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 office action is in response to the communication dated 9/30/24
Original claims 1-15 are pending
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 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.
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of the cop-ending No.18/902-186. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a comparison made between claims 1-15 of the instant application and claims 1-15 of the co-pending application reveal the claims at issue define essentially the same invention in different language. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in claims -15 at issue is an obvious variation of the invention defined in the claims of the copending application. Thus, examiner asserts the difference describe a subset of all possible conditions being monitored in the copending claims These differences are not sufficient to render the claims patentably distinct and therefore a terminal disclaimer is required.
.
Claims 1-15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15of U.S. Patent No.19/181-249 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because comparison made between claims 1-15 of the instant application and claims 1-15 of the co-pending application reveal the claims at issue define essentially the same invention in different language. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in claims -15 at issue is an obvious variation of the invention defined in the claims of the copending application. Thus, examiner asserts the difference describe a subset of all possible conditions being monitored in the copending claims These differences are not sufficient to render the claims patentably distinct and therefore a terminal disclaimer is required.
.
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.
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.
Claims 1, and 9-15 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication NO 2025/0219703[hereinafter Lee].
As per claim 1 and 15 Lee discloses a user equipment (UE)(UE 115) comprising: one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing one or more computer-executable instructions for selecting a precoding matrix indicator (PMI) for a visibility region (VR) of the UE(see par. 0126); and at least one processor coupled to the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, and configured to execute the one or more computer-executable instructions to cause the UE to (see fig. 6 and 7 for an example UE structure and components)(the steps may be performed by UE115(see par. 0053)
receive, from a base station (BS), an identification of the VR assigned to the UE, wherein: the BS comprises an antenna array comprising a plurality of antenna ports(see par. 0080-0084 where network entity 105 (e.g., a base station 140, may be equipped with multiple antennas and ports) and 0092 and
the assigned VR comprises a subset of the plurality of antenna ports of the BS(see par. 0103, 0126, 0135);
determine a PMI for the assigned VR(see par. 0101 0106, 0126,where UE reports PMI) ; and
transmit the PMI for the assigned VR to the BS(see par. 0092-0095).
As per claim 9, Lee d9iscloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the PMI is to be used by the BS to perform beamforming for the plurality of antenna ports of the BS antenna that corresponds to the assigned VR(see par. 0082-0083)
As per claim 10,Leediscloses The UE of claim 1, wherein transmitting the PMI to the BS for the assigned VR comprises transmitting the PMI to the BS in one of a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) or a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH)(see par. 0058).
As per claim 11, Lee discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more computer-executable instructions to cause the UE to:
receive a plurality of reference signals from the BS(see par. 0089-0090);
perform channel state information (CSI) measurements on the plurality of reference signals(see par. 0102); estimate a channel precoding matrix based on the CSI measurements(see par. 0115) ; and select a precoding matrix from a plurality of predefined channel precoding matrixes based on the estimated channel matrix(see par. 0025, 0187-0189).
as per claim 12, Lee discloses the UE of claim 11, wherein the PMI comprises an index to the selected precoding matrix.(see par. 0025).
As per claim 13, Lee discloses the UE of claim 11, wherein transmitting the PMI to the BS comprises a periodically transmitting the PMI to the BS based on one or more changes in CSI measurements(see par. 0039)
As per claim 14, Lee discloses the UE of claim 11, wherein transmitting the PMI to the BS comprises periodically transmitting the PMI to the BS(see par. 0090)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAHI ELMI SALAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4009. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-6: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.
/ABDULLAHI E SALAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights