DETAILED ACTION
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. See 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
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).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,160,396 (hereinafter ‘396) and claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,595,182. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because despite slight difference in wording, claim 1 of ‘396 recites essentially all claimed subject matter of claim 1 in the present application.
A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a 35 patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Accordingly, absent a terminal disclaimer, claims 1-20 are properly rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.” (In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (US 2016/0337993, “Takeda”) in view of Nogami et al. (US 2015/0296513, “Nogami”).
Regarding claim 1, Takeda discloses an integrated circuit, which comprises circuitry configured to:
- control receiving a higher layer signaling which indicates four resource patterns for a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) (See ¶.54, when PDSCH DM-RSs and CSI-RSs are provided in four patterns of associations, these four patterns of associations are reported to the user terminal in advance, semi-statically, through higher layer signaling such as RRC), each of the four resource patterns indicating a frequency resource pattern in a frequency domain and a time resource pattern in a time domain in one or two slots (See Fig.5A-B, a different types of PDSCH patterns in frequency and time domains; See Fig.8A-8C, PDSCH locations and/or pattern in frequency and time domains; Examiner’s Note; Nogami discloses the limitations “PDSCH in a time domain in one or two slots” ),
- wherein at least one of the four resource patterns indicates a resource excluded from allocation of the PDSCH in the one or two slots (See Fig.5B, PDSCH’s resource excluded from one or more slots;
PNG
media_image1.png
397
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
- control receiving downlink control information (DCI) containing 2-bit information which notifies a selected resource pattern from the four resource patterns (See ¶.54, a PQI value (for example, one of “00,” “01,” “10” and “11”) to represent an association that is selected from these four patterns of associations is reported to the user terminal, dynamically, in DCI (for example, DCI format 2D). Based on this PQI value included in DCI, the user terminal can specify the CSI-RS configuration used in the PDSCH-transmitting small cell); and
- decode the PDSCH based on the selected resource pattern (See ¶.56, decode the PDSCH properly; See ¶.135, the PDSCH receiving process section performs processes (for example, FFT, demodulation, decoding and so on) for receiving higher layer control information via the PDSCH).
Takeda discloses PDSCH resource locations and/or patterns in frequency and time domains, but silent on what Nogami discloses “PDSCH in a time domain in one or two slots” (Nogami, See Fig.4, PDSCH region in slots in time domain; See further ¶.124 and ¶.320 for ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “PDSCH in a time domain in one or two slots” as taught by Nogami into the system of Takeda, so that it provides a way of determining the starting position of the resource element to which the PDSCH is mapped in a slot in a certain frame based on at least one of the transmission mode (Nogami, See ¶.320).
Regarding claim 2, Takeda discloses “wherein the at least one input, in operation, inputs data; and at least one output coupled to the circuitry, wherein the at least one output, in operation, outputs data to be transmitted (See Fig.19, transmitting and receiving data related with DCI and PDSCH).”
Regarding claim 3, Takeda discloses “reception circuitry, which, in operation, controls receiving the higher layer signaling, and controls receiving the DCI; and processing circuitry, which, in operation, decodes the PDSCH (See Fig.18, DCI generation section, higher layer control information section; Fig.19, PDSCH receiving process section; See the rejection of claim 1).”
Regarding claim 4, Takeda discloses “wherein the at least one of the four resource patterns indicates resource blocks (RBs) of the frequency resource pattern which are not available for allocation of the PDSCH (See Fig.5A-B, resource blocks for EPDCCH and PDCCH; See Fig.8A-C, Fig.10A-Huang for other channels such as PDCCH, DM-RS, and CSI-RS).”
Regarding claim 5, Takeda discloses “the at least one of the four resource patterns indicates a starting symbol of the time resource pattern for allocation of the PDSCH (See ¶.67, the DS configuration information may include, for example, the transmission cycle, the transmission period and the start offset of the discovery signals).”
Regarding claim 6, Takeda discloses “the frequency resource pattern is indicated in units of a resource block (RB) (Takeda, See Fig.5A-B; Nogami, See ¶.91, a resource block is used to express mapping of a certain PDSCH to resource elements).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Takeda discloses “wherein each of the four resource patterns indicates the frequency resource pattern occupied by a mini slot (See Fig.5A and ¶.45, subframe, i.e. mini-slot; See further ¶.11 and ¶.74).”
Regarding claim 8, Takeda discloses “the selected resource pattern dynamically indicates the resource excluded from allocation of the PDSCH (See ¶.54, A PQI value (for example, one of “00,” “01,” “10” and “11”) to represent an association that is selected from these four patterns of associations is reported to the user terminal, dynamically, in DCI (for example, DCI format 2D). Based on this PQI value included in DCI, the user terminal can specify the CSI-RS configuration used in the PDSCH-transmitting small cell).”
Regarding claim 9, it is a process controlled by an IC claim corresponding to the claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claims 10-14, they are claims corresponding to claims 4-8, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Regarding claim 15, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim corresponding to the claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 16, Takeda discloses “the contents comprise configuration settings (See ¶.53-54, configuration information used).”
Regarding claims 17-20, they are claims corresponding to claims 4-7, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jung H Park whose telephone number is 571-272-8565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM-3:00 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/JUNG H PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights