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 .
This Office Action is a response to communications dated 08/08/2024. Claims 1-10 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 08/08/2026 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been considered and placed in the application file.
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 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,467. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following rationales.
Instant Application Claim 1 Claims
‘467 Patent Claim 1 Claims
An integrated circuit for controlling a user equipment, the integrated circuit comprising:
A user equipment comprising:
transceiver circuitry, which, in operation, performs a resource sensing procedure regarding radio resources usable for the user equipment to transmit data via a sidelink interface at a later point in time; and
a transceiver, which, in operation, performs a resource sensing procedure regarding radio resources usable for the user equipment to transmit data via a sidelink interface at a later point in time; and
control circuitry, which, in operation, performs an autonomous radio resource allocation to select, based on a result of the resource sensing procedure during a sensing window, radio resources within a transmission window to be used for transmitting the data;
circuitry, which, in operation, performs an autonomous radio resource allocation to select, based on a result of the resource sensing procedure during a sensing window, radio resources within a transmission window to be used for transmitting the data,
wherein the autonomous radio resource allocation includes selecting radio resources in primary subframes of the transmission window preferably over radio resources in secondary subframes of the transmission window; and
wherein the autonomous radio resource allocation includes selecting radio resources in primary subframes of the transmission window preferably over radio resources in secondary subframes of the transmission window, and
wherein the secondary subframes in the transmission window correspond to those subframes in the sensing window during which the user equipment did not perform the resource sensing procedure, and the primary subframes in the transmission window correspond to those subframes in the sensing window during which the user equipment did perform the resource sensing procedure.
wherein the secondary subframes in the transmission window correspond to those subframes in the sensing window during which the user equipment did not perform the resource sensing procedure, and the primary subframes in the transmission window correspond to those subframes in the sensing window during which the user equipment did perform the resource sensing procedure.
Rationales:
From the above claim comparison, one can see that claim 1 of the ‘467 patent anticipates all recitations of claim 1 of the instant application. Alternatively, claim 1 of the instant application claims variously and essentially similar limitations as those in claim 1 of the ‘467 patent. There is a mere difference between the claims depicted in the bolded words. The difference appears to be using different wording but meaning is the same and it is deemed obvious for those skilled in the art to draft claims in a later-filed patent application from reading claims in an early-filed patent application issued into a patent using different wording but meaning is similar or the same to seek a well-rounded protection for a disclose invention.
The dependent claims 2-10 are included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Specifically, the claims are deemed obvious over dependent claims 2-10 of '467 patent for the same rationale as applied to their parent claim as above discussed.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,540,291. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following rationales.
Instant Application Claim 1 Claims
‘291 Patent Claim 1 Claims
An integrated circuit for controlling a user equipment, the integrated circuit comprising:
An integrated circuit, which is configured to control a process of a transmitting device to transmit data via a sidelink interface to one or more receiving devices, wherein the process includes:
transceiver circuitry, which, in operation, performs a resource sensing procedure regarding radio resources usable for the user equipment to transmit data via a sidelink interface at a later point in time; and
performing a resource sensing procedure to acquire information about radio resources usable by the transmitting device to transmit data at a later point in time, and
control circuitry, which, in operation, performs an autonomous radio resource allocation to select, based on a result of the resource sensing procedure during a sensing window, radio resources within a transmission window to be used for transmitting the data;
after data becomes available for transmission, performing an autonomous radio resource allocation to select radio resources within a transmission window to be used to transmit the data, based on the information acquired in the resource sensing procedure during a sensing window before the data became available for transmission,
wherein the autonomous radio resource allocation includes selecting radio resources in primary subframes of the transmission window preferably over radio resources in secondary subframes of the transmission window; and
wherein the autonomous radio resource allocation includes selecting radio resources in primary subframes of the transmission window preferably over radio resources in secondary subframes of the transmission window, and
wherein the secondary subframes in the transmission window correspond to those subframes in the sensing window during which the user equipment did not perform the resource sensing procedure, and the primary subframes in the transmission window correspond to those subframes in the sensing window during which the user equipment did perform the resource sensing procedure.
wherein the secondary subframes in the transmission window correspond to those subframes in the sensing window during which the transmitting device did not perform the resource sensing procedure, and the primary subframes in the transmission window correspond to those subframes in the sensing window during which the transmitting device did perform the resource sensing procedure.
Rationales:
From the above claim comparison, one can see that claim 1 of the ‘291 patent anticipates all recitations of claim 1 of the instant application. Alternatively, claim 1 of the instant application claims variously and essentially similar limitations as those in claim 1 of the ‘291 patent. There is a mere difference between the claims depicted in the bolded words. The difference appears to be using different wording but meaning is similar or the same. It is deemed obvious for those skilled in the art to draft claims in a later-filed patent application from reading claims in an early-filed patent application issued into a patent using different wording but meaning is similar or the same. A rationale for doing so would be to seek a well-rounded protection for a disclose invention.
The dependent claims 2-10 are included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Specifically, the claims are deemed obvious over dependent claims 2-7of '291 patent for the same rationale as applied to their parent claim as above discussed.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,869,318. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following rationales.
Instant Application Claim 1 Claims
‘318 Patent Claim 1 Claims
An integrated circuit for controlling a user equipment, the integrated circuit comprising:
A transmitting device for determining radio resources to be used for a data transmission from the transmitting device via a sidelink interface to one or more receiving devices, wherein the transmitting device comprises:
transceiver circuitry, which, in operation, performs a resource sensing procedure regarding radio resources usable for the user equipment to transmit data via a sidelink interface at a later point in time; and
a receiver and processor, which in operation, perform a resource sensing procedure so as to acquire information about radio resources usable for the transmitting device to transmit data at a later point in time,
control circuitry, which, in operation, performs an autonomous radio resource allocation to select, based on a result of the resource sensing procedure during a sensing window, radio resources within a transmission window to be used for transmitting the data;
wherein, after data becomes available for transmission, the processor performs an autonomous radio resource allocation to select radio resources within a transmission window to be used for transmitting the data, based on the information acquired by the resource sensing procedure during a sensing window before the data became available for transmission,
wherein the autonomous radio resource allocation includes selecting radio resources in primary subframes of the transmission window preferably over radio resources in secondary subframes of the transmission window; and
wherein the autonomous radio resource allocation comprises selecting radio resources in primary subframes of the transmission window preferably over radio resources in secondary subframes of the transmission window, and
wherein the secondary subframes in the transmission window correspond to those subframes in the sensing window during which the user equipment did not perform the resource sensing procedure, and the primary subframes in the transmission window correspond to those subframes in the sensing window during which the user equipment did perform the resource sensing procedure.
wherein the secondary subframes in the transmission window correspond to those subframes in the sensing window during which the transmitting device did not perform the resource sensing procedure, and the primary subframes in the transmission window correspond to those subframes in the sensing window during which the transmitting device did perform the resource sensing procedure.
Rationales:
From the above claim comparison, one can see that claim 1 of the ‘318 patent anticipates all recitations of claim 1 of the instant application. Alternatively, claim 1 of the instant application claims variously and essentially similar limitations as those in claim 1 of the ‘318 patent. There is a mere difference between the claims depicted in the bolded words. The difference appears to be using different wording but meaning is similar or the same. It is deemed obvious to those skilled in the art of claim drafting to draft claims in a later-filed patent application from reading claims in an early-filed patent application issued into a patent using different wording but meaning is similar or the same. A rationale for doing so would be to seek a well-rounded protection for a disclose invention.
The dependent claims 2-10 are included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Specifically, the claims are deemed obvious over dependent claims 2-11of '318 patent for the same rationale as applied to their parent claim as above discussed.
Allowable Subject Matter
It is noted that claims 1-10 of the instant application claims variously and essentially similar limitations as those in claims 1-10 of the ‘467 patent, claims 1-7 of the ‘291 patent, or claims 1-11 of the ‘318 patent as discussed above. Should a response to this Office Action overcome all of the above raised issues, the instant application shall be placed in a favorable condition for allowance for the same rationales as stated in the allowance of the early-filed patent applications issued into ‘467 patent, ‘291 patent, and ‘318 patent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (US 10,701,691).
Sheng (US 2018/0042023).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3164. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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, MICHAEL THIER can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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.
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
/FRANK DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights