Detailed Action
The office action is in response to the communications filed on 10/08/2024.
Notice of 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 Status
Claims 1-14 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/08/2024, 01/16/2025, and 06/24/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Khoshnevisan et al. (Publication No. US 2024/0015746), the prior art disclosure relates to frequency division multiplexing for uplink shared channel transmissions with interlaced resource block allocation; see ¶ 0001. In specific, the UE 115-b may drop the one or more RBs associated with the guard band from the set of RBs allocated for the FDM uplink shared channel message; see ¶ 0177. However, the prior art fails to disclose the above feature(s).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 is objected to because of an informality in a limitation, wherein the limitation recites “disregards disregard a resource block assigned to the user equipment according to the resource allocation indicator…”. This appears to be a typographical error and should be modified to recite “disregards
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 13-14 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.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP §2111.04(II) recites:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.
The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
Claim 8 is a process claim that includes at least one contingent limitation.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim comprises a first limitation that recite “disregard a resource block assigned to the user equipment according to the resource allocation indicator if the resource block is one of guard band resource blocks at edges of one or more contiguous available sub-bands”. The limitation is considered a contingent limitation based in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). When analyzing the limitation, it discloses a step that only occurs after the condition (i.e. “if the resource block is one of guard band…”), but it fails to explicitly disclose a step when the condition does not occur. Therefore, the contingent limitation is not included in the BRI of the claim based on the interpretation that the condition does not occur. Any prior art rejection below might address the identified limitation in prior art rejections however that limitation cannot be relied upon to overcome prior art rejections because they are not required in the BRI of the claims.
Regarding Claims 9-14, the claims are rejected as they inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claim above.
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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,974. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the instant application discloses a similar scope of invention as the claim of the patent. Therefore, the patent claim anticipates the instant application claim. The patent claims differences are highlighted in the table below.
U.S. Patent No. 12,143,974
Instant Application
1. A transceiver device, comprising:
a transceiver which, in operation, receives, over a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), a sub-band occupancy indicator indicating sub-bands determined to be available for a transmission; and
a resource allocation indicator indicating resources included in the available sub- bands and assigned to the transceiver device for the transmission; and
circuitry which, in operation, determines the assigned resources according to the resource allocation indicator and the sub-band occupancy indicator,
the circuitry, in operation, disregards a resource block assigned to the transceiver device according to the resource allocation indicator if the resource block is one of guard band resource blocks at edges of one or more contiguous available sub-bands.
1. A user equipment comprising:
transceiver circuitry which, in operation, receives, over a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), a sub-band occupancy indicator indicating sub-bands available for a transmission; and
a resource allocation indicator indicating resource blocks included in the available sub-bands and assigned to the user equipment to perform the transmission; and
circuitry which, in operation, determines the assigned resource blocks according to the resource allocation indicator and the sub-band occupancy indicator; and
disregard a resource block assigned to the user equipment according to the resource allocation indicator if the resource block is one of guard band resource blocks at edges of one or more contiguous available sub-bands.
Regarding claims 2-7, the claims 2-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims 2-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,974. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application disclose a similar scope of invention as the claims of the patent. Therefore, the patent claims anticipate the instant application claims.
Regarding claim 8, the claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,974. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application disclose a similar scope of invention as the claims of the patent. Therefore, the patent claim anticipates the instant application claim. The patent claims differences are highlighted in the table below.
U.S. Patent No. 12,143,974
Instant Application
14. A method, comprising receiving, over a physical download link control channel (PDCCH),a sub-band occupancy indicator indicating sub-bands determined to be available for a transmission; and
a resource allocation indicator indicating resources included in the available sub- bands and assigned to a transceiver device for the transmission; and
determining the assigned resources according to the resource allocation indicator and the sub-band occupancy indicator,
a resource block assigned to the transceiver device according to the resource allocation indicator is disregarded by the transceiver device if the resource block is one of guard band resource blocks at edges of one or more contiguous available sub-bands.
8. A method comprising: receiving, over a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), a sub-band occupancy indicator indicating sub-bands available for a transmission; and
a resource allocation indicator indicating resource blocks included in the available sub-bands and assigned to a user equipment to perform the transmission;
determining the assigned resource blocks according to the resource allocation indicator and the sub-band occupancy indicator; and
disregarding a resource block assigned to the user equipment according to the resource allocation indicator if the resource block is one of guard band resource blocks at edges of one or more contiguous available sub-bands.
Regarding claims 9-14, the claims 9-14 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims 2-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,974. Although the claims are directed to different statutory categories, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application disclose a similar scope of invention as the claims of the patent. Therefore, the instant application claims are obvious variations of the patent claims.
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 8-9 and 12 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US Publication No. 2017/0347268, hereinafter referred to as Chen).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses receiving, over a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) (A base station transmit a physical layer control signaling (e.g. PDCCH) to a UE; see figure 17 numeral 1803 & ¶ 0031/0064.),
a sub-band occupancy indicator indicating sub-bands available for a transmission (The physical control signaling comprises a sub-band index; see figure 17 numeral 1803.) and
a resource allocation indicator indicating resource blocks included in the available sub-bands and assigned to the user equipment to perform the transmission (The physical control signaling comprises a logical start index and a resource size; see figure 17 numeral 1803.); and
determining the assigned resource blocks according to the resource allocation indicator and the sub-band occupancy indicator (The UE determines a first set of resources from the one or multiple sets of resources based on a physical layer control signaling from the base station; see figure 16 numeral 1702 & ¶ 0063. Examiner notes that figure 16 and figure 17 respectively address the same resource allocation process from the UE perspective and the base station perspective; see ¶ 0063-0064.); and
disregarding a resource block assigned to the user equipment according to the resource allocation indicator if the resource block is one of guard band resource blocks at edges of one or more contiguous available sub-bands (This limitation is considered a contingent limitation based in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI); see claim interpretation. As result, the claim is not given patentable weight.).
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses receiving the sub-band occupancy indicator via a group-common PDCCH and the resource allocation indicator via a PDCCH specific to the transceiver device, or
both the sub-band occupancy indicator and the resource allocation indicator via a PDCCH specific to the user equipment (A base station transmit a physical layer control signaling (e.g. PDCCH) to a UE; see figure 17 numeral 1803 & ¶ 0031/0064. The physical control signaling comprises a sub-band index, a logical start index, and a resource size; see figure 17 numeral 1803.).
Regarding claim 12, Chen discloses that the resource allocation indicator indicates the resource blocks assigned to the user equipment by a resource indication value indicating a starting resource block and a length in terms of continuously assigned resource blocks (The physical control signaling comprises a logical start index and a resource size; see figure 17 numeral 1803. Furthermore, each sub-band comprises a plurality of contiguous physical resource blocks (PRBs); see figure 17 numeral 1803 & ¶ 0064.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US Publication No. 2017/0347268, hereinafter referred to as Chen) in view of Seo et al. (Publication No. US 2015/0131546, hereinafter referred as Seo).
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses determining a first set of resources from the one or multiple sets of resources based on a physical layer control signaling from the base station, but fails to explicitly disclose that the resource allocation indicator indicates the resource blocks assigned to the user equipment by a bitmap indicating resource block groups, each resource block group including at least one resource block within the available sub-bands, and the method comprises determining a number of resource blocks within each of the resource block groups according to a total number of resource blocks within the available sub-bands. However, in analogous art, Seo discloses that the BS sends, to UE, allocation information indicative of the allocated subband and resource allocation within the allocated subband, wherein the allocation information may include a bitmap for the subband of the resources (e.g. RB/RBG) allocated; see figure 13 step 120 & ¶ 152. Furthermore, the resource block groups (RBG) size P may be defined by the number of resource blocks (RBs) that is set in a system frequency band; see ¶ 96. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with bitmap mechanism of Seo in order to enable efficiently allocation of the system band.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hector Reyes (Hector.Reyes@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 270-0239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5.
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 (Kevin.Bates@uspto.gov) can be reached on (571) 270-0239. 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.
/H.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights