DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application filed on 08/30/2024, in which claims 1-18 are pending and ready for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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 and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. (12,082010B2 ,Lee et al. hereinafter; “Lee”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
In response to claim 1,
Lee teaches a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising a processor and a memory, the processor and the memory configured to: receive configuration information associated with a first search space and a second search space, wherein the configuration information includes a monitoring periodicity of the first search space and a monitoring periodicity of the second search space (claim 9, paragraph 1 teaches this limitation);
monitor for physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) transmissions via the first search space with the monitoring periodicity of the first search space (claim 9,paragraph 2 teaches this limitation);
receive a downlink control information (DCI) in a PDCCH transmission received via the first search space, wherein the DCI comprises an indication of an activation of the second search space (claim 9, paragraph 3 teaches this limitation); and
monitor for PDCCH transmissions via the second search space using the monitoring periodicity of the second search space in response to the indication of the activation of the second search space (claim 9,paragraph 4 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 9,
Lee teaches a method implemented by a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising: receiving configuration information associated with a first search space and a second search space, wherein the configuration information includes a monitoring periodicity of the first search space and a monitoring periodicity of the second search space (claim 1, paragraph 1 teaches this limitation);
monitoring for physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) transmissions via the first search space with the monitoring periodicity of the first search space (claim 1, paragraph 2 teaches this limitation);
receiving a downlink control information (DCI) in a PDCCH transmission received via the first search space, wherein the DCI comprises an indication of an activation of the second search space (claim 1, paragraph 3 teaches this limitation); and
monitoring for PDCCH transmissions via the second search space using the monitoring periodicity of the second search space in response to the indication of the activation of the second search space (claim 1, paragraph 4 teaches this limitation).
Claims 6-7 and 14-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. (12,082010B2 ,Lee et al. hereinafter; “Lee”) in view of Tseng et al. (hereinafter, “Tseng”; 20170318620).
In response to claims 6 and 14,
Lee does not teach explicitly about claims 6 and 14.
Tseng in view of Le teaches wherein the DCI is a group-common DCI (paragraph 19, sending a DCI to UEs is interpreted as using a group common DCI).
It would have been obvious within the scope of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee for using a group common DCI as taught by Tseng because it would allow improving a battery life and bandwidth usage for a PDCCH channel for a low power IoT device.
In response to claims 7 and 15,
Lee does not teach explicitly about claims 7 and 15.
Tseng in view of Lee teaches wherein the configuration information further includes a monitoring offset associated with the first search space (paragraph 26, DRX parameter is equated to configuration information, DRX offset is equated to monitoring offset, paragraph 27, UE specific search space reis equated to first search space).
It would have been obvious within the scope of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee for using a configuration information that includes a monitoring offset associated with the first search space as taught by Tseng because it would allow improving a battery life and bandwidth usage for a PDCCH channel for a low power IoT device.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. (12,082010B2 ,Lee et al. hereinafter; “Lee”) in view of Ozturk et al. (hereinafter, ”Ozturk”; 20160135247).
In response to claim 17,
Lee teaches receive an indication of a capability to support search space switching associated with a wireless transmit receive unit (WTRU) (claim 9, paragraph 1, sending by a WTRU is interpreted as receiving by a base station);
transmit configuration information associated with a first search space and a second search space based on the indication of the capability to support search space switching associated with the WTRU, wherein the configuration information includes a monitoring periodicity of the first search space and a monitoring periodicity of the second search space (claim 9, paragraph 2, receiving by a WTRU is read as transmitting by a base station);
determine to switch transmissions associated with the WTRU from the first search space to the second search space (claim 9, paragraph 3, monitoring by the WTRU explicitly teaches this limitation); and
transmit downlink control information (DCI) in a PDCCH transmission via the first search space in response to the determination to switch transmissions associated with the WTRU from the first search space to the second search space, wherein the DCI comprises an indication of an activation of the second search space (claim 9, paragraph 4 teaches this limitation).
Lee does not teach explicitly about using a base station comprising a processor and a memory, the processor and the memory.
Ozturk in view of Lee teaches a base station comprising a processor and a memory, the processor and the memory configured to (paragraphs 160-161 teach this limitation):
It would have been obvious within the scope of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee for using a base station comprising a processor and a memory, the processor and the memory as taught by Ozturk because it would allow reducing latency in a data transmission while operating under limited budget.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 8, 10-11, 13, 16 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As for claims 2 and 10, these claims are objected, because these claims don’t have double patenting issues. In addition, there is no prior art in the record that can be used to reject these claims using obviousness double patenting for claimed limitations “receive an indication of a period of time that the second search space is to be active, wherein the second search space is monitored using the monitoring periodicity of the second search space for the period of time.”
The closet prior art in the record Tseng et al. (20170318620) teaches in paragraphs sending a DRX parameter by an eNB to a base station for a PDCCH repetition period, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Claims 3 and 11 depend on claims 2 and 10.
Claims 4 and 12 depend on claims 3 and 11.
As for claims 5 and 13, these claims are objected, because these claims don’t have double patenting issues. In addition, there is no prior art in the record that can be used to reject these claims using obviousness double patenting for claimed limitations “send an indication of a capability to support search space switching.”
The closet prior art in the record Tseng et al. (20170318620) teaches in paragraphs sending a DRX parameter by an eNB to a base station for a PDCCH repetition period, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for claims 8 and 16, these claims are objected, because these claims don’t have double patenting issues. In addition, there is no prior art in the record that can be used to reject these claims using obviousness double patenting for claimed limitations “receive a second DCI in a PDCCH transmission received via the second search space, wherein the DCI comprises an indication of a deactivation of the second search space; and monitor for PDCCH transmissions via the first search space using the monitoring periodicity of the first search space in response to the indication of the deactivation of the second search space.”
The closet prior art in the record Tseng et al. (20170318620) teaches in paragraphs sending a DRX parameter by an eNB to a base station for a PDCCH repetition period, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for claim 18, this claim is objected, because this claim does not have double patenting issues. In addition, there is no prior art in the record that can be used to reject these claims using obviousness double patenting for claimed limitations “send an indication of a period of time that the second search space is to be active.”
The closet prior art in the record Tseng et al. (20170318620) teaches in paragraphs sending a DRX parameter by an eNB to a base station for a PDCCH repetition period, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20210360674……………..paragraphs 165 and 168.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABUSAYEED HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-7252. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -7:30 pm.
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.
/ABUSAYEED M HAQUE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights