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 .
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, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 8 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,784. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2, 8 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,784 encompasses the limitations of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16 and 17 of instant application. Moreover, omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its functions is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements performs the same function as before In re Karlson, 163 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by SU et al PG PUB 2020/0187237.
Re Claims 1, 6, 11 and 16, SU et al teaches receiving, by a UE (a device comprising a processor), DCI (control information) from a base station (a device comprising a processor) [0207] wherein the DCI includes HARQ process number field (a bitmap having n bits); defining any of values in the DCI as early termination one or more HARQ processes wherein each of the one or more HARQ processes corresponding to a transmission of a TB (transport block).
Re Claims 2, 7, 12 and 17, SU et al teaches the DCI format of 6-0A or 6-0B [0207] to trigger the early termination of the one or more HARQ processes corresponding to transmission.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3-5, 8-10, 13-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SU et al PG PUB 2020/0187237 in view of MU PG PUB 2022/0217581.
Re Claims 3, 8, 13 and 18, SU et al fails to explicitly teach “ each TB corresponds to 1 bit of RV in the control information upon a number of scheduled transport blocks being equal to two.”. However, MU teaches the RV field is 2N bits based on the number of TBs scheduled by the DCI [0063] wherein Table 3 teaches when the number of scheduled TBs is two, RV bits is two (each TB corresponds to 1 bit of RV). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have implemented the compressing strategy in Table 3 to minimize the size of the DCI format. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claims 4, 9, 14 and 19, MU teaches the control information can be configured 16 bits [0063] wherein based on the compressed mode can be configured to 12 bits for scheduling the transport blocks.
Re Claims 5, 10, 15 and 20, MU teaches in TABLE 3, the DCI (control information) can comprise a single bit of NDI upon a single transport block scheduled and wherein the DCI can comprise two bits of NDI upon two transport blocks being scheduled.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM 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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703770. 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.
/ANDREW LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights