DEATILED 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 .
Claims 1-30 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement’s
3. The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 10/21/24 have being considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Priority
4. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
5. The drawings filed on 10/21/24 are accepted by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
7. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for transmitting ...”, “means for transmitting ..…” & “means for receiving” in claim 29.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (Figures 9-12 & Paragraphs 0149-0151, 0155-0158 & 0179) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
8. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
9. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Rico et al. (WO 2017/155594 A1) , in view of claim 1 of Zaki et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12, 160, 389 B2).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the second application are drawn to the "same invention" as the first application or patent.
Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are drawn to the "same invention" as the first application or patent.
Regarding claims 1: Rico discloses an apparatus for wireless communications at a base station (See FIG. 3 & Para. 0042; eNB), comprising:
one or more processors (See FIG. 3 & Para. 0042; eNB includes controller/processor),
memory (See FIG. 3 & Para. 0042; eNB includes a memory) coupled with the one or more processors; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to:
transmit at least one control message within a set of downlink subframes in a current scheduling instance; transmit a plurality of data messages within the set of downlink subframes in the current scheduling instance (See FIG. 4; transmits M-PDDCH in subframes 0-2, PDSCH in subframes 2-4, and HARQ feedback in uplink subframes 6-8),
Rico does not explicitly discloses wherein a first subset of the plurality of data messages is transmitted in accordance with the at least one control message in the current scheduling instance, and wherein a second subset of the plurality of data messages is transmitted in accordance with one or more control messages transmitted in a previous scheduling instance, wherein a feedback timing for the first subset of the plurality of data messages is based on the at least one control message, and wherein the feedback timing for the second subset of the plurality of data messages is based on the one or more control messages transmitted in the previous scheduling instance; and
receive one or more bundled feedback responses during uplink subframes in the current scheduling instance and in accordance with the feedback timing for each of the plurality of data messages.
However, Zaki from the same field of endeavor discloses transmit at least one control message within a set of downlink subframes in a current scheduling instance;
transmit a plurality of data messages within the set of downlink subframes in the current scheduling instance, wherein a first subset of the plurality of data messages is transmitted in accordance with the at least one control message in the current scheduling instance, and wherein a second subset of the plurality of data messages is transmitted in accordance with one or more control messages transmitted in a previous scheduling instance (See Col. 43; line 60-Col. 44; line 3),
wherein a feedback timing for the first subset of the plurality of data messages is based on the at least one control message, and wherein the feedback timing for the second subset of the plurality of data messages is based on the one or more control messages transmitted in the previous scheduling instance; and
receive one or more bundled feedback responses during uplink subframes in the current scheduling instance and in accordance with the feedback timing for each of the plurality of data messages (See Col. 44; lines 5-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include encapsulation as taught by Craft in the system of Baruch in order to efficiently utilized resource frames using cross-frame scheduling technique (See abstract; lines 7-8).
Examiner Note: the applicants’ claims merely recite the reciprocal base station operation necessary to perform the steps of the UE operation. A person of ordinary skilled in wireless communication would have understood that implementing the UE functionality claimed in the U.S. Patent No. 12, 163, 389 necessarily requires a cooperating base station configured to perform the corresponding reciprocal operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 1-30 would be allowed if amended or file a Terminal Disclaimer (TD) against the parent patent application No. 12, 160, 389.
Conclusion
11. The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
A. Hwang et al. 2019/0313386 A1 (Title: Method for transmitting and receiving downlink data channel) (See Abstract, Para. 0012 & 0037-0038).
B. Park et al. 2023/0140147 A1 (Title: Method and apparatus for transmitting control information) (See abstract, Para. 0006 & 00813-0016).
C. Bai et al. 2022/0240223 A1 (Title: Rules for determining an application time for downlink control information) (See FIG. 1, Para. 0046, 0050 & 0160).
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEWALE A AMBAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-1076. The examiner can normally be reached on M.F 6a.m.-2p.m..
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 Moore can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEWALE A AMBAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
