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 statement (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2025 and 02/05/2026 have been considered and placed on record.
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 7 and 9-11are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 and 12-14 of copending Application No. 18/834,476 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
All of the limitations of claim 7 of the instant application are reciprocal operation of the limitations of claim 10 of the reference application, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to modify claim 10 of the reference application to also include the operation of transmitter in addition to the already indicated receiver operation, thereby, having the details of the device’s transmission and reception mechanisms.
All of the limitations of claim 9 of the instant application are reciprocal operation of the limitations of claim 12 of the reference application, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to modify claim 12 of the reference application to also include the operation of transmitter in addition to the already indicated receiver operation, thereby, having the details of the device’s transmission and reception mechanisms.
All of the limitations of claim 10 of the instant application are reciprocal operation of the limitations of claim 13 of the reference application, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to modify claim 13 of the reference application to also include the operation of transmitter in addition to the already indicated receiver operation, thereby, having the details of the device’s transmission and reception mechanisms.
All of the limitations of claim 11 of the instant application are reciprocal operation of the limitations of claim 14 of the reference application, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to modify claim 14 of the reference application to also include the operation of transmitter in addition to the already indicated receiver operation, thereby, having the details of the device’s transmission and reception mechanisms.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ABDELGHAFFAR et al. (US 2025/0240142 A1, foreign priority GR 20210100869, hereinafter, “Abdelghaffar”) in view of JACOBSSON et al. (US 2025/0056556 A1, priority from provision application No. 63/238,273, hereinafter, “Jacobsson”).
Consider claim 7, Abdelghaffar teaches a terminal (see at least figure 1 (115), figure 2 (115)) comprising: a transmitter that transmits capability information indicating support of application of a length-4 frequency domain orthogonal cover code (FD-OCC) (see at least figures 1-2, paras. 124, 132-133, Abdelghaffar teaches UE transmitter transmitting capability information that supports length 4 FD-OCC) based on cyclic shift {0, π/2, π, 3π/2} for a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) demodulation reference signal (DMRS) (see at least paras. 86-88, 132-134, Abdelghaffar teaches FD-OCC based on cyclic shift {0, π/2, π, 3π/2} for PUSCH based DMRS); and a processor that applies the FD-OCC to the DMRS (see at least paras. 88, 96, 132-133 and figure 9).
Abdelghaffar teaches a processor that applies the FD-OCC to the DMRS (see above), however, did not explicitly teach applying FD-OCC to PUSCH DMRS. Jacobsson teaches said technique (see at least paras. 61, 64, tables 5-6 and figure 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to modify the invention of Abdelghaffar and teach applying FD-OCC to PUSCH DMRS, as taught by Jacobsson, thereby allowing an enhanced DMRS communication mechanism.
Consider claim 9: all the limitations in method claim 9 are included in the apparatus claim 7, therefore, claim 9 is subjected to the same rejection applied to claim 7.
Consider claim 10, Abdelghaffar teaches a base station (see at least figures 1-2) comprising: a receiver that receives, from a terminal (figures 1-2, figure 13 (1325, 1315)), capability information indicating support of application of a length-4 frequency domain orthogonal cover code (FD-OCC) (see at least figures 1-2, paras. 109, 124, 132-133, Abdelghaffar teaches base station receiving capability information that supports length 4 FD-OCC) based on cyclic shift {0, π/2, π, 3π/2} for a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) demodulation reference signal (DMRS) (see at least paras. 86-88, 132-134, Abdelghaffar teaches FD-OCC based on cyclic shift {0, π/2, π, 3π/2} for PUSCH based DMRS); and a processor that determines that the FD-OCC is applied to the DMRS (see at least paras. 88, 96, 132-133 and figure 13).
Abdelghaffar teaches a processor that determines that the FD-OCC is applied to the DMRS (see above), however, did not explicitly teach applying FD-OCC to PUSCH DMRS. Jacobsson teaches said technique (see at least paras. 61, 64, tables 5-6 and figure 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to modify the invention of Abdelghaffar and teach applying FD-OCC to PUSCH DMRS, as taught by Jacobsson, thereby allowing an enhanced DMRS communication mechanism.
Consider claim 11, Abdelghaffar teaches a system comprising a terminal and a base station (see figures 1-2 and description thereof), wherein the terminal comprises: a transmitter that transmits capability information indicating support of application of a length-4 frequency domain orthogonal cover code (FD-OCC) (see at least figures 1-2, paras. 124, 132-133, Abdelghaffar teaches UE transmitter transmitting capability information that supports length 4 FD-OCC) based on cyclic shift {0, π/2, π, 3π/2} for a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) demodulation reference signal (DMRS) ) (see at least paras. 86-88, 132-134, Abdelghaffar teaches FD-OCC based on cyclic shift {0, π/2, π, 3π/2} for PUSCH based DMRS); and a processor that applies the FD-OCC to the DMRS (see at least paras. 88, 96, 132-133 and figure 9), and the base station (see at least figures 1-2) comprises: a receiver that receives the capability information (see at least figures 1-2, paras. 109, 124, 132-133, Abdelghaffar teaches base station receiving capability information).
Abdelghaffar teaches a processor that applies the FD-OCC to the DMRS (see above), however, did not explicitly teach applying FD-OCC to PUSCH DMRS. Jacobsson teaches said technique (see at least paras. 61, 64, tables 5-6 and figure 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to modify the invention of Abdelghaffar and teach applying FD-OCC to PUSCH DMRS, as taught by Jacobsson, thereby allowing an enhanced DMRS communication mechanism.
Consider claim 8, Abdelghaffar in view of Jacobsson teaches wherein when the PUSCH DMRS is a legacy DMRS port, {+1, +1, +1, +1} or {+1, -1, +1, -1} is applied as the FD-OCC, and when the PUSCH DMRS is a new DMRS port, {+1, +j, -1, -j} or {+1, -j, -1, +j} is applied as the FD-OCC (see at least paras. 145-149 in Abdelghaffar, where Abdelghaffar teaches the first two rows being legacy DMRS port mapping and the last two rows as the updated DMRS with FD-OCC).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FITWI Y HAILEGIORGIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1881. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
FITWI Y. HAILEGIORGIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2632
/FITWI Y HAILEGIORGIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights