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 2-21 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 2-21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11,706,800.
Regarding claim 2, 17, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 2
‘800 patent Claim 1
A method of wireless communication, comprising: receiving, at a first wireless communication device, a first communication signal;
A method of wireless communication, comprising: receiving, at a first wireless communication device, a first communication signal;
performing, by the first wireless communication device, a listen-before-talk (LBT) based at least in part on one or more channel measurements in one or more measurement periods of a gap duration between the first communication signal and a second communication signal,
performing, by the first wireless communication device, a listen-before-talk (LBT) based at least in part on one or more channel measurements in one or more measurement periods of a gap duration between the first communication signal and a second communication signal,
wherein a timing of the one or more measurement periods is associated with a time partitioning of the gap duration into a plurality of gap duration portions, and
wherein a timing of the one or more measurement periods is based on a time-partitioning of the gap duration into a plurality of gap duration portions, and
wherein a quantity of the plurality of gap duration portions is associated with a length of the gap duration; and
wherein a quantity of the plurality of gap duration portions is based on a length of the gap duration; and
transmitting, by the first wireless communication device, the second communication signal based on the LBT.
transmitting, by the first wireless communication device, the second communication signal based on the LBT.
As seen by above claim comparison, claim 2 of the instant application recites a substantially similar variation of claim 1 of ‘800; 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 3, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 3
‘800 patent Claim 2
wherein: a first portion of the gap duration is adjacent to a start time of the second communication signal; a total duration of the one or more measurement periods is based on the gap duration; the one or more channel measurements comprises a first channel measurement and a second channel measurement; the one or more measurement periods comprises a first measurement period and a second measurement period; the second measurement period is within a second portion of the gap duration; and the performing the LBT is based on the first channel measurement obtained in the first measurement period, and the second channel measurement obtained in the second measurement period.
wherein: a first portion of the gap duration is adjacent to a start time of the second communication signal; a total duration of the one or more measurement periods is based on the gap duration; the one or more channel measurements comprises a first channel measurement and a second channel measurement; the one or more measurement periods comprises a first measurement period and a second measurement period; the second measurement period is within a second portion of the gap duration; and the performing the LBT is based on the first channel measurement obtained in the first measurement period, and the second channel measurement obtained in the second measurement period.
Regarding claim 4, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 4
‘800 patent Claim 3
wherein the first portion of the gap duration is longer than the second portion of the gap duration.
wherein the first portion of the gap duration is longer than the second portion of the gap duration.
Regarding claim 5, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 5
‘800 patent Claim 4
wherein the first measurement period is longer than the second measurement period.
wherein the first measurement period is longer than the second measurement period.
Regarding claim 6, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 6
‘800 patent Claim 5
wherein the performing the LBT includes: determining, by the first wireless communication device, a channel status based on a comparison of at least one of the first channel measurement in the first measurement period or the second channel measurement in the second measurement period against a threshold.
wherein the performing the LBT includes: determining, by the first wireless communication device, a channel status based on a comparison of at least one of the first channel measurement in the first measurement period or the second channel measurement in the second measurement period against a threshold.
Regarding claim 7, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 7
‘800 patent Claim 6
wherein the performing the LBT includes: determining, by the first wireless communication device, a channel status based on a comparison of a single channel measurement in the first measurement period against a threshold, the single channel measurement corresponding to the first channel measurement.
wherein the performing the LBT includes: determining, by the first wireless communication device, a channel status based on a comparison of a single channel measurement in the first measurement period against a threshold, the single channel measurement corresponding to the first channel measurement.
Regarding claim 8, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 8
‘800 patent Claim 7
wherein: a first portion of the gap duration is adjacent to a start time of the second communication signal; a total duration of the one or more measurement periods is based on the gap duration; and the first portion of the gap duration includes a slot having a predetermined duration.
wherein: a first portion of the gap duration is adjacent to a start time of the second communication signal; a total duration of the one or more measurement periods is based on the gap duration; and the first portion of the gap duration includes a slot having a predetermined duration.
Regarding claim 9, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 9
‘800 patent Claim 8
wherein the predetermined duration of the slot is 9 microseconds (us), and wherein the one or more measurement periods comprises a first measurement period having a duration of at least 4 us within the slot.
wherein the predetermined duration of the slot is 9 microseconds (us), and wherein the one or more measurement periods comprises a first measurement period having a duration of at least 4 us within the slot.
Regarding claim 10, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 10
‘800 patent Claim 9
wherein the second communication signal includes one or more symbols and a cyclic extension associated with the gap duration, and wherein a beginning symbol of the one or more symbols is prepended with the cyclic extension.
wherein the second communication signal includes one or more symbols and a cyclic extension associated with the gap duration, and wherein a beginning symbol of the one or more symbols is prepended with the cyclic extension.
Regarding claim 11, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 11
‘800 patent Claim 10
wherein: the transmitting includes: transmitting, by the first wireless communication device to a second wireless communication device, the one or more symbols based on a symbol boundary, and the method further comprises: determining, by the first wireless communication device, a length for the cyclic extension to provide the gap duration.
wherein: the transmitting includes: transmitting, by the first wireless communication device to a second wireless communication device, the one or more symbols based on a symbol boundary, and the method further comprises: determining, by the first wireless communication device, a length for the cyclic extension to provide the gap duration.
Regarding claim 12, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 12
‘800 patent Claim 11
wherein the determining the length for the cyclic extension includes: determining, by the first wireless communication device, the length for the cyclic extension based on a timing advance associated with a communication between the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device.
wherein the determining the length for the cyclic extension includes: determining, by the first wireless communication device, the length for the cyclic extension based on a timing advance associated with a communication between the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device.
Regarding claim 13, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 13
‘800 patent Claim 12
further comprising: receiving, by the first wireless communication device from a second wireless communication device, a configuration including at least one of: a first indicator including at least one of a length of the cyclic extension, a starting offset for the second communication signal, or a switch gap configuration; or a second indicator including the LBT type.
further comprising: receiving, by the first wireless communication device from a second wireless communication device, a configuration including at least one of: a first indicator including at least one of a length of the cyclic extension, a starting offset for the second communication signal, or a switch gap configuration; or a second indicator including the LBT type.
Regarding claim 14, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 14
‘800 patent Claim 13
wherein the receiving the configuration includes: receiving, by the first wireless communication device from the second wireless communication device, at least one of a radio resource control (RRC) message including the configuration, a group common-physical downlink control channel (GC-PDCCH) message including the configuration, or a scheduling grant including the configuration.
wherein the receiving the configuration includes: receiving, by the first wireless communication device from the second wireless communication device, at least one of a radio resource control (RRC) message including the configuration, a group common-physical downlink control channel (GC-PDCCH) message including the configuration, or a scheduling grant including the configuration.
Regarding claim 15, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 15
‘800 patent Claim 14
wherein: the receiving the configuration includes: receiving, by the first wireless communication device from the second wireless communication device, the second indicator including the LBT type jointly coded with the first indicator; and the performing the LBT is further based on the LBT type.
wherein: the receiving the configuration includes: receiving, by the first wireless communication device from the second wireless communication device, the second indicator including the LBT type jointly coded with the first indicator; and the performing the LBT is further based on the LBT type.
Regarding claim 16, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 16
‘800 patent Claim 15
wherein the LBT type is a category 1 LBT, a category 2 LBT associated with a first duration, a category 2 LBT associated with a second duration different from the first duration, or a category 4 LBT.
wherein the LBT type is a category 1 LBT, a category 2 LBT associated with a first duration, a category 2 LBT associated with a second duration different from the first duration, or a category 4 LBT.
Regarding claim 18, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 18
‘800 patent Claim 17
wherein the one or more channel measurements comprises a first channel measurement and a second channel measurement; a first portion of the gap duration is adjacent to a start time of the second communication signal; a total duration of the one or more measurement periods is based on the gap duration; the one or more measurement periods comprises a first measurement period and a second measurement period; and the LBT is based on the first channel measurement obtained in the first measurement period, and the second channel measurement obtained in the second measurement period.
wherein the one or more channel measurements comprises a first channel measurement and a second channel measurement; a first portion of the gap duration is adjacent to a start time of the second communication signal; a total duration of the one or more measurement periods is based on the gap duration; the one or more measurement periods comprises a first measurement period and a second measurement period; and the LBT is based on the first channel measurement obtained in the first measurement period, and the second channel measurement obtained in the second measurement period.
Regarding claim 19, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 19
‘800 patent Claim 18
wherein the processor configured to perform the LBT is configured to: determine a channel status based on a comparison of at least one of the first channel measurement in the first measurement period or the second channel measurement in the second measurement period against a threshold.
wherein the processor configured to perform the LBT is configured to: determine a channel status based on a comparison of at least one of the first channel measurement in the first measurement period or the second channel measurement in the second measurement period against a threshold.
Regarding claim 20, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 20
‘800 patent Claim 19
a first portion of the gap duration is adjacent to a start time of the second communication signal; a total duration of the one or more measurement periods is based on the gap duration; the first portion of the gap duration is a slot having a predetermined duration of 9 microseconds (us); and the one or more measurement periods comprises a first measurement period having a duration of at least 4 us within the slot.
wherein: a first portion of the gap duration is adjacent to a start time of the second communication signal; a total duration of the one or more measurement periods is based on the gap duration; the first portion of the gap duration is a slot having a predetermined duration of 9 microseconds (us); and the one or more measurement periods comprises a first measurement period having a duration of at least 4 us within the slot.
Regarding claim 21, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 21
‘800 patent Claim 20
wherein the second communication signal includes one or more symbols and a cyclic extension associated with the gap duration, and wherein a beginning symbol of the one or more symbols is prepended with the cyclic extension.
wherein the second communication signal includes one or more symbols and a cyclic extension associated with the gap duration, and wherein a beginning symbol of the one or more symbols is prepended with the cyclic extension.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-21 objected to as being allowable subject matter, upon any double patenting issue(s) addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Noh et al. (US 2018/0249339) discloses a method, device, and system for transmitting signals in unlicensed band.
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