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
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 1-3, 5, 6, 8-13, 15, 16, 18, 19 of U.S. Patent No. US 11671965 B2 in view of US 20200099479 A1 to Park; Kyujin
Claim(s) 1 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of and/or is substantively similar to claim 1 of the patent. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, instant claim 1 differs from the patent claims in that the wireless device further receives an indication of a sidelink resource pool comprising the first and second feedback radio resources from which to be selected. However, attention is given to Park, which prior to the effective filing date of the instant application discloses (0008) a UE receiving configuration information on a sidelink feedback channel (a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH)) resource pool, determining a PSFCH resource for transmitting HARQ feedback information within the PSFCH resource pool, and transmitting the HARQ feedback information using the PSFCH resource. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the instant application to have provided a UE with a resource pool configuration so that the UE would be able to select the appropriate resources for a HARQ feedback.
Claim 2 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 2
Claim 3 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 3
Claim 4 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 5
Claim 5 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 6
Claim 6 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 8
Claim 7 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 9
Claim 8 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 10
Claim(s) 9 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of and/or is substantively similar to claim 11 of the patent. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, instant claim 9 differs from the patent claims in that the wireless device further receives an indication of a sidelink resource pool comprising the first and second feedback radio resources from which to be selected. However, attention is given to Park, which prior to the effective filing date of the instant application discloses (0008) a UE receiving configuration information on a sidelink feedback channel (a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH)) resource pool, determining a PSFCH resource for transmitting HARQ feedback information within the PSFCH resource pool, and transmitting the HARQ feedback information using the PSFCH resource. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the instant application to have provided a UE with a resource pool configuration so that the UE would be able to select the appropriate resources for a HARQ feedback.
Claim 10 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 12
Claim 11 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 13
Claim 12 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 15
Claim 13 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 16
Claim 14 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 18
Claim 15 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 19
Claim(s) 16 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of and/or is substantively similar to claim 1 of the patent. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, instant claim 16 differs from the patent claims in that the wireless device further receives an indication of a sidelink resource pool comprising the first and second feedback radio resources from which to be selected. However, attention is given to Park, which prior to the effective filing date of the instant application discloses (0008) a UE receiving configuration information on a sidelink feedback channel (a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH)) resource pool, determining a PSFCH resource for transmitting HARQ feedback information within the PSFCH resource pool, and transmitting the HARQ feedback information using the PSFCH resource. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the instant application to have provided a UE with a resource pool configuration so that the UE would be able to select the appropriate resources for a HARQ feedback. Further differences between the instant claim and that of the patent merely amount to being directed to a different statutory class. However, the Examiner points out that it would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the patent to have understood that an invention directed to a particular statutory class would be equally applicable to another statutory class, and that doing so would involve no further inventive step and/or undue experimentation to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 17 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 2
Claim 18 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 3
Claim 19 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 5
Claim 20 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 6
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12063651 B2 in view of US 20200099479 A1 to Park; Kyujin
Claim(s) 1 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of and/or is substantively similar to claim(s) 1 of the patent. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, instant claim 1 differs from the patent claims in that the wireless device further receives an indication of a sidelink resource pool comprising the first and second feedback radio resources from which to be selected. However, attention is given to Park, which prior to the effective filing date of the instant application discloses (0008) a UE receiving configuration information on a sidelink feedback channel (a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH)) resource pool, determining a PSFCH resource for transmitting HARQ feedback information within the PSFCH resource pool, and transmitting the HARQ feedback information using the PSFCH resource. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the instant application to have provided a UE with a resource pool configuration so that the UE would be able to select the appropriate resources for a HARQ feedback.
Claim 2 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 2
Claim 3 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 3
Claim 4 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 4
Claim 5 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 5
Claim 6 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 6
Claim 7 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 7
Claim 8 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 8
Claim(s) 9 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of and/or is substantively similar to claim(s) 9 of the patent. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, instant claim 9 differs from the patent claims in that the wireless device further receives an indication of a sidelink resource pool comprising the first and second feedback radio resources from which to be selected. However, attention is given to Park, which prior to the effective filing date of the instant application discloses (0008) a UE receiving configuration information on a sidelink feedback channel (a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH)) resource pool, determining a PSFCH resource for transmitting HARQ feedback information within the PSFCH resource pool, and transmitting the HARQ feedback information using the PSFCH resource. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the instant application to have provided a UE with a resource pool configuration so that the UE would be able to select the appropriate resources for a HARQ feedback.
Claim 10 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 10
Claim 11 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 11
Claim 12 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 12
Claim 13 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 13
Claim 14 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 14
Claim 15 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 15
Claim(s) 16 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of and/or is substantively similar to claim(s) 16 of the patent. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, instant claim 16 differs from the patent claims in that the wireless device further receives an indication of a sidelink resource pool comprising the first and second feedback radio resources from which to be selected. However, attention is given to Park, which prior to the effective filing date of the instant application discloses (0008) a UE receiving configuration information on a sidelink feedback channel (a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH)) resource pool, determining a PSFCH resource for transmitting HARQ feedback information within the PSFCH resource pool, and transmitting the HARQ feedback information using the PSFCH resource. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the instant application to have provided a UE with a resource pool configuration so that the UE would be able to select the appropriate resources for a HARQ feedback.
Claim 17 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 17
Claim 18 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 18
Claim 19 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 19
Claim 20 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 20
Conclusion
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