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 08/12/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 08/12/2024 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,190. 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
‘190 Patent Claim 1 Claims
A device for sending signals, comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory, wherein by executing the instructions,
A signal sending method performed by a sending device, comprising:
the processor is configured to send a first signal, wherein the first signal comprises: timing information comprising slot information, wherein the slot information comprises a slot index; and resource configuration information comprising sidelink resource configuration information indicating a sidelink resource part.
sending a first signal , wherein the first signal comprises : timing information; and resource configuration information; wherein the timing information comprises slot information, the slot information comprises a slot index; and wherein the resource configuration information comprises: sidelink resource configuration information indicating a sidelink resource part.
Rationales:
From the above claim comparison, one can see that claim 1 of the ‘190 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 ‘190 patent. There are differences between the claims depicted in the bolded words and the strike-through words and they are deemed obvious for the following rationales.
Pertaining the difference depicted in the bolded words, it appears to be different wording but meaning is similar or the same. And it is obvious to those skilled in the art of claims drafting to draft claims in a later-file 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. In addition, and pertaining the difference depicted in the strike-through words, it appears to be broadening claim by omitting limitations. Nevertheless, it has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184(CCPA). Also note Ex Parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); omission of a reference whose function is not needed would be an obvious variation. Moreover; there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent.
The dependent claims 2-14 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 2-12 of '190 patent for the same rationale as applied to their parent claim as above discussed.
Instant Application Claim 15 Claims
‘190 Patent Claim 13 Claims
A device for receiving signals, comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory, wherein by executing the instructions, the processor is configured to
A signal receiving method applied to a receiving device, comprising:
receive a first signal, wherein the first signal comprises: timing information comprising slot information, wherein the slot information comprises a slot index; and resource configuration information comprising sidelink resource configuration information indicating a sidelink resource part.
receiving a first signal , wherein the first signal comprises : timing information, wherein the timing information comprises slot information, and the slot information comprises a slot index; and resource configuration information comprises: sidelink resource configuration information indicating a sidelink resource part.
Rationales:
From the above claim comparison, one can see that claim 13 of the ‘190 anticipates all recitations of claim 15 of the instant application. Alternatively, claim 15 of the instant application claims variously and essentially similar limitations as those in claim 13 of the ‘190 patent. There are differences between the claims depicted in the bolded words and the strike-through words and they are deemed obvious for the following rationales.
Pertaining the difference depicted in the bolded words, it appears to be different wording but meaning is similar or the same. And it is obvious to those skilled in the art of claims drafting to draft claims in a later-file 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. In addition, and pertaining the difference depicted in the strike-through words, it appears to be broadening claim by omitting limitations. Nevertheless, it has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184(CCPA). Also note Ex Parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); omission of a reference whose function is not needed would be an obvious variation. Moreover; there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent.
The dependent claims 16-19 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 14-17 of '190 patent for the same rationale as applied to their parent claim as above discussed.
As per claim 20, the claim appears to call for a non-transitory computer readable storage medium stored thereon a computer program having limitations variously and essentially mirrored functional limitations of method claim 1. Thus, it is deemed obvious over claim 1 of ‘190 patent for the same rationales applied to method claim 1 as above discussed.
Allowable Subject Matter
It is noted that claims 1-20 of the instant application claim variously and essentially similar limitations as those in claims 1-20 of the ‘190 patent. 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 similar rationales in the allowance of the early-filed patent application issued into ‘190 patent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang et al. (US 11,601,936).
Tseng et al. (US 11,457,431).
Chen et al. (US 2016/0345297).
Chae et al. (US 11,510,179).
Chae et al. (US 2021/0058914).
Intel Corporation, Sidelink Synchronization for NR V2X Communication, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #94, Gothenburg, Sweden, R1-1808695, 11 pages, August 20th - 24th, 2018.
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 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights