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
This action is responsive to the application filed on 08/13/2024 has a total of 14 claims pending in the application; there are 4 independent claims and 10 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 18/099,379 [application No.12,089,154 B2], Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims and their dependent claims of the instant application contain similar limitations of the independent and their dependent claims of the patented application, which lead to the same claimed invention, thus they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The independent claims and their dependent claims of the instant application contain similar limitations of the independent and their dependent claims of the co-pending application.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the language of the claims presented contain the same limitations claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the patented application to create the instant application.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-33 of U.S. Patent No. 16/931,080 [application No.11,582,693 B2], Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims and their dependent claims of the instant application contain similar limitations of the independent and their dependent claims of the patented application, which lead to the same claimed invention, thus they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The independent claims and their dependent claims of the instant application contain similar limitations of the independent and their dependent claims of the co-pending application.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the language of the claims presented contain the same limitations claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the patented application to create the instant application.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 16/238,113 [application No.10,757,649B2], Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims and their dependent claims of the instant application contain similar limitations of the independent and their dependent claims of the patented application, which lead to the same claimed invention, thus they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The independent claims and their dependent claims of the instant application contain similar limitations of the independent and their dependent claims of the co-pending application.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the language of the claims presented contain the same limitations claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the patented application to create the instant application.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-35 of U.S. Patent No. 14/421,930 [application No.10,219,217 B2], Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims and their dependent claims of the instant application contain similar limitations of the independent and their dependent claims of the patented application, which lead to the same claimed invention, thus they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The independent claims and their dependent claims of the instant application contain similar limitations of the independent and their dependent claims of the co-pending application.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the language of the claims presented contain the same limitations claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the patented application to create the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hugl et al. Pub. No (US 2012/0257515 A1) in view of Kuo et al. Pub. No (US 2015/0098416 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hugl teaches a method, in a base station, comprising:
sending a configuration of one or more measurement gaps to a user equipment (the UE receiving information indicating one or more sets of reference signal patterns from a first transmission point [0043-44] FIG.4);
sending a configuration of a discovery signal window pattern to the user equipment (sending a parameter that identifies one of a plurality of predetermined patterns known to the terminal device [0083-85] FIG.8), the discovery signal window pattern defining one or more discovery signal windows during which each of a plurality of cells is to transmit a corresponding discovery signal (the indicated one or more sets of reference signal patterns corresponds to one of one or more other transmission points [0043-44] FIGs.4&10).
Hugl does not explicitly teach the gaps to transmit a discovery signal.
Kuo teaches the gaps to transmit a discovery signal (Kuo: the UE receives an RRC message for configuring measurement gaps to the UE, and performs measurement and does not monitor D2D discovery signal(s) during a measurement gap if the measurement gap collides with any D2D discovery subframe, measurement gaps are configured to a UE for inter-frequency and/or inter-RAT measurements and the results of these measurements are used for handover decision, which each of the plurality of cells to transmit a corresponding discovery signal. [0094-107] FIG.9-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hug by the teaching of Kuo to have gaps for each of the plurality of cells is to transmit a corresponding discovery signal in order to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of forward links for the different access terminals and improve mobility performance of a UE with an activated signal discovery function (Kuo: [0022] [0107]).
Regarding claim 2, Hugl teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising adapting one or more measurement procedures carried out by the base station, based on at least one of the discovery signal window pattern and the one or more measurement gaps (providing measurement restrictions to the UE in order to guide the UE on how to construct the final report 520 [0093-96]).
Regarding claim 3, Hugl teaches the method of claim 1, wherein sending the configuration of the discovery signal window pattern comprises sending one or more parameters that specify at least the following for the one or more discovery signal windows: a window duration in number of subframes; a window periodicity; and a window starting time based on a system frame number (SFN) (transmit separate cell specific (common) RS for CSI estimation purposes in some selected subframes with window periodicity [0068]); a subframe offset parameter (subframe offset parameter [0079]).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Hugl teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising adapting the configuration of the one or more measurement gaps based on the discovery signal window pattern, such that at least one of the one or more discovery signal windows is at least partly contained in a measurement gap (Kuo: measurement gaps are configured to a UE for inter-frequency and/or inter-RAT measurements and the results of these measurements are used for handover decision [0106-108]).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Hugl teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising adapting one or more measurement configuration parameters for the user equipment based on at least one of the discovery signal window pattern and the one or more measurement gaps (Kuo: measurement gaps are configured to a UE for inter-frequency and/or inter-RAT measurements and the results of these measurements are used for handover decision [0106- 108]).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Hugl teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more measurement gaps are intervals in which the user equipment can perform at least one of inter-Radio Access Technology (inter-RAT) measurements and inter-frequency measurements (Kuo: measurement gaps are configured to a UE for inter-frequency and/or inter-RAT measurements and the results of these measurements are used for handover decision [0106- 108]).
Regarding claims 7-9, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1-6, where the difference used is the method were presented from a “method in the user equipment” side and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Regarding claims 10-12, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1-6, where the difference used is the limitations were presented from a “base station” side and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Regarding claims 13-14, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1-6, where the difference used is the limitations were presented from a “user equipment” side and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Conclusion
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELNABI O MUSA whose telephone number is (571)270-1901, and email address is abdelnabi.musa@uspto.gov ‘preferred’. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Bates, can be reached on 571-2723980. 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.
/ABDELNABI O MUSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights