Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to the Application No. 18/934,457 filed on 11/1/24. Claims 1 – 30 has been examined.
Double Patenting
3. 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.
4. Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,149,310. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because see the reasons below.
Instant Application
Pat # 12,149,310
An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories; and
one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors configured to:
determine a time-averaged uplink power limit for each antenna of a set of antennas; modify an antenna switching configuration based at least in part on the time-averaged uplink power limit;
identify, based at least in part on the modified antenna switching configuration, an antenna from the set of antennas; and
transmit a signal using the antenna.
An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories; and
one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors configured to:
determine a time-averaged uplink power limit for each antenna of a set of antennas; modify an antenna switching configuration based at least in part on the time-averaged uplink power limit; and
transmit a signal using an antenna, from the set of antennas, based at least in part on the modified antenna switching configuration, wherein the antenna is associated with a higher time-averaged uplink power limit than one or more other antennas from the set of antennas.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to transmit the signal with or without higher time-averaged power limit than one or more other antennas.
Regarding claim 2, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the antenna is associated with a higher time-averaged uplink power limit than one or more other antennas from the set of antennas (As mentioned above claim 1 of pat # 12,149,310).
Regarding claim 9, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 10, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 2, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 17, the non-transitory computer-readable medium storage substantially has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 18, the the non-transitory computer-readable medium storage method substantially has same limitations as claim 2, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 25, the apparatus substantially has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 26, the apparatus substantially has same limitations as claim 2, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 3 – 8, 11 – 16, 19 – 24, 27 – 30 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.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANMAY K SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri - 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
TANMAY K. SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2632
/TANMAY K SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights