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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3-8, 10-13, 15-20 of US Patent 11,617,206.
Regarding claim 1, 13, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 1
‘206 patent Claim 1
A method for a base station operating in a shared spectrum, comprising:
A method for a base station operating in a shared spectrum, comprising:
transmitting a first Channel State Information Reference Signal (CSI-RS) outside discovery burst, on a first resource on a channel after sensing the channel, if the first CSI-RS is outside discovery burst on the first resource that is indicated by Downlink Control Information (DCI), and wherein the CSI-RS and the DCI are on a same cell; and
transmitting Channel State Information Reference Signal (CSI-RS), not for discovery burst, on a first resource on a channel after sensing the channel upon determining the CSI-RS is not for discovery burst on the first resource that is indicated by Downlink Control Information (DCI), and wherein the CSI-RS and the DCI are on a same cell; and
transmitting a second CSI-RS within discovery burst, on a second resource on the channel without sensing the channel, if the second CSI-RS is within discovery burst on the second resource that is indicated by a Radio Resource Control (RRC) configuration for discovery burst.
transmitting CSI-RS for discovery burst on a second resource on the channel without sensing the channel upon determining the CSI-RS is for discovery burst on the second resource that is indicated by a Radio Resource Control (RRC) configuration for discovery burst.
As can be seen by claim comparison, claim 1, 13 of the instant application recites a substantially similar variation of claim 1 of ‘206; thus the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd.App.1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art. Moreover, the doctrine of double patenting seeks to prevent the unjustified extension of patent exclusivity beyond the term of a patent.
Regarding claim 2, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 3 of ‘206.
Regarding claim 3, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 4 of ‘206.
Regarding claim 4, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 5 of ‘206.
Regarding claim 5, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 6 of ‘206.
Regarding claim 6, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 7 of ‘206.
Regarding claim 7, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 7 of ‘206.
Regarding claim 8, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 8 of ‘206.
Regarding claim 9, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 10 of ‘206.
Regarding claim 10, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 11 of ‘206.
Regarding claim 11, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 12 of ‘206.
Regarding claim 12, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 12 of ‘206.
Regarding claim 14, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 15 of ‘206.
Regarding claim 15, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 16 of ‘206.
Regarding claim 16, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 17 of ‘206.
Regarding claim 17, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 18 of ‘206.
Regarding claim 18, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 19 of ‘206.
Regarding claim 19, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 19 of ‘206.
Regarding claim 20, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 20 of ‘206.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if any double patenting issues are addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li et al. (US 2020/0359411) discloses a method and apparatus for UE to gNB channel occupancy time sharing in NR unlicensed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIREN WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-0687. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7-4. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 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 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.
/Siren Wei/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights