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 (IDS) submitted on 2/28/25. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,070. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus.
Claim 2 rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. [12,250,070] in view of [Prior Art Reference, Jones et al., US Patent 11,838,151].
Claim 1 (from which Claim 2 depends) recites an apparatus for a UE to receive an indication of time domain resources for a multi-slot transmission occasion, select coded bits per slot, interleave them, and transmit.
Claim 2 further limits this by specifying that “the indication is received via downlink control information.” The reference, Jones et al, teaches a multi-slot transmission allocation to a UE utilizing DCI. (Jones paragraph 34) While it may not explicitly spell out DCI signaling in every minor iteration, it is well-known in the wireless communication art (as evidenced by [Jones teaching DCI signaling for multi-slot allocation]) to use DCI (Downlink Control Information) in physical downlink control channels (PDCCH) to dynamically indicate time-domain resource allocations (TDRA) across multiple slots in NR/LTE systems.
Therefore, modifying the apparatus of Claim 1 to receive the resource indication via DCI represents the simple substitution of a standard, well-known dynamic control signaling mechanism (DCI) for multi-slot scheduling, yielding predictable results. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to combine or apply DCI-based multi-slot resource indication to the apparatus of Claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 3 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,070. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus.
Claim 4 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,070. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus.
Claim 5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,070. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus.
Claim 6 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,070. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus.
Claim 7 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,070. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus.
Claim 8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,070. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus.
Claim 9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,070. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus.
Claim 10 rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. [12,250,070] in view of [Prior Art Reference, Jones et al., US Patent 11,838,151].
Claim 9 (from which Claim 10 depends) recites an apparatus for a UE to receive an indication of time domain resources for a multi-slot transmission occasion, select coded bits per slot, interleave them, and transmit.
Claim 10 further limits this by specifying that “the indication is received via downlink control information.” The reference, Jones et al, teaches a multi-slot transmission allocation to a UE utilizing DCI. (Jones paragraph 34) While it may not explicitly spell out DCI signaling in every minor iteration, it is well-known in the wireless communication art (as evidenced by [Jones teaching DCI signaling for multi-slot allocation]) to use DCI (Downlink Control Information) in physical downlink control channels (PDCCH) to dynamically indicate time-domain resource allocations (TDRA) across multiple slots in NR/LTE systems.
Therefore, modifying the apparatus of Claim 17 to receive the resource indication via DCI represents the simple substitution of a standard, well-known dynamic control signaling mechanism (DCI) for multi-slot scheduling, yielding predictable results. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to combine or apply DCI-based multi-slot resource indication to the apparatus of Claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,070. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus.
Claim 13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,070. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus.
Claim 14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,070. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus.
Claim 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,070. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus.
Claim 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,070. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus.
Claim 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,070. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus.
Further, A review of the instant application and the conflicting patent indicates that besides the prior issue, the only difference between the instant claim 17 and claim 17 of the conflicting patent is the statutory category of the invention.
The conflicting patent claims a method comprising instructions for executing wireless communication while the instant claim 1 claims a computer-readable medium comprising one or more memories and processors configured to perform the exact same operational steps.
It is well-established patent law that changing the statutory category of an invention (e.g., from a computer-readable medium or method to an apparatus/system configured to execute that method) does not render the claim patentably distinct when the underlying functional steps are identical.
Claim 19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,070. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus.
Further, A review of the instant application and the conflicting patent indicates that besides the prior issue, the only difference between the instant claim 19 and claim 9 of the conflicting patent is the statutory category of the invention.
The conflicting patent claims a method comprising instructions for executing wireless communication while the instant claim 1 claims a computer-readable medium comprising one or more memories and processors configured to perform the exact same operational steps.
It is well-established patent law that changing the statutory category of an invention (e.g., from a computer-readable medium or method to an apparatus/system configured to execute that method) does not render the claim patentably distinct when the underlying functional steps are identical.
Claim 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,070. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus.
Further, A review of the instant application and the conflicting patent indicates that besides the prior issue, the only difference between the instant claim 20 and claim 20 of the conflicting patent is the statutory category of the invention.
The conflicting patent claims a method comprising instructions for executing wireless communication while the instant claim 1 claims a computer-readable medium comprising one or more memories and processors configured to perform the exact same operational steps.
It is well-established patent law that changing the statutory category of an invention (e.g., from a computer-readable medium or method to an apparatus/system configured to execute that method) does not render the claim patentably distinct when the underlying functional steps are identical.
REASONS FOR ALLOWABILITY OVER PRIOR ART
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In the Examiner's best judgement the best prior art found during prosecution with respect to independent claims 1, 9 and 17 fail to, either singularly or in combination, to anticipate or render the claim features obvious, particularly the combination of features of the Independent Claims. The references used, fail to singularly or in combination, to anticipate and render obvious the inventive concept identified by the specific claim features of the inventive concept claims. Specifically, select, for one or more code-blocks of a communication on the multi-slot transmission occasion, coded bits of a plurality of coded bits on a per slot basis for each of the multiple slots, wherein start locations for bit selection for each of the multiple slots are independent of an actual number of bits selected for transmission in another slot.
The examiner identifies, as the best prior art of record, the following documents: a. U.S. Pre-Grant Publ'n. No. 2012/0082075 (published 5 Apr. 2012) [hereinafter Luo] teaches a UE may receive an allocation of time-domain resources for a multi-slot transmission. Further (figure 3) shown is that block encoders may be applied to the information bits after dividing the information bits into a first set of information bits and a second set of information bits of the two slots respectively. The block encoders then receives either the first set of bits or the second set of bits and generates a first set of encoded bits and a second set of encoded bits, respectively. Finally, after the first and second sets of coded bits are rate matched, the coded bits may be interleaved to generate a third set of coded bits for transmission.
However, Luo does not teach , select, for one or more code-blocks of a communication on the multi-slot transmission occasion, coded bits of a plurality of coded bits on a per slot basis for each of the multiple slots, wherein start locations for bit selection for each of the multiple slots are independent of an actual number of bits selected for transmission in another slot.
Additionally, all of the further limitations in 2 – 8, 10 – 16 and 18 - 20 are allowable since the claims are dependent upon the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J LOPATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-7 EST.
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. 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.
ROBERT J. LOPATA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2471
/ROBERT J LOPATA/
October 14, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights