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 .
Initial Examination
Applicant's submission filed on 10/31/24 has been entered.
Claims 1-40 are pending.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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 1-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over their respective claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 12166703, 11405978, and 10820366. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are merely broader version of the above patents’ claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10, 11-13, 15, 17-18, 20, 21-23, 25, 27-28, 30, and 31-33, 35, 37-38, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 20140092855 A1) in view of Shu (US 20180376422 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ahn discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a wireless device, a first message indicating uplink radio resources for a cell (TAG config info [par. 0127-130, fig. 7]);
in response to receiving a second message indicating an activation of the cell (PDCCH command [par. 0130]);
activating the cell [par. 0130]; and
activating the uplink radio resources [par. 0130].
Although Ahn discloses messages and activating cell/resources, as discussed above, Ahn does not explicitly disclose sending, via the uplink radio resources, one or more data packets. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Shu.
In the same field of endeavor, Shu discloses:
sending, via the uplink radio resources, one or more data packets [Abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ahn with Shu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of communicating between a network and the UE [Shu par. 0003].
Regarding claim 11, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Ahn and Shu further disclose a wireless device [Ahn fig. 22 no. 2200] comprising: one or more processors [Ahn fig. 22 no. 2210], and memory [Shu fig. 13 no. 1310] storing instructions [Ahn fig. 7-10].
Regarding claim 21, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in CRM claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Ahn and Shu further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium [Shu fig. 13 no. 1310] storing instructions [Ahn fig. 7-10].
Regarding claim 31, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Ahn further discloses a system [fig. 22] comprising: a wireless device [fig. 22 no. 2200]; and a base station [fig. 22 no. 2250], … wherein the base station is configured to send the first message [fig. 7 “eNB”, par. 0127-130].
Regarding claims 2, 12, 22, and 32, Ahn and Shu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Ahn further discloses:
wherein the cell comprises a secondary cell [par. 0127-130].
Regarding claims 3, 13, 23, and 33, Ahn and Shu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Shu further discloses wherein the sending the one or more data packets comprises:
sending the one or more data packets using a modulation and coding scheme, wherein the first message further indicates the modulation and coding scheme [par. 0236-246].
Regarding claims 5, 25, and 35, Ahn and Shu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Shu further discloses further comprising:
receiving, via a downlink control channel, the second message [par. 0128].
Regarding claim 15, Ahn and Shu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Ahn and Shu further disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to:
receive, via a downlink control channel, the second message [Shu par. 0128]; and
based on receiving the control signal, activate the uplink radio resources [Ahn par. 0130].
Regarding claims 7, 17, 27, and 37, Ahn and Shu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Ahn further discloses:
wherein the activating the cell comprises re-activating a deactivated cell [fig. 7 no. S720, par. 0096].
Regarding claims 8, 18, 28, and 38, Ahn and Shu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Ahn and Shu further disclose:
wherein the first message comprises at least one radio resource control message [fig. 1 no. 104].
Regarding claims 10, 20, 30, and 40, Ahn and Shu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Ahn and Shu further disclose further comprising:
based on expiration of a time alignment timer, stopping uplink transmissions via the uplink radio resources [Ahn par. 0096]; and
based on receiving a timing advance command:
re-activating the uplink radio resources [Ahn fig. 7 no. S720]; and
sending, via the re-activated [Ahn, as discussed above] uplink radio resources, one or more second data packets [Shu fig. 1 “Data”].
Claims 4, 6, 14, 16, 24, 26, and 34, 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn and Shu as applied to claims 1, 11, 21, and 31 respectively, and further in view of Lee (US 20190014563 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 14, 24, and 34, Ahn and Shu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Shu discloses wherein the sending the one or more data packets, as discussed above, Ahn and Shu do not explicitly disclose is based on a quantity of permitted repeat transmissions. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Lee.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses:
is based on a quantity of permitted repeat transmissions [par. 0184].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ahn and Shu with Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of dynamic scheduling [Lee Abstract].
Regarding claims 6, 16, 26, and 36, Ahn and Shu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Shu discloses the one or more data packets, as discussed above, Ahn and Shu do not explicitly disclose further comprising receiving a response message associated with the one or more data packets, wherein the response message comprises downlink control information. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Lee.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses:
further comprising receiving a response message associated with the one or more data packets, wherein the response message comprises downlink control information [fig. 8 no. S804].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ahn and Shu with Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of dynamic scheduling [Lee Abstract].
Claims 9, 19, 29, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn and Shu as applied to claims 1, 11, 21, and 31 respectively, and further in view of Yamada (US 20180035453 A1).
Regarding claims 9, 19, 29, and 39, Ahn and Shu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Ahn discloses wherein the second message, as discussed above, Ahn and Shu do not explicitly disclose comprises at least one medium access control (MAC) control element (CE). However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Yamada.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamada discloses:
comprises at least one medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) [par. 0029, 031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ahn and Shu with Yamada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of using a PUCCH on a secondary cell [Yamada Abstract].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights