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 action is in response to the communication filed on 04/15/2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 obviousness-type 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 LongL 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Pat. No. 12108412. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims merely broaden the claim limitations of the patented case by omitting certain claim limitations.
Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are drawn to the "same invention" as the first application or patent.
Regarding claim 1, U.S. Pat. No. 12108412 teach, a user equipment (UE) comprising:
Limitations of Claim 1 of the Instant Application.
Limitations of Claim 1 of U.S. Pat. No. 12108412.
a one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon; a transceiver; and
at least one processor coupled to the transceiver and the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, the at least one processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to:
receive, via the transceiver, a plurality of configured grant (CG) configurations for allocating a group of Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) durations in a bandwidth part (BWP), each of the plurality of CG configurations comprising a priority level associated with a corresponding one of the group of allocated PUSCH durations, the priority level indicating a priority of the corresponding allocated PUSCH duration
at least two of the allocated PUSCH durations in the group of PUSCH durations overlap in the time domain;
identify a set of PUSCH durations for transmitting a new medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) from the group of PUSCH durations;
select a PUSCH duration having the highest corresponding priority level from among the identified set of PUSCH durations as a prioritized PUSCH duration; and
transmit the MAC PDU, via the transceiver, on the prioritized PUSCH duration.
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon; a transceiver, and
at least one processor coupled to the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, the at least one processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to:
receive, via the transceiver, a plurality of configured grant configurations for a same serving cell, the configured grant configurations for allocating a group of Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) durations in a same bandwidth part (BWP), wherein all at least two or more of the PUSCH durations in the group overlap in a time domain;
identify a set of one or more PUSCH durations that has data available may be used for a repetition transmission from the group of PUSCH durations;
select a specific PUSCH duration from the identified set of one or more PUSCH durations as a prioritized PUSCH duration; and
perform uplink transmission via the transceiver on the prioritized PUSCH duration.
Regarding independent claim 8 the limitations of claim 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting with respect to claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12108412.
Regarding the claims 2-6 and 9-13 the limitations of claims 2-6 and 9-13, respectively, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting with respect to 2-6 and 8-12, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12108412.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272 - 8586. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing 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.
/R.R/ Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights