DETAILED ACTION
1. It is hereby acknowledged that 18/950331 the following papers have been received and placed of record in the file: Remark date 01/27/25
Oath/Declaration
2. The applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Drawings
3. The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 states “…on the granted resource..”. It is unclear what is considered to be the granted resource since it was not previously mentioned in the claim. This can also be considered lack of antecedent basis. Further the claim states “in case”. This can be considered as a condition and thus the limitation does not need to occur. Applicant may choose to use “when” in it’s place in order to make the limitation definitive.
Double Patenting
5. 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).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8, 837,3 81. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both relate to feedback in a mobile communication system. The main difference is U.S. Patent (8,837,381) more specifically defines the type of channel feedback. This is an obvious modification for capacity improvement based on feedback resolution.
Instant Application (18/950331) U.S. Patent (US 8, 837, 381)
1. A method in a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: determining whether the UE has received an uplink grant from a base station; and transmitting a first type of channel state feedback information to the base station on the granted resource in case the UE has received an uplink grant.
1. A method in a user equipment (UE) of reporting channel state feedback from the UE to a base station, the method comprising the steps of: determining whether the UE has received an uplink grant from the base station; transmitting a first type of channel state feedback information to the base station on a granted resource upon determining that the UE has received an uplink grant, wherein the first type of channel state feedback information is a high-resolution type; and transmitting a second type of channel state feedback information on a dedicated resource upon determining that the UE has not received an uplink grant, wherein said second type of channel state feedback information is a low-resolution type, using a smaller number of bits than the first, high-resolution type.
The current application’s claim are similar to patent application’s independent claims and for same reasoning.
Claim 1 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,532,375. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both relate to feedback in a mobile communication system. The main difference from instant application is US Patent 9,532,375 uses second type of channel state feedback information which is less detailed than the first type. This is an obvious modification for capacity improvement based on feedback resolution.
Instant Application (18/950331) U.S. Patent (US 9,532,375)
1. A method in a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: determining whether the UE has received an uplink grant from a base station; and transmitting a first type of channel state feedback information to the base station on the granted resource in case the UE has received an uplink grant.
1. A method in a user equipment, UE, providing channel state feedback from the UE to a base station, comprising the steps of: determining whether the UE has received an uplink grant from the base station or not; transmitting a first type of channel state feedback information to the base station on a granted resource upon determining that the UE has received an uplink grant; transmitting a second type of channel state feedback information on a dedicated resource upon determining that the UE has not received an uplink grant, wherein said second type of channel state feedback information is less detailed than the first type.
The current application’s claim is similar to patent application’s independent claims and for same reasoning.
Claims 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No 9,883,527. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both relate to feedback in a mobile communication system. The main difference from instant application is US Patent (9,883,527) more specifically defines the type of channel feedback. This is an obvious modification for capacity improvement based on feedback resolution.
Instant Application (18/950331) U.S. Patent (US 9,883,527)
1. A method in a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: determining whether the UE has received an uplink grant from a base station; and transmitting a first type of channel state feedback information to the base station on the granted resource in case the UE has received an uplink grant.
1. A method in a user equipment, UE, providing channel state feedback from the UE to a base station, comprising the steps of: determining whether the UE has received an uplink grant from the base station or not; transmitting a first type of channel state feedback information to the base station on a granted resource upon determining that the UE has received an uplink grant; transmitting a second type of channel state feedback information on a dedicated resource upon determining that the UE has not received an uplink grant, wherein said second type of channel state feedback information is transmitted in a format comprising fewer bits than a format of the first type.
The current application’s claim is similar to patent application’s independent claims and for same reasoning.
Claims 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,595,337. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both relate to feedback in a mobile communication system. The main difference from instant application is US Patent 10,595,337 which explains receiving a first type of channel state feedback information on the granted resource; wherein the first type of channel state feedback information is more detailed than a second type of channel state feedback information that would have been received on a dedicated resource when the uplink grant has not been transmitted to the UE. This is an obvious modification for capacity improvement based on feedback resolution.
Instant Application (18/950331) U.S. Patent (US 10,595,337)
1. A method in a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: determining whether the UE has received an uplink grant from a base station; and transmitting a first type of channel state feedback information to the base station on the granted resource in case the UE has received an uplink grant.
1. A method in a user equipment, UE, providing channel state feedback information from the UE to a base station, the method comprising: determining whether the UE has received an uplink grant from the base station or not; transmitting a first type of channel state feedback information to the base station on a granted resource associated with the uplink grant when the UE has received an uplink grant; transmitting a second type of channel state feedback information on a dedicated resource when the UE has not received an uplink grant, wherein said second type of information is less detailed than the first type.
The current application’s claim is similar to patent application’s independent claims and for same reasoning.
Claim 1 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No 11,516,837. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both relate to feedback in a mobile communication system. The main difference from instant application is US Patent 11,516,837 explains transmitting a second type of channel state feedback information on a dedicated resource when the UE has not received an uplink grant, wherein said second type of information is less detailed than the first type. This is an obvious modification for capacity improvement based on feedback resolution.
Instant Application (18/950331) U.S. Patent (US 11,516,837)
1. A method in a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: determining whether the UE has received an uplink grant from a base station; and transmitting a first type of channel state feedback information to the base station on the granted resource in case the UE has received an uplink grant.
1. A method in a user equipment (UE) providing channel state feedback information from the UE to a base station, comprising the steps of: determining whether the UE has received an uplink grant from the base station or not; transmitting a first type of channel state feedback information to the base station on a granted resource associated with the uplink grant when the UE has received an uplink grant; transmitting a second type of channel state feedback information on a dedicated resource when the UE has not received an uplink grant, wherein said second type of information is less detailed than the first type.
The current application’s claim is similar to patent application’s independent claims and for same reasoning.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12167417 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both relate to feedback in a mobile communication system. The main difference is U.S. Patent (US 12167417 B2) more specifically defines the type of channel feedback. This is an obvious modification for capacity improvement based on feedback resolution.
Instant Application (18/950331) U.S. Patent (US 12167417 B2)
1. A method in a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: determining whether the UE has received an uplink grant from a base station; and transmitting a first type of channel state feedback information to the base station on the granted resource in case the UE has received an uplink grant.
1. A method in a user equipment (UE) providing channel state feedback from the UE to a base station, the method comprising: determining that a channel state feedback report triggering condition is satisfied; and as a result of determining that the channel state feedback report triggering condition is satisfied, then, depending on whether or not an uplink (UL) grant has been received, either: i) transmitting a first channel state feedback report of a first report type, or ii) transmitting a second channel state feedback report of a second report type that is different than the first type, wherein the UE transmits the first channel state feedback report if an UL grant has been received, otherwise the UE transmits the second channel state feedback report.
The current application’s claim is similar to patent application’s independent claims and for same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
7. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being rejected by Beale (US 2005/0233754A1)
Regarding claim 1, Beale teaches a method in a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: determining whether the UE has received an uplink grant from a base station;(see Beale paragraph [0067] explains….Node B sends an allocation message, UE responds with channel quality information report and ACK/NACK report on the transmitted on block… Fig. 6, 7) and transmitting a first type of channel state feedback information to the base station on the granted resource in case the UE has received an uplink grant. (see Beale paragraph [0067] explains…. when the network requires a channel quality information report, it sends a resource allocation for a traffic data message…)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gerald Smarth whose telephone number is (571) 270-1923. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6am-4:30pm ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Avellino can be reached on 571-272-3905. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/GERALD A SMARTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights