DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,200,802. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following correspondences.
Regarding claim 1, “a base station comprising: circuitry, which in operation, allocates a first resource pool and a second resource pool, which are used for a transmission of a device to device (D2D) signal; and a transmitter, which in operation, transmits to a communication apparatus information of the first resource pool by a dedicated Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling and information of the second resource pool by a System Information Block (SIB)” corresponds to “a communication apparatus comprising: a receiver, which in operation, receives from a base station information of a first resource pool being indicated by a dedicated Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling and information of a second resource pool being indicated by a System Information Block (SIB)” in claim 1 of the above U.S. Patent.
Lastly, “wherein the first resource pool is utilized among the first resource pool, the second resource pool and a preconfigured resource pool in a case that the first resource pool and the second resource pool are indicated in an RRC_CONNECTED state, and the second resource pool is utilized among the second resource pool and the preconfigured resource pool in a case that the second resource pool is indicated in an RRC IDLE state” corresponds to the same in claim 1 of the above U.S. Patent.
Claim 1 of the instant application does not claim “a transmitter, which in operation, transmits to another communication apparatus a signal using the first resource pool or the second resource pool”. Therefore, claim 1 merely broadens the scope of claim 1 of the above U.S. Patent.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). The omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Additionally, claim 1 of the instant application appears directed to “a base station” at one side of the communication system that performs steps complementary to the steps performed by the “communication apparatus” (of claim 1 of the above U.S. Patent) at another side of the communication system, and as such, is considered not patentably distinct.
Regarding claims 2-4, these claims similarly correspond to claims 2-4 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 5, “a communication method comprising: allocating a first resource pool and a second resource pool, which are used for a transmission of a device to device (D2D) signal; and transmitting to a communication apparatus information of the first resource pool by a dedicated Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling and information of the second resource pool by a System Information Block (SIB)” corresponds to “a communication method comprising: receiving from a base station information of a first resource pool being indicated by a dedicated Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling and information of a second resource pool being indicated by a System Information Block (SIB)” in claim 5 of the above U.S. Patent.
Lastly, “wherein the first resource pool is utilized among the first resource pool, the second resource pool and a preconfigured resource pool in a case that the first resource pool and the second resource pool are indicated in an RRC_CONNECTED state, and the second resource pool is utilized among the second resource pool and the preconfigured resource pool in a case that the second resource pool is indicated in an RRC IDLE state” corresponds to the same in claim 5 of the above U.S. Patent.
Claim 5 of the instant application does not claim “transmitting to another communication apparatus a signal using the first resource pool or the second resource pool”. Therefore, claim 5 merely broadens the scope of claim 5 of the above U.S. Patent.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). The omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Additionally, claim 5 of the instant application appears directed to “a communication method” performed at one side of the communication system that includes steps complementary to the steps performed by the “communication method” of claim 5 the above U.S. Patent at another side of the communication system, and as such, is considered not patentably distinct.
Regarding claims 6-8, these claims similarly correspond to claims 6-8 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 9, “an integrated circuit used for a base station comprising: allocation circuitry, which in operation, controls allocating a first resource pool and a second resource pool, which are used for a transmission of a device to device (D2D) signal; and transmission circuitry, which in operation, controls transmitting to a communication apparatus information of the first resource pool by a dedicated Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling and information of the second resource pool by a System Information Block (SIB)” corresponds to “an integrated circuit used for a communication apparatus comprising: reception circuitry, which in operation, controls receiving from a base station information of a first resource pool being indicated by a dedicated Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling and information of a second resource pool being indicated by a System Information Block (SIB)” in claim 9 of the above U.S. Patent.
Lastly, “wherein the first resource pool is utilized among the first resource pool, the second resource pool and a preconfigured resource pool in a case that the first resource pool and the second resource pool are indicated in an RRC_CONNECTED state, and the second resource pool is utilized among the second resource pool and the preconfigured resource pool in a case that the second resource pool is indicated in an RRC IDLE state” corresponds to the same in claim 9 of the above U.S. Patent.
Claim 9 of the instant application does not claim “transmission circuitry, which in operation, controls transmitting to another communication apparatus a signal using the first resource pool or the second resource pool”. Therefore, claim 9 merely broadens the scope of claim 9 of the above U.S. Patent.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). The omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Additionally, claim 9 of the instant application appears directed to “an integrated circuit” at one side of the communication system that performs steps complementary to the steps performed by the “integrated circuit” (of claim 9 of the above U.S. Patent) at another side of the communication system, and as such, is considered not patentably distinct.
Regarding claims 10-12, these claims similarly correspond to claims 10-12 of the above U.S. Patent.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,818,786. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following correspondences.
Regarding claim 1, “a base station comprising: circuitry, which in operation, allocates a first resource pool and a second resource pool, which are used for a transmission of a device to device (D2D) signal; and a transmitter, which in operation, transmits to a communication apparatus information of the first resource pool by a dedicated Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling and information of the second resource pool by a System Information Block (SIB)” corresponds to “a communication apparatus comprising: a receiver, which in operation, receives from a base station information of a first resource pool being indicated by a dedicated Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling and information of a second resource pool being indicated by a System Information Block (SIB)” in claim 1 of the above U.S. Patent.
Lastly, “wherein the first resource pool is utilized among the first resource pool, the second resource pool and a preconfigured resource pool in a case that the first resource pool and the second resource pool are indicated in an RRC_CONNECTED state, and the second resource pool is utilized among the second resource pool and the preconfigured resource pool in a case that the second resource pool is indicated in an RRC IDLE state” corresponds to the same in claim 1 of the above U.S. Patent.
Claim 1 of the instant application does not claim “a transmitter, which in operation, transmits a device to device (D2D) signal using the first resource pool or the second resource pool”. Therefore, claim 1 merely broadens the scope of claim 1 of the above U.S. Patent.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). The omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Additionally, claim 1 of the instant application appears directed to “a base station” at one side of the communication system that performs steps complementary to the steps performed by the “communication apparatus” (of claim 1 of the above U.S. Patent) at another side of the communication system, and as such, is considered not patentably distinct.
Regarding claims 2-4, these claims similarly correspond to claims 2-4 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 5, this corresponding “method” claim similarly corresponds to “method” claim 5 of the above U.S. Patent for the same reasons as described for claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 6-8, these claims similarly correspond to claims 6-8 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 9, this corresponding “integrated circuit” claim similarly corresponds to “apparatus” claim 1 of the above U.S. Patent for the same reasons as described for claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 10-12, these claims similarly correspond to claims 2-4 of the above U.S. Patent.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,368,997. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following correspondences.
Regarding claim 1, “a base station comprising: circuitry, which in operation, allocates a first resource pool and a second resource pool, which are used for a transmission of a device to device (D2D) signal; and a transmitter, which in operation, transmits to a communication apparatus information of the first resource pool by a dedicated Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling and information of the second resource pool by a System Information Block (SIB)” corresponds to “an integrated circuitry comprising: circuitry, which, in operation, controls allocating a first resource pool and a second resource pool used for a transmission of a device to device (D2D) signal” in claim 5 of the above U.S. Patent.
“A transmitter, which in operation, transmits to a communication apparatus information of the first resource pool by a dedicated Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling and information of the second resource pool by a System Information Block (SIB)” corresponds to “transmitting to a communication apparatus information of the first resource pool by a dedicated Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling and information of the second resource pool by a System Information Block (SIB)” in claim 5 of the above U.S. Patent.
Lastly, “wherein the first resource pool is utilized among the first resource pool, the second resource pool and a preconfigured resource pool in a case that the first resource pool and the second resource pool are indicated in an RRC_CONNECTED state, and the second resource pool is utilized among the second resource pool and the preconfigured resource pool in a case that the second resource pool is indicated in an RRC IDLE state” corresponds to the same in claim 5 of the above U.S. Patent.
Other than a slight difference in wording (e.g., claiming “a base station comprising: circuitry” rather than “integrated circuitry comprising: circuitry”), claim 1 is considered an obvious variant of claim 5 of the above U.S. Patent which is not patentably distinct.
Regarding claims 2-4, these claims similarly correspond to claims 6-8 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 5, this corresponding “method” claim similarly corresponds to claim 5 of the above U.S. Patent as this claim contains the same “allocating” and “transmission” steps as in claim 5 as described above.
Regarding claims 6-8, these claims similarly correspond to claims 6-8 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 9, this corresponding “integrated circuit” claim containing the reception and transmission steps of claim 1 similarly corresponds to “integrated circuit” claim 5 of the above U.S. Patent for the same reasons as described for claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 10-12, these claims similarly correspond to claims 6-8 of the above U.S. Patent.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-6, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,716,163. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following correspondences.
Regarding claim 1, “a base station comprising: circuitry, which in operation, allocates a first resource pool and a second resource pool, which are used for a transmission of a device to device (D2D) signal; and a transmitter, which in operation, transmits to a communication apparatus information of the first resource pool by a dedicated Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling and information of the second resource pool by a System Information Block (SIB)” corresponds to “a communication apparatus comprising: a receiver, which in operation, receives information of two or more resource pools, a first resource pool of the two or more resource pools being indicated by a dedicated Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling from an eNode B and a second resource pool of the two or more resource pools being indicated by a System Information Block (SIB) transmitted from the eNode B” in claim 1 of the above U.S. Patent.
Lastly, “wherein the first resource pool is utilized among the first resource pool, the second resource pool and a preconfigured resource pool in a case that the first resource pool and the second resource pool are indicated in an RRC_CONNECTED state, and the second resource pool is utilized among the second resource pool and the preconfigured resource pool in a case that the second resource pool is indicated in an RRC IDLE state” corresponds to “wherein, the first resource pool is prioritized in an RRC_CONNECTED state and the second resource pool is prioritized in an RRC IDLE state” in claim 1 of the above U.S. Patent.
Claim 1 of the instant application does not claim “a transmitter, which in operation, transmits a device to device (D2D) signal using one of the two or more first resource pools”. Therefore, claim 1 merely broadens the scope of claim 1 of the above U.S. Patent.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). The omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Additionally, claim 1 of the instant application appears directed to “a base station” at one side of the communication system that performs steps complementary to the steps performed by the “communication apparatus” (of claim 1 of the above U.S. Patent) at another side of the communication system, and as such, is considered not patentably distinct.
Regarding claims 2-4, these claims similarly correspond to claims 4 and 5 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 5, this “method” claim similarly corresponds to claim 6 of the above U.S. Patent for the same reasons described for claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 6-8, these claims similarly correspond to claims 9 and 10 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 9, this corresponding “integrated circuit” claim containing the steps of claim 1 similarly corresponds to “apparatus” claim 1 of the above U.S. Patent for the same reasons as described for claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 10-12, these claims similarly correspond to claims 4 and 5 of the above U.S. Patent.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,257,880. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following correspondences.
Regarding claim 1, “a base station comprising: circuitry, which in operation, allocates a first resource pool and a second resource pool, which are used for a transmission of a device to device (D2D) signal; and a transmitter, which in operation, transmits to a communication apparatus information of the first resource pool by a dedicated Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling and information of the second resource pool by a System Information Block (SIB)” corresponds to “a communication apparatus comprising: control circuitry, which, in operation … receives at least one of the dedicated RRC signaling, the SIB, and the preconfiguration information” as well as “wherein, the resource pool is indicated by one of dedicated Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling from the eNode B, System Information Block (SIB) transmitted from the eNode B, and preconfiguration information” in claim 7 of the above U.S. Patent.
Lastly, “wherein the first resource pool is utilized among the first resource pool, the second resource pool and a preconfigured resource pool in a case that the first resource pool and the second resource pool are indicated in an RRC_CONNECTED state, and the second resource pool is utilized among the second resource pool and the preconfigured resource pool in a case that the second resource pool is indicated in an RRC IDLE state” corresponds to “a priority order of an indication of the resource pool is different in RRC_CONNECTED state than in RRC_IDLE state” in claim 7 of the above U.S. Patent.
Claim 1 of the instant application does not claim “detects temporal inability to perform device to device (D2D) communication in mode 1 and determines a resource pool for the D2D communication, wherein mode 1 is a transmission mode in which an eNodeB schedules resources for the D2D communication”. Therefore, claim 1 merely broadens the scope of claim 7 of the above U.S. Patent.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). The omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claims 2-4, these claims similarly correspond to claims 2, 4, and 5 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 5, this “method” claim similarly corresponds to claim 14 of the above U.S. Patent for the same reasons described for claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 6-8, these claims similarly correspond to claims 9, 11, and 12 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 9, this corresponding “integrated circuit” claim similarly corresponds to “apparatus” claim 7 of the above U.S. Patent for the same reasons as described for claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 10-12, these claims similarly correspond to claims 2, 4, and 5 of the above U.S. Patent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References considered relevant to this application are listed in the attached “Notice of References Cited” (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J. MOORE, JR., whose telephone number is (571)272-3168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9am-4pm).
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, Hassan A. Phillips can be reached at (571)272-3940. 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.
/MICHAEL J MOORE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights