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 .
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-28, 31-46 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee et al. (US Pub. 2017/0339721) in view of Yerramalli et al. (US Pub. 2015/0373741).
Regarding claims 1, 14, 24 and 37, Mukherjee teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a wireless device, a plurality of uplink grants for a plurality of uplink transmissions via a plurality of cells (see “One base station, situated on the base station site, may serve one or several cells” in [0004], “Each scheduling message may be transmitted on separate PDCCH/EPDCCH resources, and consequently, there may be typically multiple simultaneous PDCCH/EPDCCH transmissions within each subframe in each cell” in [0023], “one or more SCells in the unlicensed band. In this application a secondary cell in unlicensed spectrum may be denoted as LAA secondary cell (LAA SCell)” in [0046] and “adjacent LTE cells employing LBT” in [0135]), wherein each uplink transmission of the plurality of uplink transmissions has a same starting position (“Two of the nodes, LAA-node1, LAA-node2, are synchronized” in [0094], see also “LAA-node1” and “LAA-node2” in Figure 11 having the same starting position), and wherein the plurality of cells comprises a first cell and a second cell (“one or more SCells in the unlicensed band. In this application a secondary cell in unlicensed spectrum may be denoted as LAA secondary cell (LAA SCell)” in [0046]). Mukherjee, however, does not teach performing a first type of listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure indicating that the first cell is clear; performing a second type of LBT procedure indicating that the second cell is clear; and transmitting, via the second cell, one or more transport blocks based on: the performing the first type of listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure indicating that the first cell is clear; and the performing the second type of LBT procedure indicating that the second cell is clear. Yerramalli teaches performing a first type of listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure indicating that the first cell is clear (“Is CCA check on the first unlicensed carrier clear” in step 1114 in Figure 11); performing a second type of LBT procedure indicating that the second cell is clear (“Is ECCA countdown on the second unlicensed carrier clear” in step 1118 in Figure 11); and transmitting, via the second cell, one or more transport blocks (“transmit data” in step 1122 in Figure 11, see also “The device may also transmit the data on the second unlicensed carrier” in [0109]) based on: the performing the first type of listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure indicating that the first cell is clear (“Is CCA check on the first unlicensed carrier clear” in step 1114 in Figure 11); and the performing the second type of LBT procedure indicating that the second cell is clear (“Is ECCA countdown on the second unlicensed carrier clear” in step 1118 in Figure 11). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mukherjee to have performing a first type of listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure indicating that the first cell is clear; performing a second type of LBT procedure indicating that the second cell is clear; and transmitting, via the second cell, one or more transport blocks based on: the performing the first type of listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure indicating that the first cell is clear; and the performing the second type of LBT procedure indicating that the second cell is clear as taught by Yerramalli in order to perform CCA jointly [0007].
Regarding claims 2, 15, 25 and 38, Mukherjee teaches the first cell and the second cell operate in different unlicensed bands or different license assisted access (LAA) cell bands [0007], [0021].
Regarding claims 3, 16, 26 and 39, Mukherjee teaches the receiving the plurality of uplink grants comprises: receiving, via a licensed cell, at least one uplink grant of the plurality of uplink grants [0007], [0021].
Regarding claims 4, 17, 27 and 40, Mukherjee teaches the at least one uplink grant is for at least one of: uplink transmission via the first cell; or uplink transmission via the second cell [0018], [0021].
Regarding claims 5 and 28, Mukherjee teaches performing the first LBT procedure by: sensing the first cell (step 1602 in Figure 16); and comparing a detected power with an energy detection threshold [0043].
Regarding claims 8, 18, 31 and 41, Mukherjee teaches the transmitting the one or more transport blocks via the second cell (step 1504 in Figure 15 in the second iteration) is after transmitting a second transport block via the first cell (step 1504 in Figure 15 in the first iteration).
Regarding claims 9, 19, 32 and 42, Mukherjee teaches the plurality of cells comprises at least one of: an unlicensed cell; or a license assisted access (LAA) cell [0007].
Regarding claims 10, 20, 33 and 43, Mukherjee teaches transmitting a second transport block via the first cell (step 1606 in Figure 16) regardless of whether the second LBT procedure indicates that the second cell is clear (“CCA for duration T1” in step 1604 in Figure 16).
Regarding claims 11, 21, 34 and 44, Mukherjee teaches performing the second LBT procedure (“CCA for duration T1” in step 1604 in Figure 16) immediately before uplink transmission via the first cell (step 1606 in Figure 16).
Regarding claims 12, 22, 35 and 45, Mukherjee teaches performing, based on the plurality of uplink grants [0018], [0021], the first LBT procedure (“CCA for duration T0” in step 1602 in Figure 16) and the second LBT procedure (“CCA for duration T1” in step 1604 in Figure 16).
Regarding claims 13, 23, 36 and 46, Mukherjee teaches a type of the first LBT procedure is different from a type of the second LBT procedure (T0 = 23 µs and T1 = 20 µs, see [0141]), and wherein the second LBT procedure is shorter than the first LBT procedure (T0 = 23 µs and T1 = 20 µs, see [0141]).
Regarding claim 50, Mukherjee teaches the transmitting the one or more transport blocks is further based on each uplink transmission of the plurality of uplink transmissions having the same starting position (“Two of the nodes, LAA-node1, LAA-node2, are synchronized” in [0094], see also “LAA-node1” and “LAA-node2” in Figure 11).
Claims 6, 7, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee et al. in view of Yerramalli et al. and further in view of Lu et al. (US Pub. 2017/0339607).
Regarding claims 6 and 29, Mukherjee in view of Yerramalli teaches the limitations in claims 1 and 24 as shown above. Mukherjee in view of Yerramalli, however, does not teach selecting the first cell uniformly randomly from the plurality of cells to perform the first LBT procedure. Lu teaches selecting the first cell uniformly randomly from the plurality of cells to perform the first LBT procedure (“selecting the sCell 24 includes selecting the sCell 24 from the list of potential sCells 24 based on a random selection strategy” in [0042]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mukherjee in view of Yerramalli to have selecting the first cell uniformly randomly from the plurality of cells to perform the first LBT procedure as taught by Lu in order to reduce throughput loss by blindly selecting (Abstract).
Regarding claims 7 and 30, Lu teaches selecting, before performing a procedure, the first cell uniformly randomly from the plurality of cells [0042] and Mukherjee teaches performing an LBT procedure of a first type on any cell of the plurality of cells (“CCA for duration T0” in step 1602 in Figure 16).
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee et al. in view of Yerramalli et al. and Yang et al. (US Pub. 2017/0055293) and further in view of Yerramalli et al. (US Pub. 2016/0234835, hereinafter Yerramalli2).
Regarding claim 47, Mukherjee in view of Yerramalli teaches the limitations in claim 1 as shown above. Mukherjee in view of Yerramalli, however, does not teach determining, by the wireless device, a first energy detection threshold for the first LBT procedure and a second energy detection threshold for the second LBT procedure. Yang teaches determining, by the wireless device, a first energy detection threshold for the first LBT procedure and a second energy detection threshold for the second LBT procedure (“CCA ED (energy detection) threshold, …, eCCA ED threshold” in [0030]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mukherjee in view of Yerramalli to have determining, by the wireless device, a first energy detection threshold for the first LBT procedure and a second energy detection threshold for the second LBT procedure as taught by Yang in order to divide nodes operating at an unlicensed band into groups [0030]. Mukherjee in view of Yerramalli and Yang, however, does not teaches determining the second energy detection threshold based on the first energy detection threshold. Yerramalli2 teaches determining the second energy detection threshold based on the first energy detection threshold (“based at least in part on the first CCA energy detection threshold for a first CCA slot 960, … establish a second CCA energy detection threshold” in [0108]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mukherjee in view of Yerramalli and Yang to have determining the second energy detection threshold based on the first energy detection threshold as taught by Yerramalli2 in order to modify energy detection threshold dynamically [0108].
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee et al. in view of Yerramalli et al. and further in view of Yang et al..
Regarding claim 48, Mukherjee in view of Yerramalli teaches the limitations in claim 1 as shown above. Mukherjee in view of Yerramalli, however, does not teach the first LBT procedure and the second LBT procedure are based on different energy detection thresholds. Yang teaches the first LBT procedure and the second LBT procedure are based on different energy detection thresholds (“CCA ED (energy detection) threshold, …, eCCA ED threshold” in [0030]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mukherjee in view of Yerramalli to have the first LBT procedure and the second LBT procedure are based on different energy detection thresholds as taught by Yang in order to divide nodes operating at an unlicensed band into groups [0030].
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee et al. in view of Yerramalli et al. and Yang et al. and further in view of Hu et al. (US Pub. 2018/0376339).
Regarding claim 49, Mukherjee in view of Yerramalli teaches the limitations in claim 1 as shown above. Mukherjee in view of Yerramalli, however, does not teach a first energy detection threshold for the first cell and a second energy detection threshold for the second cell. Yang teaches a first energy detection threshold for the first cell and a second energy detection threshold for the second cell (“CCA ED (energy detection) threshold, …, eCCA ED threshold” in [0030]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mukherjee in view of Yerramalli to have a first energy detection threshold for the first cell and a second energy detection threshold for the second cell as taught by Yang in order to divide nodes operating at an unlicensed band into groups [0030]. Mukherjee in view of Yerramalli and Yang, however, does not teaches receiving, by the wireless device, one or more radio resource control (RRC) messages comprising the energy detection thresholds. Hu teaches receiving, by the wireless device, one or more radio resource control (RRC) messages comprising the energy detection thresholds (“containing the energy detection threshold information into RRC signaling and notifying the user equipment” in [0179]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mukherjee in view of Yerramalli and Yang to have receiving, by the wireless device, one or more radio resource control (RRC) messages comprising the energy detection thresholds as taught by Hu in order to reduce transmission resource overhead [0082].
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 1-49 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No. 10257855. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application’s claims merely broaden the scope of the patented claims by not claiming some claim elements (i.e., receiving, by a wireless device from a base station, one or more messages comprising a corresponding listen before talk (LBT) parameter for each of a plurality of licensed assisted access (LAA) cells).
Claim 1 of Instant Application
Claim 1 of US 10257855
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
receiving, by a wireless device from a base station, one or more messages comprising a corresponding listen before talk (LBT) parameter for each of a plurality of licensed assisted access (LAA) cells;
receiving, by a wireless device, a plurality of uplink grants for a plurality of uplink transmissions via a plurality of cells, wherein each uplink transmission of the plurality of uplink transmissions has a same starting position, and wherein the plurality of cells comprises a first cell and a second cell; and
receiving, by the wireless device, uplink grants for uplink transmissions on the plurality of LAA cells, the uplink transmissions configured to have a same starting position;
determining, by the wireless device, an energy detection threshold for each of the plurality of LAA cells based, at least in part, on the corresponding LBT parameter;
performing a first type of listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure indicating that the first cell is clear; performing a second type of LBT procedure indicating that the second cell is clear; and transmitting, via the second cell, one or more transport blocks based on: the performing the first type of listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure indicating that the first cell is clear; and the performing the second type of LBT procedure indicating that the second cell is clear.
selecting, by the wireless device, a first LAA cell uniformly randomly from the plurality of LAA cells; performing, by the wireless device and for the first LAA cell, a first LBT procedure employing a long monitoring period; performing, by the wireless device, a second LBT procedure for a second LAA cell of the plurality of LAA cells employing a short monitoring period, wherein the second LAA cell is different than the first LAA cell; based on the first LBT procedure indicating a clear channel, transmitting, to the base station, one or more first transport blocks (TBs) on the first LAA cell; and based on the first LBT procedure indicating a clear channel for the first LAA cell and the second LBT procedure indicating a clear channel for the second LAA cell, transmitting, to the base station, one or more second TBs on the second LAA cell.
Claims 1-49 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-52 of U.S. Patent No. 10708951. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application’s claims merely broaden the scope of the patented claims by not claiming some claim elements (i.e., receiving, by a wireless device, one or more listen-before-talk (LBT) parameters for a plurality of licensed assisted access (LAA) cells).
Claim 1 of Instant Application
Claim 1 of US 10708951
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
receiving, by a wireless device, one or more listen-before-talk (LBT) parameters for a plurality of licensed assisted access (LAA) cells;
receiving, by a wireless device, a plurality of uplink grants for a plurality of uplink transmissions via a plurality of cells, wherein each uplink transmission of the plurality of uplink transmissions has a same starting position, and wherein the plurality of cells comprises a first cell and a second cell; and
receiving uplink grants for uplink transmissions, each having a same starting position, via the plurality of LAA cells;
performing a first type of listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure indicating that the first cell is clear; performing a second type of LBT procedure indicating that the second cell is clear; and transmitting, via the second cell, one or more transport blocks based on: the performing the first type of listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure indicating that the first cell is clear; and the performing the second type of LBT procedure indicating that the second cell is clear.
performing, for a first LAA cell of the plurality of LAA cells, a first type of LBT procedure associated with a first duration; performing, for a second LAA cell of the plurality of LAA cells, a second type of LBT procedure associated with a second duration shorter than the first duration, wherein the second LAA cell is different from the first LAA cell; based on the first type of LBT procedure indicating a clear channel for the first LAA cell, transmitting a first transport block via the first LAA cell; and based on the first type of LBT procedure indicating a clear channel for the first LAA cell and the second type of LBT procedure indicating a clear channel for the second LAA cell, transmitting a second transport block via the second LAA cell.
Claims 1-49 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-55 of U.S. Patent No. 11297647. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application’s claims merely broaden the scope of the patented claims by not claiming some claim elements (i.e., determining, by the wireless device, that a first type of listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure indicates that a first cell of the plurality of cells is clear).
Claim 1 of Instant Application
Claim 1 of US 11297647
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
receiving, by a wireless device, a plurality of uplink grants for a plurality of uplink transmissions via a plurality of cells, wherein each uplink transmission of the plurality of uplink transmissions has a same starting position, and wherein the plurality of cells comprises a first cell and a second cell; and
receiving, by a wireless device, a plurality of uplink grants for a plurality of uplink transmissions via a plurality of cells, wherein each uplink transmission of the plurality of uplink transmissions has a same starting position;
determining, by the wireless device, that a first type of listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure indicates that a first cell of the plurality of cells is clear; determining that a second type of LBT procedure, performed before transmission via the first cell, indicates that a second cell of the plurality of cells is clear, wherein the second type of LBT procedure is shorter than the first type of LBT procedure; and
performing a first type of listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure indicating that the first cell is clear; performing a second type of LBT procedure indicating that the second cell is clear; and transmitting, via the second cell, one or more transport blocks based on: the performing the first type of listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure indicating that the first cell is clear; and the performing the second type of LBT procedure indicating that the second cell is clear.
transmitting one or more transport blocks via the second cell, based on: the first type of LBT procedure indicating that the first cell is clear; and the second type of LBT procedure indicating that the second cell is clear.
Claims 1-49 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-58 of U.S. Patent No. 11330627. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application’s claims merely broaden the scope of the patented claims by not claiming some claim elements (i.e., the second cell is different from the first cell).
Claim 1 of Instant Application
Claim 1 of US 11330627
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
receiving, by a wireless device, a plurality of uplink grants for a plurality of uplink transmissions via a plurality of cells, wherein each uplink transmission of the plurality of uplink transmissions has a same starting position, and wherein the plurality of cells comprises a first cell and a second cell; and
receiving, by a wireless device, a plurality of uplink grants for a plurality of uplink transmissions via a plurality of cells, wherein each uplink transmission of the plurality of uplink transmissions has a same starting position;
performing, for a first cell of the plurality of cells, a first type of listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure associated with a first duration; performing, for a second cell of the plurality of cells, a second type of LBT procedure associated with a second duration shorter than the first duration, wherein the second cell is different from the first cell; and
performing a first type of listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure indicating that the first cell is clear; performing a second type of LBT procedure indicating that the second cell is clear; and transmitting, via the second cell, one or more transport blocks based on: the performing the first type of listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure indicating that the first cell is clear; and the performing the second type of LBT procedure indicating that the second cell is clear.
based on the first type of LBT procedure indicating a clear channel for the first cell and the second type of LBT procedure indicating a clear channel for the second cell, transmitting a transport block via the second cell.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In page 12, the applicant argues that the prior art does not teach “each uplink transmission of the plurality of uplink transmissions has a same starting position”. Makherjee teaches each uplink transmission of the plurality of uplink transmissions has a same starting position (“Two of the nodes, LAA-node1, LAA-node2, are synchronized” in [0094], see also “LAA-node1” and “LAA-node2” in Figure 11 having the same starting position). In pages 12-13, the applicant argues that the prior art does not teach two different types of LBT procedure. Yerramalli teaches the first type of LBT procedure (see simple CCA of Ch 2 in Figure 8 with one timeslot) and the second type of LBT procedure (see ECCA of Ch 1 in Figure 8 with 4 timeslots).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLEMENCE S HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM 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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/CLEMENCE S HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights