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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 29 November 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,701,570. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-15 of the instant application merely broaden the scope of claims 1-20 of 12,701,570.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 3GPP R1-2204026 “Discussion on multi-cell PUSCH/PDSCH scheduling with a single DCI” (hereinafter referred to as “3GPP”). NOTE: 3GPP was cited by the applicant in the IDS received 29 November 2024.
As to claim 1, 3GPP teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station, first downlink control information (DCI) for scheduling multiple physical downlink shared channels (PDSCHs) on multiple cells based on a first search space set (§§2.1-2.3: gNB transmits and UE receives a DCI to schedule multi-cell PDSCH in a configured search space set); and
receiving, from the base station, the multiple PDSCHs on the multiple cells based on the first DCI (§2.4: when the PDSCHs are scheduled on multi-cells, HARQ-ACK for the scheduled PDSCHs are transmitted in PUCCH (i.e. gNB transmits and UE receives the PDSCHs on multi-cells according to the DCI)),
wherein the first search space set for the first DCI is different from a search space set for a DCI scheduling a PDSCH on one cell (§§2.3-2.4: the search space configured for the multi-cell PDSCH scheduling is separate from a SS set for single-cell PDSCH scheduling).
As to claim 2, 3GPP teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, from the base station, a second DCI for scheduling multiple physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) on multiple cells based on a second search space set (§§2.1-2.3: gNB transmits and UE receives a DCI to schedule multi-cell PUSCH in a configured search space set); and
transmitting, to the base station, the multiple PUSCHs on the multiple cells based on the second DCI (§§2.1-2.4: UE transmits and gNB receives the multi-cell PUSCHs scheduled by the DCI),
wherein the second search space set for the second DCI is different from a search space set for a DCI scheduling a PUSCH on one cell (§§2.3-2.4: the search space configured for the multi-cell PUSCH scheduling is separate from a SS set for single-cell PUSCH scheduling).
As to claim 3, 3GPP teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the first search space set and the second search space set are different from each other (§§2.3-2.4: the SS set configured for the multi-cell PDSCH scheduling is separate from the SS set for the multi-cell PUSCH scheduling).
As to claim 4, 3GPP teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising:
receiving, from the base station, information configuring the first search space set and the second search space set for the UE and information on a maximum number of the multiple cells for the multiple PDSCHs (§§2.1-2.3: gNB transmits and UE receives SS set configuration to monitor for DCI scheduling multi-cell PDSCH, SS set configuration to monitor for DCI scheduling multi-cell PUSCH, and the maximum number of multi-cells for the PDSCHs).
As to claim 5, claim 5 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
As to claim 6, claim 6 is rejected the same way as claim 2.
As to claim 7, claim 7 is rejected the same way as claim 3.
As to claim 8, claim 8 is rejected the same way as claim 4.
As to claim 9, 3GPP teaches a method performed by a base station in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), first downlink control information (DCI) for scheduling multiple physical downlink shared channels (PDSCHs) on multiple cells (§§2.1-2.3: gNB transmits and UE receives a DCI to schedule multi-cell PDSCH in a configured search space set); and
transmitting, to the UE, the multiple PDSCHs on the multiple cells based on the first DCI (§2.4: when the PDSCHs are scheduled on multi-cells, HARQ-ACK for the scheduled PDSCHs are transmitted in PUCCH (i.e. gNB transmits and UE receives the PDSCHs on multi-cells according to the DCI)),
wherein a first search space set for the first DCI is different from a search space set for a DCI scheduling a PDSCH on one cell (§§2.3-2.4: the search space configured for the multi-cell PDSCH scheduling is separate from a SS set for single-cell PDSCH scheduling).
As to claim 10, 3GPP teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising:
transmitting, to the UE, a second DCI for scheduling multiple physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) on multiple cells (§§2.1-2.3: gNB transmits and UE receives a DCI to schedule multi-cell PUSCH in a configured search space set); and
receiving, from the UE, the multiple PUSCHs on the multiple cells based on the second DCI (§§2.1-2.4: UE transmits and gNB receives the multi-cell PUSCHs scheduled by the DCI),
wherein a second search space set for the second DCI is different from a search space set for a DCI scheduling a PUSCH on one cell (§§2.3-2.4: the search space configured for the multi-cell PUSCH scheduling is separate from a SS set for single-cell PUSCH scheduling).
As to claim 11, 3GPP teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the first search space set and the second search space set are different from each other (§§2.3-2.4: the SS set configured for the multi-cell PDSCH scheduling is separate from the SS set for the multi-cell PUSCH scheduling).
As to claim 12, 3GPP teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising:
transmitting, to the UE, information configuring the first search space set and the second search space set for the UE and information on a maximum number of the multiple cells for the multiple PDSCHs (§§2.1-2.3: gNB transmits and UE receives SS set configuration to monitor for DCI scheduling multi-cell PDSCH, SS set configuration to monitor for DCI scheduling multi-cell PUSCH, and the maximum number of multi-cells for the PDSCHs).
As to claim 13, claim 13 is rejected the same way as claim 9.
As to claim 14, claim 14 is rejected the same way as claim 10.
As to claim 15, claim 15 is rejected the same way as claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN T VAN ROIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/JUSTIN T VAN ROIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights