DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the preliminary amendment filed on 19 August 2024, having claims 21-36 (claims 1-20 were canceled).
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. 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 21-23, 25-31, and 32-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-8, and 11-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,075,405 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following rationale:
Claims 21-23 are anticipated by claims 8 and 13 of the Patent.
Claim 25 is anticipated by claim 11 of the Patent.
Claim 26 is anticipated by claim 12 of the Patent.
Claim 27 is anticipated by claim 14 of the Patent.
Claim 28-30 are anticipated by claims 1 and 6 of the Patent.
Claim 32 is anticipated by claim 4 of the Patent.
Claim 33 is anticipated by claim 5 of the Patent.
Claim 34 is anticipated by claim 7 of the Patent.
Claims 35-36 are anticipated by claim 15 of the Patent.
4. Claims 21-36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-32 of copending Application No. 18/808,088. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following rationale:
Claims 21-23 are anticipated by claim 21 of the copending application.
Claim 24 is anticipated by claim 22 of the copending application.
Claim 25 is anticipated by claim 23 of the copending application.
Claim 26 is anticipated by claim 24 of the copending application.
Claim 27 is anticipated by claim 25 of the copending application.
Claims 28-30 are anticipated by claim 26 of the copending application.
Claim 31 is anticipated by claim 27 of the copending application.
Claim 32 is anticipated by claim 28 of the copending application.
Claim 33 is anticipated by claim 29 of the copending application.
Claim 34 is anticipated by claim 30 of the copending application.
Claim 35 is anticipated by claim 31 of the copending application.
Claim 36 is anticipated by claim 32 of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Specification
5. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The acronyms PUCCH, PDCCH, and RRC must be defined the first time they are recited in the abstract.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 21-36 would be allowable upon filing of a terminal disclaimer to overcome the double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. The closest prior art references are Nogami et al. (US 2018/0279297 A1), Oteri et al. (WO 2020/167650 A1), Choi et al. (EP 3 996 315 A1) (reference is commonly assigned and have same inventors as current application) and Ren et al. (US 2021/0091890 A1). All references were disclosed by applicant in filed Information Disclosure Statements (IDS).
Nogami [0050] discloses a base station transmitting first RRC configuration information to a UE wherein the configuration information indicating a slot format for PDCCH; the base station transmitting second RRC configuration information to the UE indicating a PUSCH repetition; and the base station transmitting the first PDCCH [0047-0050]. In a case that the first PDCCH indicates that a symbol for the PUSCH in a slot is other than either downlink or uplink, the PUSCH is not transmitted in the slot and the PUSCH in the slot is counted as one of the repetitions [0050].
Oteri [abstract] discloses a WTRU may receive a slot format configuration that indicates flexible, uplink, and downlink symbols. The WTRU may receive an uplink grant that is associated with the PUSCH transmission with repetitions wherein uplink grant comprises a slot format indicator and a resource map identifying available resource blocks associated with uplink symbols. The WTRU may perform a PUSCH transmission repetition using the available uplink symbol wherein the PUSCH transmission avoids the unavailable resource blocks [abstract].
Chen discloses that a PUSCH repetition may be determined on the basis of a starting symbol index and symbol length included in the resource allocation information [0279-0280].
Ren discloses that uplink may be repeatedly transmitted when the transmission direction matches the transmission direction of the slot configuration, wherein the transmission direction of the slot configuration may be uplink (U), downlink (D), or flexible (F) ([0051], [0082], [0169], and [0200]).
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM ET.
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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 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 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights