DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/28/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,864,201.
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. Moreover, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application merely broadens the scope of the claims of the Patent by eliminating the elements and their functions of the claims, and the claims of this instant application are therefore and obvious variant thereof.
Instant Application 18/929082
U.S. Patent No. 11,864,201
Claim 1, A communication method, comprising:
Claim 1, A communication method, comprising:
storing a plurality of MCS tables and a plurality of CQI tables; and
transmitting, from a base station to a user equipment, an indication for selecting, by the user equipment, one of the plurality of MCS tables and one of the plurality of CQI tables,
wherein the plurality of MCS tables includes a legacy MCS table and an aggressive MCS table including a modulation order higher than modulation orders included in the legacy MCS table, and the plurality of CQI tables includes a legacy CQI table and an aggressive CQI table including a modulation order higher than modulation orders include in the legacy CQI table, the higher modulation order being 256 QAM, wherein a number of entries in the aggressive MCS table equals a number of entries in the legacy MCS table, and a number of entries in the aggressive CQI table equals a number of entries in the legacy CQI table, and wherein when Downlink Control Information (DCI) format 1A is used for downlink transmission, the legacy MCS table is used as a default setting
storing a plurality of parameter tables, wherein storing a parameter table is performed by storing a legacy parameter table and an aggressive parameter table,
wherein the plurality of parameter tables includes a MCS table, the legacy MCS table including modulation order in indexed entries, the aggressive MCS table including a higher modulation order in indexed entries than the modulation orders of the legacy MCS table, and wherein the plurality of parameter tables includes a CQI table, the legacy CQI table including modulation schemes in indexed entries, and the aggressive CQI table including a higher modulation scheme in indexed entries than the modulation schemes of the legacy CQI table, the higher modulation scheme being 256 QAM;
receiving an indication for selecting a legacy parameter table or an aggressive parameter table from the stored parameter tables from a base station, wherein a number of entries in each of the aggressive parameter tables equals a number of entries in its respective legacy parameter table, and wherein when Downlink Control Information (DCI) format 1A is used for downlink transmission, the legacy MCS table is used as default setting.
Instant Application 18/929082
U.S. Patent No. 11,864,201
Claim 2, The communication method of claim 1, wherein: the indication is directly transmitted by the base station via Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling or implicitly indicated by bits in Downlink Control Information (DCI) format.
Claim 2, The communication method of claim 1, wherein: the indication on which of a legacy parameter table or an aggressive parameter table is selected is directly transmitted by the base station via Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling or implicitly indicated by bits in Downlink Control Information (DCI) format.
Instant Application 18/929082
U.S. Patent No. 11,864,201
Claim 3, The communication method of claim 1, wherein: the plurality of MCS tables and the plurality of CQI tables do not always follow a same modulation order restriction.
Claim 3, The communication method of claim 1, wherein: the MCS and CQI tables do not always follow a same modulation order restriction.
Claims 4-6 disclose similar limitations and are therefore rejected for the same reason as indicated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under non-statutory double patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1-6 are allowable over prior art since the prior art reference(s) taken individually or in combination fail to particularly disclose, fairly suggests, or render obvious the following italic limitations:
In claim 1, “... storing a plurality of MCS tables and a plurality of CQI tables; and transmitting, …, an indication for selecting, by the user equipment, one of the plurality of MCS tables and one of the plurality of CQI tables, wherein the plurality of MCS tables includes a legacy MCS table and an aggressive MCS table including a modulation order higher than modulation orders …, and the plurality of CQI tables includes a legacy CQI table and an aggressive CQI table including a modulation order higher than modulation orders include in the legacy CQI table, the higher modulation order being 256 QAM, … a number of entries in the aggressive CQI table equals a number of entries in the legacy CQI table, and wherein when Downlink Control Information (DCI) format 1A …, the legacy MCS table is used as a default setting...” and in combination with other recited limitations in claim 1.
Claim 4, includes similar features of claim 1 and are therefore allowable over prior art since the prior art reference(s) taken individually or in combination fail to particularly disclose, fairly suggests, or render obvious the italic limitation above, and in combination with other limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al., U.S. Publication No. 2015/0163773 discloses including a conservative CQI table (e.g. the legacy CQI table) and an aggressive CQI table.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKIE ZUNIGA ABAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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 at 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 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.
/JACKIE ZUNIGA ABAD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights