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 .
This action is in response to the continuation application field on 9/24/2024.
The IDS field on 9/24/2024 is considered.
Claims 1-16 are examined and rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 10 and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites in part: “… a method comprising: incrementing or decrementing a configured grant retransmission counter if a retransmission occurs or if a Non-ACKnowledgement or if Non- ACKnowledgement is received or if a Non-ACKnowledgement timer expires …” This should be: a method comprising: incrementing or decrementing a configured grant retransmission counter if a retransmission occurs or if Non- ACKnowledgement is received or if a Non-ACKnowledgement timer expires…”
Claim 8 recites in part: “… the method according to claim 1…” .This should be “… the method according to claim 2…”
Claim 10 recites in part: “… wherein the Configured grant retransmission counter value is indicated in the Most Significant Bits and partial of full transmission is indicated in the Least Significant Bits.” This should be: “… wherein the Configured grant retransmission counter value is indicated in the Most Significant Bits and partial or full transmission is indicated in the Least Significant Bits.
Claim 15 recites in part: “… The method according to claim 11, wherein preforming a misalignment resolution in case of a mismatch comprises allocating on existing configured grants or new dynamic grants for the transmitter following a receiver initiated channel occupancy time.”. This should be:” … The method according to claim 12, wherein preforming the misalignment resolution in case of mismatch comprises allocating on existing configured grants or new dynamic grants for the transmitter following a receiver initiated channel occupancy time.
Claim 16 recites in part: “… The method according to claim 11, wherein preforming a misalignment resolution in case of a mismatch comprises allocating new grants in a new configured grant.” This should be: “… The method according to claim 15, wherein preforming the misalignment resolution in case of mismatch comprises allocating new grants in a new configured grant.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,113,631 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because The instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claim 1 of the instant application is directed to a method comprising: incrementing or decrementing a configured grant retransmission counter if a retransmission occurs or if a Non-ACKnowledgement or if Non- ACKnowledgement is received or if a Non-ACKnowledgement timer expires; and maintaining the configured grant retransmission counter unchanged until a next possible Non-ACKnowledgement reception if a new transmission occurs of an ACKnowledgement is received; and setting the Configured grant retransmission counter to its initial value when the Configured grant retransmission counter reaches a maximum…. (claim 2)… generating a retransmission assignment indicator signal, sending the retransmission assignment indicator signal to a receiver, wherein the retransmission assignment indicator signal conveys the value of the Configured grant retransmission counter or derives a relation to the Configured grant retransmission counter.
Claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,113,631 B2 is directed to a method comprising: changing a configured grant retransmission counter when a transmission of a first packet occurs, wherein the first packet comprises at least one transport blocks; maintaining the configured grant retransmission counter if a retransmission or an incremental redundancy transmission of the first packet occurs, wherein the retransmission is due to channel failure, decoding failure, or Listen Before Talk failure; changing the configured grant retransmission counter when a second packet is transmitted, wherein the second packet is different from the first packet; changing the configured grant retransmission counter by at least one if a counting criteria is performed on a transport block level or based on a number of erroneous code block group (s); and generating a retransmission assignment indicator signal, wherein the retransmission assignment indicator signal conveys the value of the configured grant retransmission counter or derives the criteria of which code block groups are erroneous or conveys which transport block are erroneous.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10, 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites in tabular form the limitation regarding “a relation between a value of the retransmission assignment indicator signal and the Configured grant retransmission counter…”. Here it is not clear what exactly is being claimed via the table, i.e., it is not clear what is required to be performed and what is a possible alterative feature, making this claim unclear and hence indefinite.
Claims 14 recites in part: “… providing to the transmitter a grant with the identified transmission identification for enabling the transmitter to perform a retransmission if the retransmission assignment indicator signal indicates a transmission identification and a retransmission from the transmitter is identified to be transmitted on existing configured grants or in a new dynamic grant.” Here the claim starts with the limitation “providing… a grant” for the purpose or “retransmission”, however the claim recites that the retransmission is from “existing configured grants”. These limitations contradict each other, making then unclear, confusing and hence indefinite.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xu (US 20210266954 A1) teaches improved utilization of a configured grant resource. A terminal device receives a configuration message from a network device. The configuration message is used to indicate a configured grant, and the configuration message includes information about a timer corresponding to the configured grant. The terminal device determines that the configured grant is used for a HARQ process, and starts the timer for the HARQ process. To-be-sent data in the HARQ process is data on a first logical channel. During running of the timer, when there is to-be-newly-transmitted data on a second logical channel, the timer stops running, or a running state of the timer is ignored. The data on the second logical channel is sent by using the configured grant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEEPA BELUR whose telephone number is (571)270-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 4:30 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, Kevin Bates can be reached at 571-272-3980. 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.
/DEEPA BELUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights