmission power during an overlapping between two subframes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20170245313………….paragraph 260.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABUSAYEED HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-7252. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -7:30 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/ABUSAYEED M HAQUE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights