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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs), submitted on 16 December 2024 and 16 December 2024, were filed after the mailing date of the patent application on 09 December 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, received on 09 December 2024, are acceptable for examination.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12207306 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘306 Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 11 of the ‘306 Patent discloses a wireless device comprising:
one or more processors (Claim 11 of the ‘306 Patent discloses one or more processors); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device (Claim 11 of the ‘306 Patent discloses memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to perform the method of claim 1) to:
consecutively transmit a plurality of preambles at different times for a random access procedure (Claim 11 of the ‘306 Patent discloses consecutively transmit a plurality of preambles at different times and without gaps for the random access procedure);
monitor, in a window starting after transmitting a first preamble in the plurality of preambles and lasting at least until a transmission of a last preamble in the plurality of preambles, a control channel for a plurality of random access responses (RARs) identified by a plurality of random access radio network temporary identifiers (RA-RNTIs) (Claim 11 of the ‘306 Patent discloses monitor, in a window starting after transmission of a first preamble in a plurality of preambles and lasting at least until a transmission of a last preamble in the plurality of preambles, a control channel for a plurality of random access responses (RARs) identified by a plurality of random access radio network temporary identifiers (RA-RNTIs)), wherein:
each RA-RNTI of the plurality of RA-RNTIs corresponds to one of the plurality of preambles transmitted by the wireless device (Claim 11 of the ‘306 Patent discloses each RA-RNTI of the plurality of RA-RNTIs corresponds to one of the plurality of preambles transmitted by a wireless device); and
monitoring the control channel for each RAR of the plurality of RARs in the window is based on the plurality of RA-RNTIs (Claim 11 of the ‘306 Patent discloses the monitoring of the control channel for each RAR of the plurality of RARs in the window is based on the plurality of RA-RNTIs); and
transmit a packet based on receiving a first RAR of the plurality of RARs (Claim 11 of the ‘306 Patent discloses transmit a packet based on receiving a first RAR of the plurality of RARs).
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 11 of the ‘306 Patent discloses the wireless device of claim 8.
Claim 1 of the ‘306 Patent discloses wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to receive an order initiating the random access procedure (Claim 11 of the ‘306 Patent discloses receive a control channel order indicating to initiate a random access procedure).
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 11 of the ‘306 Patent discloses the wireless device of claim 9.
Claim 12 of the ‘306 Patent discloses wherein the order indicates one or more identifiers of the plurality of preambles (Claim 12 of the ‘306 discloses wherein the control channel order indicates one or more identifiers of the plurality of preambles). Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 of the ‘306 Patent discloses the wireless device of claim 8.
Claim 13 of the ‘306 Patent discloses wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to determine the RA-RNTIs based on resources employed for the consecutive transmitting the plurality of preambles (Claim 13 of the ‘306 Patent discloses the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the wireless device to determine the RA-RNTIs based on resources employed for transmission of the plurality of preambles).
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 11 of the ‘306 Patent discloses the wireless device of claim 8.
Claim 14 of the ‘306 Patent discloses wherein determining the RA-RNTIs is further based on: one or more time identifiers of the resources; or one or more frequency identifiers of the resources (Claim 14 of the ‘306 Patent discloses the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the wireless device to determine the RA-RNTIs based on: one or more time identifiers of the resources; or one or more frequency identifiers of the resources).
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 11 of the ‘306 Patent discloses the wireless device of claim 8.
Claim 15 of the ‘306 Patent discloses wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to stop monitoring the control channel for the plurality of RARs based on receiving the first RAR (Claim 15 of the ‘306 Patent discloses the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the wireless device to stop monitoring the control channel for the plurality of RARs based on the receiving the first RAR).
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 11 of the ‘306 Patent discloses the wireless device of claim 8.
Claim 16 of the ‘306 Patent discloses wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to construct the packet based on transmission parameters, wherein the first RAR indicates the transmission parameters (Claim 16 of the ‘306 Patent discloses the wireless device to construct the packet based on transmission parameters, wherein the first RAR indicates the transmission parameters).
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 13.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights