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 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 10-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,225,476. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because most of the limitations of the pending claims are also in the claims of the patent.
Regarding Claim 1, the only difference between the pending claim and claim 1 of the patent is stating that X and T are finite non-zero values. All other limitations are the same.
The same applies to claims 7 and 13 which are equally similar to claim 10 of the patent.
Claim 2 is similar to claim 2 of the patent.
Claim 3 is similar to claim 3 of the patent.
Claim 4 is similar to claim 4 of the patent.
Claim 5 is similar to claim 5 of the patent.
Claim 6 is similar to claim 6 of the patent.
Claims 8 and 14 are similar to claim 11 of the patent.
Claims 9 and 15 are similar to claim 12 of the patent.
Claims 10 and 16 are similar to claim 13 of the patent.
Claims 11 and 17 are similar to claim 14 of the patent.
Claims 12 and 18 are similar to claim 15 of the patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(2) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (US 2020/0351794).
Referring to Claim 1, Xu teaches a power adjustment method, comprising:
receiving a medium access control control element (MAC CE), wherein the MAC CE is usable to update a pathloss reference signal (see paragraph 357 which shows receiving a pathloss reference signal based on a received MAC CE);
applying the pathloss reference signal no later than n+X+T, where n is a time for sending feedback information, the feedback information is used to feed back indicating that the MAC CE is correctly received, X is fixed duration, and T is variable duration (see paragraph 357 which shows choosing and applying a pathloss signal at T5 which occurs before an uplink transport block is transmitted at T6 where paragraph 236 shows the uplink transport block containing ACK which implies successful and correct reception and further noting that X and T is set to 0 since no detail is given otherwise); and
determining a transmit power of an uplink signal based on the pathloss reference signal (see ABSTRACT which shows transmit power determined based on pathloss).
Claims 7 and 13 have similar limitations as claim 1.
Referring to Claims 2, 8, and 14, Xu also teaches sending the uplink signal at the determined transmit power after the pathloss reference signal takes effect (see ABSTRACT which shows transport block transmitted at a power based on pathloss).
Referring to Claims 3, 9, and 15, Xu also teaches T related to higher-layer filtering capability information of a terminal device (see paragraph 214 which shows transmitting capability information and paragraphs 230 and 233 which shows filtering before transmission).
Referring to Claims 4, 10, and 16, Xu also teaches wherein the higher-layer filtering capability information comprises at least one of higher-layer filtering configuration information, a quantity of measurements, a measurement periodicity, a measurement setting, or time domain information of the pathloss reference signal; and the quantity of measurements is a quantity of measurements of receive power of the pathloss reference signal, the measurement periodicity is a transmission periodicity of the pathloss reference signal, and the measurement setting is a setting related to the pathloss reference signal (see paragraph 350 which shows a quantity of measurements shown as two separate pathloss measurements which equates to a quantity of measurements of receive power of the pathloss reference signal and further noting that the other limitations have no patentable weight since “at least one of” was used).
Referring to Claims 5, 11, and 17, Xu also teaches T as a sum of duration in which the terminal device performs higher-layer filtering, and duration in which the terminal device determines the transmit power of the uplink signal based on the pathloss reference signal (see paragraph 350 which shows the sum of two pathloss signals).
Referring to Claims 6, 12, and 18, Xu also teaches applying the pathloss signal no earlier than n+X (see paragraph 357 which shows choosing and applying a pathloss signal at T5 which occurs before an uplink transport block is transmitted at T6 where paragraph 236 shows the uplink transport block containing ACK which implies successful and correct reception and further noting that X is set to 0 since no detail is given otherwise).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE YUN whose telephone number is (571)272-7860. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 5712727867. 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.
/EUGENE YUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights