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 1-20 are pending.
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 and 11 are each rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,342,351(parent patent) in view of Yang et al, application no. 2020/0359447, here in after known as Yang in view of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #100bis, R1-2001817, e-Meeting, April 20th – 30th, 2020, Agenda Item: 7.2.5.5, Source: Sony, Title: Remaining issues in inter-UE multiplexing, hereinafter known as Sony, as mapped below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they cover the same scope.
As to claim 1, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date to derive the invention as claimed from claim 1. Parent patent does not expressly disclose however Yang discloses and canceling, by the wireless communication device, the transmission on the second resource when there is an overlap between the first resource and the second resource (Yang, [0056]-[0057], [0093]-[0096], figure 7, when resources overlap ULCI cancel information used to cancel a lower priority communication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of parent patent to include the limitations of and canceling, by the wireless communication device, the transmission on the second resource when there is an overlap between the first resource and the second resource as taught by Yang. Communication of higher priority routine preempt lower priority communication as the higher priority communication are more urgent and take precedence.
Further as to claim 1, Parent patent and Yang do not expressly disclose however Sony discloses or executing, by the wireless communication device, the transmission on the second resource when there is no overlap between the first resource and the second resource (Sony, section 2.1, figure 2, proposal 1, ULCI is not applicable when UL grant is sent at or after the ULCI, that is cancelation does not occur when no overlap and sending second resource).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yang to include the limitations of or executing, by the wireless communication device, the transmission on the second resource when there is no overlap between the first resource and the second resource as taught by Sony. Invariably when there is no overlap of priority communication with the resources granted to another communication, the other communication can occur.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Sony.
As to claim 1, Yang discloses a method, comprising: receiving, by a wireless communication device from a network, an uplink cancelation information indicating a first resource and an uplink grant scheduling a transmission on a second resource (Yang, [0008], figure, [0077], wireless communication device (UE) receives, from the network, uplink grant for transmission on resource and Uplink Cancelation Indication (ULCI) that indicates overriding a transmission (cancelation information) ); and canceling, by the wireless communication device, the transmission on the second resource when there is an overlap between the first resource and the second resource (Yang, [0056]-[0057], [0093]-[0096], figure 7, when resources overlap ULCI used to cancel a lower priority communication). Yang does not expressly disclose however Sony dicloses or executing, by the wireless communication device, the transmission on the second resource when there is no overlap between the first resource and the second resource (Sony, section 2.1, figure 2, proposal 1, ULCI is not applicable when UL grant is sent at or after the ULCI, that is cancelation does not occur when no overlap for sending second resource).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yang to include the limitations of or executing, by the wireless communication device, the transmission on the second resource when there is no overlap between the first resource and the second resource as taught by Sony. Invariably when there is no overlap of priority for resources granted to another communication, the other communication can occur.
As to claim 2, Yang dicloses wherein subsequent to receiving the uplink cancelation information and the uplink grant, the method comprises: comparing, by the wireless communication device, resource units of the first resource and the second resource; and determining, by the wireless communication device, whether there is an overlap between the resource units of the first resource and the second resource (Yang, [0056]-[0057], [0093]-[0096], figure 7, when resources overlap ULCI cancel information used to cancel a lower priority communication, with time window indicating overlapping resource units).
As to claim 4, Yang dicloses wherein an ending symbol of a first downlink control channel carrying the second uplink grant is no earlier than a first symbol of a second downlink control channel carrying the uplink cancelation information (Yang, figure 8, [0097, [0136], monitoring DCI for uplink grant being not earlier than the DCI for ULCI).
As to claim 8, Yang discloses wherein for the first resource to overlap the second resource, an ending symbol of the uplink grant scheduling the transmission on the second resource is earlier than a first symbol of a downlink control channel carrying the uplink cancelation information indicating the first resource (Yang, figure 8, [0097]-[0098], ULCI resource is earlier than the uplink grant resource resulting in cancelation).
As to claim 11, Yang discloses a method, comprising: transmitting, by a network to a wireless communication device, uplink cancelation information indicating a first resource and an uplink grant scheduling a second resource (Yang, [0008], figure, [0077], wireless communication device (UE) receives, from the network, uplink grant for transmission on resource and Uplink Cancelation indication (ULCI) that indicates overriding a transmission (cancelation information)), wherein one of: a transmission on the second resource from the wireless communication device is canceled when there is an overlap between the first resource and the second resource (Yang, [0056]-[0057], [0093]-[0096], figure 7, when resources overlap ULCI cancel information used to cancel a lower priority communication), Yang does not expressly disclose however Sony dicloses or the transmission on the second resource from the wireless communication device is executed after a predefined point when there is no overlap between the first resource and the second resource (Sony, section 2.1, figure 2, proposal 1, ULCI is not applicable when UL grant is sent at or after the ULCI, that is cancelation does not occur when no overlap for sending second resource).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yang to include the limitations of or executing, by the wireless communication device, the transmission on the second resource when there is no overlap between the first resource and the second resource as taught by Sony. Invariably when there is no overlap of priority for resources granted to another communication, the other communication can occur.
As to claims 12 and 14, the claims are rejected as applied to claim 2 and 4 above by Yang in view of Sony.
As to claim 17, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 1 above by Yang in view of Sony.
As to claim 19, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 1 above by Yang in view of Sony.
Claims 3, 7, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Sony and further in view of Zhang et al, application no. 2021/0321367, hereinafter known as Zhang.
As to claim 3, Yang and Sony disclose the method of claim 1. Yang and Sony do not disclose however Zhang dicloses wherein subsequent to canceling the transmission on the second resource, the method comprises: receiving, by the wireless communication device from the network, a second uplink grant scheduling another transmission on a third resource (Zhang, Figure 4, third set of resources 435 resources that start later then second set of resources 415 and stater after ending of first set of resources).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yang and Sony to include the limitations of wherein subsequent to canceling the transmission on the second resource, the method comprises: receiving, by the wireless communication device from the network, a second uplink grant scheduling another transmission on a third resource as taught by Zhang. UL grant indicated third set of resources starting later than second resources and after first resources have ended enable higher priority uplink data to be sent with third set of resources.
As to claim 7, Yang discloses wherein: the uplink cancelation information comprises an Uplink Cancelation Indication (UL CI), and the first resource, the second resource (Yang, [0006], uplink cancelation indication UL CI), and the third resource are uplink resources(Yang, [0006], [0077], figure 4, ULCI indicates uplink resources to be cancelled (first uplink resources); second resources 406 set by UL grant, figure 9, a UL grant in the downlink control channel indicated third resources, where the UL grant falling within certain symbols of UL CI means UL CI is omitted).
As to claim 13, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 3 above by Yang in view of Sony and further in view of Zhang.
As to claim 16, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 7 above by Yang in view of Sony and further in view of Zhang.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GAUTAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)270-7182. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-8pm.
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, Hassan Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
/GAUTAM SHARMA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2467
/HASSAN A PHILLIPS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights