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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. It appears that there is no support for the newly amended limitation “on the channel of the unlicensed secondary cell” in the cited paragraphs [00170] and [00174]. Under BRI “on the channel of the unlicensed secondary cell” can be interpreted as “on about the channel of the unlicensed secondary cell”. The instant specification has no support when the term “on” is interpreted as “using” the channel of the unlicensed secondary cell.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the
claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly
owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the
contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and
effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date
of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C.
102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21 and 29 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Chang et al.
(WO2020033364, hereinafter Chang) in view of Chen et al. (US 20200221495, hereinafter
Chen).
In regards to claim 21, Chang teaches a method of wireless communication performed
by an apparatus of a user equipment (UE), comprising: performing, during a secondary
node (SN) change, Listen Before Talk (LBT) on a channel of an unlicensed secondary cell
([0013) in a NR-U SA system, control signaling for mobility is performed over unlicensed bands.
Since the unlicensed band may be occupied and the UE device must perform LBT procedures
prior to any transmission; [0019] For the example of FIG. 1 , a UE device 106 is receiving
wireless service from a first base station (first gNB) 102 where conditions change sufficiently to
warrant a handover to a second base station 104. For the example, the UE device 106 transmits a
measurement report to the first base station when the uplink channel for transmission is clear.
Therefore, the UE device 106 performs a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure; [0071] FIG. 7 is a
flow chart of an example of a method of managing handovers with handover commands having
inactivity indicators. The method is performed by a UE device operating in a NR-U SA system
such as the system 100 described above. Accordingly, the method may be performed by the UE
device 106. [0073] At step 704, the unlicensed uplink channel is observed. The UE device
performs an LBT process to determine if the channel is occupied); and
Chang does not teach reporting one or more LBT failures, on the channel of the unlicensed secondary cell to a primary cell associated with the unlicensed secondary cell.
However, Chen in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches reporting one or more LBT failures, on the channel of the unlicensed secondary cell to a primary cell associated with the unlicensed secondary cell (P [0047])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing
date to incorporate in Chang’s method/system the steps of reporting one or more LBT failures
on the channel of the unlicensed secondary cell, to a primary cell associated with the unlicensed secondary cell as suggested by Chen. The motivation is that, as suggested by Chen, P [0003], for an improved and efficient mechanism for a UE to handle LBT failure that may take place in the physical layer.
Claim 29 is rejected for the same rational as claim 21.
Claim 22-28 and 30-36 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Chang et al. (WO2020033364, hereinafter Chang) in view of Chen et al. (US 20200221495, hereinafter Chen and further in view of Wang et al. (WO2020064615, hereinafter Wang).
In regards to claim 22, combination of Chang and Chen do not teach switching, based at least in part on the one or more LBT failures, to another bandwidth part at the unlicensed secondary cell.
However, Wang in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches switching, based at
least in part on the one or more LBT failures, to another bandwidth part at the unlicensed
secondary cell (Page 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing
date to incorporate in Chang’s and Chen’s method/system the steps of switching, based at least in part on the one or more LBT failures, to another bandwidth part at the unlicensed secondary cell
as suggested by Wang. The motivation is that, as suggested by Wang, page 6, notifying the
primary cell of LBT failure to avoid LBT failures during random access due to system
congestion and further avoiding long latency for the intended data transfer.
In regards to claim 23, combination of Chang and Chen do not teach performing the LBT until a stopping condition occurs.
However, Wang in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches performing the LBT
until a stopping condition occurs (Page 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing
date to incorporate in Chang’s and Chen’s method/system the steps of performing the LBT until a stopping condition occurs as suggested by Wang. The motivation is that, as suggested by
Wang, page 6, notifying the primary cell of LBT failure to avoid LBT failures during random
access due to system congestion and further avoiding long latency for the intended data transfer.
In regards to claim 24, combination of Chang and Chen do not teach the stopping condition includes one or more of completing a random access channel procedure or receiving a release source message.
However, Wang in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the stopping condition
includes one or more of completing a random access channel procedure or receiving a
release source message (Page 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing
date to incorporate in Chang’s and Chen’s method/system the steps of the stopping condition includes one or more of completing a random access channel procedure or receiving a release source message as suggested by Wang. The motivation is that, as suggested by Wang, page 6, notifying the primary cell of LBT failure to avoid LBT failures during random access due to system congestion and further avoiding long latency for the intended data transfer.
In regards to claim 25, combination of Chang and Chen do not teach switching, based at least in part on the one or more LBT failures, uplink transmissions to the unlicensed secondary cell.
However, Wang in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches switching, based at
least in part on the one or more LBT failures, uplink transmissions to the unlicensed
secondary cell (Page 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing
date to incorporate in Chang’s and Chen’s method/system the steps switching, based at least in part on the one or more LBT failures, uplink transmissions to the unlicensed secondary cell as
suggested by Wang. The motivation is that, as suggested by Wang, page 6, notifying the primary
cell of LBT failure to avoid LBT failures during random access due to system congestion and
further avoiding long latency for the intended data transfer.
In regards to claim 26, combination of Chang and Chen do not teach transmitting, based at least in part on the one or more LBT failures, a random access channel message to the unlicensed secondary cell.
However, Wang in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches transmitting, based at
least in part on the one or more LBT failures, a random access channel message to the
unlicensed secondary cell (Page 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing
date to incorporate in Chang’s and Chen’s method/system the steps transmitting, based at least in part on the one or more LBT failures, a random access channel message to the unlicensed
secondary cell as suggested by Wang. The motivation is that, as suggested by Wang, page 6,
notifying the primary cell of LBT failure to avoid LBT failures during random access due to
system congestion and further avoiding long latency for the intended data transfer.
In regards to claim 27, Chang teaches wherein performing the LBT comprises:
performing the LBT based at least in part on receiving an SN change message ([0013,
0071]).
In regards to claim 28, Chang teaches wherein the SN change is triggered based at
least in part on measurements from a source secondary cell or a target secondary cell
([0013, 0071]).
Claims 30-36 are rejected for the same rational as claims 22-28.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 37-54 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Faruk Hamza whose telephone number is (571)272-7969.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM 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. 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: 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.
/FARUK HAMZA/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466