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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification should include that this application is a continuation of SN 17/372,112 which is now US Patent Number 12,101,716.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 2, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Applicant’s submission of prior art, Pelletier et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0014255 (hereinafter Pelletier).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Pelletier discloses a communication apparatus, comprising: processing circuitry, which, in operation, determines assistance information to be transmitted to a serving base station of the communication apparatus [paragraphs 0041, 0049-0050]; and a transmitter, which, in operation, transmits the assistance information [paragraphs 0042, 0100]; wherein the assistance information includes a transport block size of a transport block transmitted to the serving base station [paragraph 0063].
Regarding claim 2, Pelletier discloses a receiver, which, in operation, receives from the serving base station a radio resource assignment usable by the communication apparatus to perform an uplink transmission [paragraphs 0042, 0100].
Regarding claim 6, Pelletier discloses wherein the processing circuitry, in operation, determines the assistance information per type of traffic [paragraphs 0028, 0085, 0088].
Regarding claim 8, Pelletier discloses a base station, comprising: processing circuitry, which, in operation, receives, from a communication apparatus served by the base station, assistance information, wherein the assistance information includes a transport block size of a transport block transmitted to the base station [paragraphs 0049-0050, 0100], and determines, based on the received assistance information, radio resources to be assigned to the communication apparatus to perform an uplink transmission [paragraph 0100]; and a transmitter, which, in operation, transmits, to the communication apparatus, a radio resource assignment indicating the determined radio resources [paragraphs 0042, 0100].
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Applicant’s submission of prior art, Zheng et al., WO 2017/193274 (hereinafter Zheng).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Zheng discloses a communication apparatus, comprising: processing circuitry, which, in operation, determines assistance information to be transmitted to a serving base station of the communication apparatus [paragraph 0055]; and a transmitter, which, in operation, transmits the assistance information [paragraph 0055]; wherein the assistance information includes a transport block size of a transport block transmitted to the serving base station [paragraph 0055].
Regarding claim 2, Zheng discloses a receiver, which, in operation, receives from the serving base station a radio resource assignment usable by the communication apparatus to perform an uplink transmission [paragraph 0055].
Regarding claim 8, Zheng discloses a base station, comprising: processing circuitry, which, in operation, receives, from a communication apparatus served by the base station, assistance information, wherein the assistance information includes a transport block size of a transport block transmitted to the base station [paragraph 0055], and determines, based on the received assistance information, radio resources to be assigned to the communication apparatus to perform an uplink transmission [paragraph 0055]; and a transmitter, which, in operation, transmits, to the communication apparatus, a radio resource assignment indicating the determined radio resources [paragraph 0055].
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Applicant’s submission of prior art, Koc et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0056200 (hereinafter Koc).
Regarding claim 3, Zheng does not specifically disclose wherein the assistance information includes a first assistance information type associated with a latency requirement to be fulfilled for an uplink traffic. However, Koc teaches this limitation [paragraph 0023]. Before the effective filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zheng to include the teaching of Koc. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Davydov, US Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0260440 (hereinafter Davydov).
Regarding claim 4, Zheng does not specifically disclose wherein the processing circuitry, in operation, determines the transport block size of a transport block, based on a modulation order. However, Davydov teaches this limitation [paragraph 0022]. Before the effective filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zheng to include the teaching of Davydov. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of He et al., US Patent Number 12,627,970 (hereinafter He).
Regarding claim 5, Zheng does not specifically disclose wherein the assistance information includes a second assistance information type associated with a frequency bandwidth (BW) used for transmitting from the communication apparatus to the serving base station. However, He teaches this limitation [see claim 1]. Before the effective filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zheng to include the teaching of He. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
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 1-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,716. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are generic to all this is recited in the patented claims and are therefore an obvious variant thereof. Specifically, instant independent claim 1 is taught in patented claim 1 but is broader as it omits the limitation regarding the assistance information type including a number of information bits. Instant independent claim 7 is taught in patented claim 8 but is broader as it omits the limitation regarding the assistance information type including a number of information bits. Instant independent claim 8 is taught in patented claim 10 but is broader as it omits the limitation regarding the assistance information type including a number of information bits. Instant dependent claim 2 is taught in patented claim 2. Instant dependent claim 3 is taught in patented claim 1. Instant dependent claim 4 is taught in patented claim 3. Instant dependent claim 5 is taught in patented claims 6 and7. Instant dependent claim 6 is taught in patented claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pan et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0054063, disclose a method and apparatus of requesting semi-persistent scheduling resource for transmission of data duplication in a wireless communication system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIKA WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/EAW/
June 23, 2026
/ERIKA A WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights