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 .
Claims 1-12 are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's claim for this application is a continuation application of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/427,347, filed January 30, 2024, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/158,893, filed January 24, 2023, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,888,612 on January 30, 2024, which is a continuation application of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/028,116, filed September 22, 2020, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,563,516 on January 24, 2023, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/761,622, filed March 20, 2018, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,784,987 on September 22, 2020, which is the U.S. National Stage, under 35 U.S.C. § 371, of International Application No. PCT/US2016/053730 filed September 26, 2016, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Nos. 62/232,022 filed September 24, 2015 and 62/273,969 filed December 31, 2015, the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted have been considered. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.9 /. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Specification
The specification is objected to because:
The Cross-Reference to Related Applications section in paragraph [0001] of the specification does not provide the status of U.S. application serial no. 18/427,347 (i.e., now U.S. Patent No. 12,328,188).
Marinier et al. (U.S. PN: 10,784,987)
Drawings
The formal drawings are accepted.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,784,987.
For example, claim 1 of the present application teaches “A method implemented in a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising: receiving, from a base station, downlink control information (DCI) indicating feedback information related to a first transport block (TB) of data transmitted in a first uplink (UL) transmission, the first TB comprising a plurality of code blocks, the first TB being associated with a first group of K blocks and a second group of K blocks, wherein the plurality of code blocks are arranged in one of the first group or the second group, and wherein the DCI includes at least one field configured to identify one or more code blocks from the first group or the second group to be retransmitted in a second UL transmission; determine, based on the at least one field, the one or more code blocks of the second UL transmission according to a predefined rule specifying that code blocks in the second UL transmission are structured in a specific order according to a code block identity, and wherein the control information includes a new data indicator indicating whether the code block group in the second transmission is for retransmission; and performing the second UL transmission based on the DCI”. Whereas claim 1 of U.S. PN: 10,784,987 teaches “A method implemented in a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising: receiving a first transmission of a code block group, wherein one or more code blocks of the code block group is unsuccessfully decoded; sending a bitmap with code block group feedback based on the one or more unsuccessfully decoded code blocks; receiving control information, on a control channel, wherein the control information includes an indication that a code block group of a second transmission is a retransmission of the code block group from the first transmission; and receiving the second transmission including the retransmission of the code block group from the first transmission”.
The examiner would like to emphasize that although the two inventions are not “exactly” the same, they are obvious variations of each other and not patentably distinct because one is just an embodiment of the other and the process remains the same.
“A latter patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the latter claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Other parallel dependent claims have corresponding issues with the dependent claims of U.S. PN: 10,784,987are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting.
For example, claim 5 of the present application teaches “A wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the WTRU comprising: a transceiver operatively connected to a processor, the transceiver and processor configured to: receive, from a base station, downlink control information (DCI) indicating feedback information associated with a first transport block (TB) of data in a first uplink (UL) transmission, the first TB comprising a plurality of code blocks, the first TB being associated with a first group of K blocks and a second group of K blocks, wherein the plurality of code blocks are arranged in one of the first group of K blocks or the second group of K blocks, and wherein the DCI includes at least one field to identify one or more code blocks from the first group of code blocks or the second group of code blocks, to be retransmitted in second UL Transmission determining, based on at least one field, the one or more code blocks of the second UL transmission according to a predefined rule specifying that the code blocks in the second UL transmission are structured in a specific order according to a code block identity; and perform the second UL transmission based on the DCI. Whereas claim 4 of U.S. PN: 10,784,987 teaches “A wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the WTRU comprising: a transceiver operatively connected to a processor, the transceiver and processor configured to receive a first transmission of a code block group, wherein one or more code blocks of the code block group is unsuccessfully decoded; the transceiver and processor further configured to send a bitmap with code block group feedback based on the one or more unsuccessfully decoded code blocks; and the transceiver and processor further configured to receive control information on a control channel and receive a second transmission including a retransmission of the code block group from the first transmission, wherein the control information includes an indication that a code block group of the second transmission is the retransmission of the code block group from the first transmission”.
The examiner would like to emphasize that although the two inventions are not “exactly” the same, they are obvious variations of each other and not patentably distinct because one is just an embodiment of the other and the process remains the same.
“A latter patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the latter claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Other parallel dependent claims have corresponding issues with the dependent claims of U.S. PN: 10,784,987are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting.
For example, claim 9 of the present application teaches “A method implemented by a base station, the method comprising: segmented receiving, from a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), a first transport block (TB) of data in a first uplink (UL) transmission, the first TB comprising a plurality of code blocks, the first TB being associated with a first group of K blocks and a second group of K blocks, wherein the plurality of code blocks are arranged in one of the first group of K blocks or the second group of K blocks; sending, to the WTRU, downlink control information (DCI) indicating feedback information associated with the first TB in the first UL transmission, wherein the feedback information indicates a retransmission of at least part of the first UL transmission in a second UL transmission, and wherein the DCI includes at least one field enabling the WTRU to determine one or more code blocks from the first group of K blocks or the second group of K blocks to retransmit in the second UL transmission based on a predefined rule specifying that code blocks in the second UL transmission are structured in a specific order according to a code block identity; and receiving the second UL transmission based on the DCI, wherein the second UL transmission includes the one or more code blocks”
Whereas claim 7 of U.S. PN: 10,784,987 “A method implemented by a base station, the method comprising: sending a first transmission of a code block group, wherein one or more code blocks of the code block group is unsuccessfully decoded; receiving feedback including a bitmap with code block group feedback based on the one or more unsuccessfully decoded code blocks; sending control information, on a control channel, wherein the control information includes an indication that a code block group of the second transmission is a retransmission of the code block group from the first transmission; and sending the second transmission including the retransmission of the code block group from the first transmission.
The examiner would like to emphasize that although the two inventions are not “exactly” the same, they are obvious variations of each other and not patentably distinct because one is just an embodiment of the other and the process remains the same.
“A latter patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the latter claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Other parallel dependent claims have corresponding issues with the dependent claims of U.S. PN: 10,784,987are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if the applicant files Terminal Disclaimer to overcome the rejection(s) under obvious-type non-statutory double patenting, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ouchi (US-10314078-B2) teaches a terminal device that communicates with a base station apparatus. The terminal device includes a transmission unit that configures a transmit power for transmission of a physical uplink shared channel in a serving cell belonging to a first cell group based on whether or not a physical random access channel is transmitted in the first cell group and a second cell group in a case where the first cell group and the second cell group are configured.
Shimezawa et al. (US-10027445-B2) describes a base station including a transmission unit and a reception unit. The transmission unit transmits a first uplink-downlink configuration in notification as information specific to the base station, a second uplink-downlink configuration configured as information specific to the terminal. The reception unit receives HARQ response information by using a PUCCH resource for the HARQ response information to PDSCH transmission of the terminal. The PUCCH resource is given based on elements in a set defined by a table. The table is defined for a combination of the first uplink-downlink configuration and the second uplink-downlink configuration
Loehr et al. (US-10187832-B2) teaches a method for configuring subframes for uplink/downlink communication for a mobile station (UE) not supporting dual uplink but located in a communication system supporting dual connectivity. The UE is connected simultaneously to two base stations via a respective communication link. An uplink transmission pattern is determined, defining whether subframes are usable for uplink communication to the first or second base station or for switching the uplink communication between the two-communication links. Based on the determined uplink transmission pattern, and further based on configuration of the mobile station for supporting dual reception or not, a downlink reception is derived for downlink communication between the two base stations and the mobile station, the downlink reception pattern defining whether the subframes are usable for downlink communication from the first or second base station or for switching the downlink communication between the two communication links.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Esaw T. Abraham whose telephone number is (571) 272-3812. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicants are 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, Albert DeCady can be reached on (571) 272-3819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (703) 872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ESAW T ABRAHAM/
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights