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 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,082,252. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because.
For claims 1, 8, and 14; Singh discloses: receiving, at a first user equipment (UE) device from a second UE device, a first control information indicating one or more time-slots that have been reserved for data transmissions (claim 1: receiving, at a first wireless communication device that is a node of a vehicle ad-hoc network (VANET) from a second wireless communication device that is another node of the VANET, a first reserved time-slot list that identifies one or more time-slots that have been reserved for data transmissions within the VANET); receiving, at the first UE device from a third UE device, a second control information indicating one or more time-slots that have been reserved for data transmissions (claim 1: receiving, at the first wireless communication device from a third wireless communication device that is another node of the VANET, a second reserved time-slot list that identifies one or more time-slots that have been reserved for data transmissions within the VANET); generating, by the first UE device, a third control information indicating the reserved time-slots that were indicated in the first control information and the second control information (claim 1: generating, by the first wireless communication device, a third reserved time-slot list that contains the reserved time-slots that were identified in the first reserved time-slot list and the second reserved time-slot list); and broadcasting, by the first UE device, the third control information (claim 1: broadcasting, by the first wireless communication device, the third reserved time-slot list).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Singh et al. (“Efficient Time Slot Allocation to Minimize Collision in TDMA Based VANETs”, Journal of Network Communications and Emerging Technologies (JNCET), Volume 7, Issue 12, December (2017)) (“Singh”).
For claims 1, 8, and 14; Singh discloses: receiving, at a first user equipment (UE) device from a second UE device, a first control information indicating one or more time-slots that have been reserved for data transmissions (Section 3: By exchanging the slot allocation information in beacons, nodes can learn the slot allocation within 2 hops…Each vehicle inserts its ID, speed, current time slot and neighborhood information into the beacon message, and broadcasts the beacon); receiving, at the first UE device from a third UE device, a second control information indicating one or more time-slots that have been reserved for data transmissions (Section 3: Each vehicle inserts its ID, speed, current time slot and neighborhood information into the beacon message, and broadcasts the beacon); generating, by the first UE device, a third control information indicating the reserved time-slots that were indicated in the first control information and the second control information; and broadcasting, by the first UE device, the third control information (Section 3: Each vehicle inserts its ID, speed, current time slot and neighborhood information into the beacon message, and broadcasts the beacon).
For claims 4, 10, and 16; Singh discloses: wherein the broadcasting comprises broadcasting the third control information in a periodic discovery channel message (Section 3: By exchanging the slot allocation information in beacons, nodes can learn the slot allocation within 2 hops).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Shako (US 2019/0007969).
For claims 2, 9, and 15; Singh discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Singh does not expressly disclose, but Shako from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the broadcast of the third control information includes information indicating a frame (paragraph 102-104: The beacon information contains a slot number, a frame number, and an in-slot delay period representing the delay in slot units). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Shako in the VANET network signaling as described by Singh. The motivation is to improve synchronizing beacons from different devices.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Shako as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Thomas et al. (US 2020/0196279) (“Thomas”).
For claim 3; Singh discloses: sensing, by another UE device, unused time-slots; receiving at the another UE device, the third control information from the first UE device; and selecting, by the another UE device, time-slots used for future data transmission, based on results of the time-slots indicated in the third control information received from the first UE device (Section 3: For ensuring collision-free transmission of collision warning messages, we reserved time slot 0 (TS0) in the time frame only for the transmission of collision warning messages. When a vehicle detects a probable collision, it schedules the warning message to be transmitted at the first time slot of the next time frame. To avoid a probable collision, it is enough if one vehicle switches to a free time slot. Therefore, one of the two vehicles which might experience collision is selected as the node that has to acquire new free time-slot…Upon reception of a collision warning message from a PVi, each node checks the identity of the possible colliding node (the warned vehicle). The node with matching identity cancels its scheduled messages in its time slot. Then, it aims to find a time slot which is not used by the any other nodes within 2-hops. This information is available in the warning message. After changing its time slot, it schedules its messages and beacons to be transmitted in the new time slot.).
Singh does not expressly disclose, but Thomas from similar fields of endeavor teaches: based on a result of the sensing (paragraph 123-127: select its own resources for transmission based on sensing (ue-Selected, mode 4) …the ue-Selected case, the UE is provided with the V2X-CommTxPoolNormalDedicated IE, which then contains the set of a maximum of 8 transmit resource pool configurations, each of which are defined by the SL-CommResourcePoolV2X IE, as similarly described above. The UE also receives the zoneConfig IE which helps the UE in selecting the singular relevant transmission resource pool from the received set of pools). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the sensing of resource pool assignment as described by Thomas in the VANET network access as described by Singh. The motivation is to improve reliable channel access.
Claim(s) 5, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0345363) (“Zhang”).
For claims 5, 11, and 17; Singh discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Singh does not expressly disclose, but Zhang from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the broadcast of the third control information includes one or more of the following: a cell identifier, a priority of the data to be transmitted, and a Quality of Service (QOS) of the data to be transmitted (paragraph 111-112: UE2 transmits booking information 400 (e.g., SCI) which indicates an intention to transmit data and control information using a set of resources in the booked “Slot.” UE1 receives the booking information 400 (e.g., SCI) according to a defined sensing/monitoring procedure, and based on the priority indication therein (e.g., bearer level priority and packet level priority) UE1 determines using the priority based preemption operations described above that it will preempt UE2's booked transmission planned for “Slot”, so that UE1 can transmit data and control information during the booked “Slot.”). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Zhang in the VANET network signaling as described by Singh. The motivation is to improve preemption capability.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Belleschi et al. (US 2021/0337512) (“Belleschi”).
For claims 6, 12, and 18; Singh discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Singh does not expressly disclose, but Belleschi from similar fields of endeavor teaches: in response to the third control information containing a first time-slot being used by the first UE device for data transmissions, refraining, by the first UE device, from using the first time-slot for future data transmissions; and selecting, by the first UE device, an unused time-slot for future data transmissions (paragraph 145-153: Step 1: at time T1, the UE announces a first reservation of radio resources by transmitting a first control message. The reserved radio resources are for a transmission at time T3. This is shown in FIG. 6A. Step 2: at time T2, the UE sends a second reservation…The resources signaled in the second reservation are completely different than the resources signaled in the first reservation…Step 3: at time T3, the UE transmits a first data message using the radio resources signaled in the second reservation). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Belleschi in the VANET network signaling as described by Singh. The motivation is to improve dynamic rescheduling.
For claims 7, 13, and 19; Singh discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Singh does not expressly disclose, but Belleschi from similar fields of endeavor teaches: removing, by the first UE device, a first reserved time-slot from the third control information upon the occurrence of one or more of the following: the first reserved time-slot not being included on the first control information and the second control information, a determination that the first UE is no longer interested in transmitting data, and expiration of the first UE device's ownership of the first reserved time-slot (paragraph 145-153: Step 1: at time T1, the UE announces a first reservation of radio resources by transmitting a first control message. The reserved radio resources are for a transmission at time T3. This is shown in FIG. 6A. Step 2: at time T2, the UE sends a second reservation…Cancel. The second reservation is used to un-reserve the resources signaled in the first reservation without necessarily reserving any further resource, in which case the set of reserved time/frequency resources is empty…Step 3: at time T3, the UE transmits a first data message using the radio resources signaled in the second reservation). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Belleschi in the VANET network signaling as described by Singh. The motivation is to improve dynamic rescheduling.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tavildar et al. (US 2013/0183906); Tavildar discloses the intended beacon transmission is cancelled for the current beacon slot in response to a received beacon signal meeting certain predetermined criteria.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D BLANTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3933. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-6pm EST, Mon-Thu.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/JOHN D BLANTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights