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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statements filed to date have been considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al., US 2023/0062532, (“Yang”), in view of Griesing et al., US 2015/0016290, (“Griesing”).
Independent Claims
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches “A system, comprising:
a first user equipment (UE) module and a second UE module (paragraph no. 0028);
a first base station (BS) module associated with the first UE module (paragraph no. 0028); and
a second BS module associated with the second UE module (paragraph no. 0028), wherein:
at least one of the second UE module or the second BS module is configured to:
modulate a data transmission between the second UE module and the second BS module based on a first resource allocation map associated with the first UE module and a first parameter associated with the second UE module” (paragraph no. 0028, “The first BS module is configured to send a first resource allocation map to the second BS module and one of the second UE module or the second BS module is configured to generate an interference metric based on the first resource allocation map and modulate a data transmission between the second UE module and the second BS module based on the interference metric; note that the interference metric is based on the first resource allocation map associated with the first UE module – see paragraph no. 0027 which discloses that each base station shares its upload map (i.e., uplink map) for scheduled UE with neighboring base stations).
Yang does not teach but Griesing teaches a “fast fading” parameter as required by claim 1, see paragraph no. 0006, “In some implementations the specific technology signals representing emulated cells are further emulated to provide channel effects that represent the mobility parameters, such as velocity, fast fading, delay, power, multipath, etc.”. The fast fading parameter is disclosed within the context of simulating wireless networks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Yang by incorporating the teachings of Griesing to enable the simulation of wireless networks using the known fast fading parameter, thereby improving the downlink and/or uplink transmission simulations between the UE and the base station.
Regarding independent claims 11 and 20, these independent claims are corresponding method and computer readable medium claims of the system/apparatus claim 1 and recite similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 1 applies with equal force to these independent claims and as further amplified below to highlight the minor differences between the claims.
Regarding further independent claim 20, see Yang, paragraph no. 0046 which discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Yang teaches “wherein: the data transmission comprises a downlink data transmission from the second BS module to the second UE module; and
the second UE module is configured to generate a first interference metric” (paragraph no. 0029, “The data transmission comprises a downlink data transmission from the second BS module to the second UE module. The second UE module is configured to generate the interference metric based on a path loss parameter between the first BS module and the second UE module”).
Yang teaches that the interference metric is generated based on a path loss parameter and not “based on the first fast fading parameter” as required by claims 2 and 12. Griesing teaches a “fast fading” parameter as required by claims 2 and 12, see paragraph no. 0006, “In some implementations the specific technology signals representing emulated cells are further emulated to provide channel effects that represent the mobility parameters, such as velocity, fast fading, delay, power, multipath, etc.”. The fast fading parameter is disclosed within the context of simulating wireless networks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Yang and Griesing by incorporating the additional teachings of Griesing to enable the simulation of wireless networks using the known fast fading parameter to generate the interference metric, thereby further improving the downlink and/or uplink transmission simulations between the UE and the base station.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19, 21, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,120,717 (the “reference patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of this instant application are anticipated by claims 1-19, 21, respectively, of the reference patent.
Claim 1 of the reference patent recites/teaches “A system, comprising:
a first user equipment (UE) module and a second UE module (col. 31, lines 14-15);
a first base station (BS) module associated with the first UE module (col. 31, lines 16-17); and
a second BS module associated with the second UE module (col. 31, lines 18-19), wherein:
at least one of the second UE module or the second BS module is configured to: modulate a data transmission between the second UE module and the second BS module based on a first resource allocation map associated with the first UE module and a first fast fading parameter associated with the second UE module” (col. 31, lines 23-32).
As further support, see the table below which compares claim 1 of the instant application to claim 1 of the reference patent. The limitations of claim 1 of the reference patent have been bolded which anticipate claim 1 of the instant application.
1.(instant application) A system, comprising:
a first user equipment (UE) module and a second UE module;
a first base station (BS) module associated with the first UE module; and
a second BS module associated with the second UE module, wherein:
at least one of the second UE module or the second BS module is configured to:
modulate a data transmission between the second UE module and the second BS module based on a first resource allocation map associated with the first UE module and a first fast fading parameter associated with the second UE module.
1.(reference patent) A system, comprising:
a first user equipment (UE) module and a second UE module connected to a wired network;
a first base station (BS) module associated with the first UE module and coupled to the wired network; and
a second BS module associated with the second UE module and coupled to the wired network, wherein:
the first BS module is configured to send a first resource allocation map associated with the first UE module to the second BS module; and
at least one of the second UE module or the second BS module is configured to:
access a first fast fading table to determine a first fast fading parameter for the second UE module,
generate a first interference metric based on the first resource allocation map and the first fast fading parameter, and
modulate a data transmission between the second UE module and the second BS module based on the first interference metric.
The above analysis of claim 1 applies to claims 11 and 20 of this instant application vis a vis claims 11 and 21 of the reference patent since these claims are corresponding method and computer readable medium claims and recite substantially the same subject matter.
Therefore claims 1, 11, and 21 of the reference patent are in essence a “species” of the generic invention of claims 1, 11, and 20, respectively, of this instant application. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The dependent claims 2-10, 12-19 of this instant application are taught by claims 2-10, 12-19, respectively, of the reference patent and hence, fall with their respective independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON TAE C. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/WON TAE C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights