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 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,088,403. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions are drawn to a mobile terminal and method that indicates to a base station that the terminal supports disabled Hybrid Automatic Retransmission Request (HARQ) feedback for downlink communication.
Claim Analysis:
Claims 14 and 19 of the present application correspond with claims 1, 2, 5 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,088,403.
Claim 15 of the present application corresponds with claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,088,403.
Claim 16 of the present application corresponds with claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,088,403.
Claims 17 and 18 of the present application correspond with claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,088,403.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-19 would be allowable once the double patenting rejection has been overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Zhou et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0062724 teaches a mobile device that receives a SIB1 that contains relevant information that determines if the mobile device is allowed to access a cell and also discusses HARQ feedback being disabled. However, Zhou, taken individually or collectively, fails to suggest or render obvious a method and apparatus as claimed as a whole, receiving by the terminal a Transport Block (TB), wherein the TB is allocated to a HARQ process, wherein HARQ feedback for the TB is generated in case that the HARQ feedback is disabled for the HARQ process and the TB is based on a specific downlink assignment, and wherein HARQ feedback for the TB is not generated in case that the HARQ feedback is disabled for the HARQ process and the TB is not based on the specific downlink assignment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jeon et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0097762 discloses HARQ feedback for grant-free transmission.
Jung et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0092779 discloses a method and apparatus for reporting selected PLMN of RRC-Inactive mode in a next-generation communication system.
Zhou et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0062724 discloses HARQ feedback of multicast and broadcast services.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEMICA M. BEAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-7797. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 3:00 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, Matthew D. Anderson can be reached at 571-272-4177. 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.
/TEMICA M BEAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights