Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to a communication received on May 5, 2026.
This application has been reassigned to a new examiner; their contact information is available at the end of this office action.
The Information Disclosure Statement received February 18, 2026 has been considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
The arguments directed to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claims 1-20 has been considered an is persuasive, as result the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
In light of an updated search and consideration, a double patenting rejection has been provided as a new grounds of rejection.
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 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of copending Application No. 18/616571 in view of Khoshnevisan (US 2021/0029641, hereinafter “Khoshnevisan”) and in further view of 3GPP TSG RAN #112, “Enhancements on cell DTX/DRX mechanism”, hereinafter “Document ETRI”).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant Application
Application 18/616571 (claim set filed July 23, 2026)
Claim 1
1. An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform at least:
Claim 16
1. An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions therein that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform at least:
obtaining information of one or more non-active periods of a cell, wherein the information of the one or more non-active periods of the cell is obtained based on a cell discontinuous transmission pattern configured for the cell and an indication of activation or deactivation of the cell discontinuous transmission pattern;
obtaining information of one or more non-active periods of a cell that is in discontinuous transmission;
receiving at least one physical downlink shared channel resource allocation for the apparatus;
receiving at least one resource allocation for the apparatus;
determining one or more resources of the at least one physical downlink shared channel resource allocation that overlap fully or in part with the one or more non-active periods of the cell; and
determining one or more resources of the at least one resource allocation that overlap fully or in part with the one or more non-active periods of the cell; and
determining a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement codebook based at least in part on the determining one or more resources of the at least one physical downlink shared channel resource allocation that overlap fully or in part with the one or more non-active periods of the cell,
configuring a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement codebook based at least in part on the determining one or more resources of the at least one resource allocation that overlap fully or in part with the one or more non-active periods of the cell.
wherein the hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement codebook is determined by omitting the one or more resources that overlap fully or in part with the one or more non-active periods of the cell.
16. (Previously Presented) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement codebook is configured by omitting resource allocation corresponding to the one or more resources that overlap fully or in part with the one or more non-active periods of the cell.
Conflicting claim 16 does not explicitly indicate “wherein the information of the one or more non-active periods of the cell is obtained based on a cell discontinuous transmission pattern configured for the cell and an indication of activation or deactivation of the cell discontinuous transmission pattern;” or that the resource allocation is explicitly a PDSCH.
Document ETRI teaches an enhancement mechanism for cell DTX/DRX (see p. 1), wherein wherein the information of the one or more non-active periods of the cell is obtained based on a cell discontinuous transmission pattern configured for the cell and an indication of activation or deactivation of the cell discontinuous transmission pattern (see p2, gNB will provide using RRC a cell DTX/DRX cycle which will provide the pattern for cell DTX/DRX cycles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use Document ETRI’s suggestion of how C-DTX/DRX is being proposed to provide UE’s the pattern of cell’s discontinuous active and inactive periods to allow energy savings by ensuring cell inactive periods.
Khoshnevsian teaches a system for managing HARQ-ACK in a system with configured DRX cycles, wherein the resource allocation is explicitly a PDSCH (see ¶97 and ¶112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use Khoshevsian’s suggestion that we should manage a PDSCH using HARQ reports within the conflicting claim, the combination would ensure that we are implementing PDSCH as one of the available connections and getting the benefit of improving the HARQ-ACK codebook as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Conflicting claim 16, as improved by Khoshevsian and Document ETRI, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more resources comprises one or more slots or one or more symbols (see Khoshevsian, ¶¶77-78).
The teaching of Khoshevsian is combined under the same rationale as suggested in the rejection to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Conflicting claim 16, as improved by Khoshevsian and Document ETRI, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one physical downlink shared channel resource allocation comprises a semi-static physical downlink shared channel resource allocation which comprises one or more of: a physical downlink shared channel time domain resource allocation, a semi-persistent scheduling resource allocation, or a semi-persistent scheduling group resource allocation (see Khoshevsian, ¶¶77-79 and ¶108-109, wherein we have static PDSCH using time domain resource allocations).
The teaching of Khoshevsian is combined under the same rationale as suggested in the rejection to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Conflicting claim 16, as improved by Khoshevsian and Document ETRI, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more resources of the at least one physical downlink shared channel resource allocation overlap, in time, fully or in part with the one or more non-active periods of the cell (see claim 16 of application ‘571, wherein the resources partially or full overlap)
Regarding claim 5, Conflicting claim 16, as improved by Khoshevsian and Document ETRI, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cell discontinuous transmission pattern is indicative of a cell discontinuous transmission cycle (see Document ETRI, p 2-3).
The teaching of Document ETRI is combined under the same rationale as suggested in the rejection to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Conflicting claim 16, as improved by Khoshevsian and Document ETRI, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is or comprises a gNodeB (see Khoshevsian, ¶73).
The teaching of Document ETRI is combined under the same rationale as suggested in the rejection to claim 1.
Regarding claims 7-20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-6. The claims provide a scope difference in terms of a method rather than an apparatus (claim 13) or the transmitter side rather than the receiver (claim 7), however the slight scope differences are obvious variations over claims 1-6 and the grounds of rejection provided for claims 1-6 equally address claims 7-20.
Listings of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang et al (US 2022/0021486) because its directed towards managing a HARQ-ACK codebook when there are DRX/DTX cycles.
Cheng et al (WO 2025/069301) because it teaches omitting HARQ-ACKs in a codebook during inactive Cell DTX that overlap with configured resources.
Ly et al (US 2025/0261274) because it teaches managing cell DTX/DRX patterns.
Ryu et al (US 2026/0019196) because it teaches managing HARQ-ACK codebook operations in a PDSCH.
Takahashi et al (WO 2024/242112) because it teaches managing HARQ-ACK codebook during cell DTX/DRX.
Ye et al (WO 2023/211788) because it teaches omitting HARQ-ACK during cell DTR/DTX inactive periods.
Choi et al (US 2022/0377777) because it teaches managing a HARQ-ACK codebook.
Baldemair et al (US 2020/0374031) because it teaches managing a HARQ-ACK codebook based upon cell DTX/DRX periods.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T BATES whose telephone number is (571)272-3980. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
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.
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights