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, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2, 4 of US Patent 11,737,135 in view of Liu et al. (US 2020/0084759) in view of Tooher et al. (US 2018/0103458).
Regarding claim 1, 8, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 1
‘135 patent Claim 1
A method performed by a user equipment (UE) operating in a shared spectrum channel, the method comprising:
A user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the UE comprising:
receiving, from a base station, a downlink (DL) transmission in a channel occupancy time (COT);
…wherein the transceiver is further configured to: receive, from the BS over a shared spectrum channel, the downlink transmission in the first portion of the COT,
identifying a time gap between the DL transmission and an uplink (UL) transmission;
…wherein the COT includes a gap between the first and second portions of the COT;
…and perform a channel access procedure based on a duration of the gap,
identifying whether to perform a channel sensing before the UL transmission according to a value of the time gap; and
…and perform a channel access procedure based on a duration of the gap,
transmitting, to the base station, the UL transmission within the COT,
…and transmit, to the BS over the shared spectrum channel, the uplink transmission in the second portion of the COT,
wherein a maximum of the COT Ty is identified as Ty = 0.95Tx, where Tx is a duration configured by a higher layer parameter.
Not disclosed
Claim 1 of the ‘135 patent does not disclose: wherein a maximum of the COT Ty is identified as Ty = 0.95Tx, where Tx is a duration configured by a higher layer parameter. However, Liu teaches (see at least 0124, a COT may not be greater than 95% of a fixed frame period FFP). In addition, Tooher teaches (see at least 0155, FFP may be indicated using higher layer signaling). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Liu and Tooher into the system of claim 1 of the ‘135 patent in order to implement an appropriate maximum COT length based on frame length.
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, 10, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 3
‘135 patent Claim 2
wherein the UL transmission is transmitted within the COT without the channel sensing in case that the value of the time gap is at most 16 µs.
wherein the channel access procedure does not include a time duration for sensing the shared spectrum channel if the duration of the gap is no longer than 16 microseconds.
Claim 4, 11 is rejected in view of Liu (see at least 0126, fig. 2, one-shot e.g. 25µs LBT may be performed if gap is larger than 16µs). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Liu into the system of claim 1 of the ‘135 patent in order to implement an appropriate LBT for channel sensing e.g. one-shot LBT.
Regarding claim 6, 13, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 6
‘135 patent Claim 1, 4
wherein physical random access channel (PRACH) occasion is identified to be valid based on whether the PRACH occasion overlaps with a time period before a start of the COT.
(claim 1) a period, before starting the COT, during which transmissions are not allowed
(claim 4) wherein the processor is further configured to determine that a physical random access channel (PRACH) occasion is valid, if the PRACH occasion does not overlap with the period.
Claim 2, 9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11,737,135 in view of Liu et al. (US 2020/0084759) in view of Tooher et al. (US 2018/0103458) in view of Lou et al. (US 2020/0374933).
Claim 2, 9 is rejected in view of Lou, who teaches: wherein: a channel occupancy associated with the COT is initiated by the base station, and the UL transmission of the UE is transmitted based on a detection of the DL transmission within the COT (see at least 0152, 0147, fig. 4a, COT may comprise HARQ-ACKs for both UL and DL transmissions in the COT (0097, eNB may acquire COT)). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Lou to the system of claim 1 of the ‘135 patent, to enhance communications by implementing HARQ feedback for transmissions.
Claim 5, 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11,737,135 in view of Liu et al. (US 2020/0084759) in view of Tooher et al. (US 2018/0103458) in view of Yang et al. (US 2019/0014596).
Claim 5, 12 is rejected in view of Yang, who teaches: wherein the sensing slot duration equals 9 µs (see at least 0257, 9 µs CCA duration may be used in LBT Cat2). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Yang to the system of claim 1 of the ‘135 patent, to enhance communications by implementing a well known LBT sensing duration.
Claim 7, 14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11,737,135 in view of Liu et al. (US 2020/0084759) in view of Tooher et al. (US 2018/0103458) in view of Jeon et al. (US 2020/0351801).
Claim 7, 14 is rejected in view of Jeon, who teaches: wherein the time period is associated with a duration of the COT (see at least 0431, COT length may be based on LBT procedure e.g. Cat2 or short backoff Cat4 LBT may provide short COTs while longer backoff Cat4 may provide longer COT). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Jeon to the system of claim 1 of the ‘135 patent, to enhance communications by providing an appropriate COT length based on corresponding length of the LBT.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
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.
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 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.
Claim 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2020/0084759) in view of Tooher et al. (US 2018/0103458).
For claim 1, Liu teaches: A method performed by a user equipment (UE) operating in a shared spectrum channel (see at least 0009, 0030, UE and BS may comprise processor/memory for communication. See at least 0005, unlicensed spectrum may be used), the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station, a downlink (DL) transmission in a channel occupancy time (COT) (see at least 0124-0126, fig. 2, UE may receive DL during a COT);
identifying a time gap between the DL transmission and an uplink (UL) transmission (see at least 0125-0126, fig. 2, UE may determine LBT procedure based on gap between DL and UL);
identifying whether to perform a channel sensing before the UL transmission according to a value of the time gap (see at least 0125-0126, fig. 2, UE may determine LBT procedure based on gap between DL and UL e.g. perform one-shot LBT if gap is larger than 16µs); and
transmitting, to the base station, the UL transmission within the COT (see at least 0124-0126, fig. 2, UE may transmit UL during a COT),
wherein a maximum of the COT Ty is identified as Ty = 0.95Tx (see at least 0124, maximum COT may not be greater than 95% of a fixed frame period FFP).
Liu does not explicitly teach: where Tx is a duration configured by a higher layer parameter. Tooher from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0155, FFP may be indicated using higher layer signaling). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Tooher to the system of Liu, so the FFP is configured using higher layer signaling, as suggested by Tooher. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by configuring frame period via an appropriate signaling (Tooher 0155).
For claim 3, Liu, Tooher teaches claim 1, Liu further teaches: wherein the UL transmission is transmitted within the COT without the channel sensing in case that the value of the time gap is at most 16 µs (see at least 0125, transmission may be performed without LBT procedure if gap is less than 16µs).
For claim 4, Liu, Tooher teaches claim 1, Liu further teaches: wherein the UL transmission is transmitted within the COT after the channel sensing in case that the value of the time gap is more than 16 µs and the channel is identified to be idle for at least a sensing slot duration within a 25 µs interval before the UL transmission (see at least 0126, fig. 2, one-shot e.g. 25µs LBT may be performed if gap is larger than 16µs).
Claim 8 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 1 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 10 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 3 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 11 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 4 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
For claim 15, Liu teaches: A base station (see at least 0009, 0030, UE and BS may comprise processor/memory for communication. See at least 0005, unlicensed spectrum may be used), comprising:
a transceiver configured to receive, from a user equipment (UE), an uplink (UL) transmission in a channel occupancy time (COT) (see at least 0124-0126, fig. 2, BS may receive UL during a COT); and
a processor operably coupled to the transceiver, the processor configured to: identify a time gap between the UL transmission and a downlink (DL) transmission (see at least 0125-0126, fig. 2, BS may determine LBT procedure based on gap between UL and DL); and
identify whether to perform a channel sensing on a channel before the DL transmission according to a value of the time gap (see at least 0125-0126, fig. 2, BS may determine LBT procedure based on gap between UL and DL e.g. perform one-shot LBT if gap is larger than 16µs),
wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit, to the UE, the DL transmission within the COT (see at least 0124-0126, fig. 2, BS may transmit DL during a COT), and
wherein a maximum of the COT Ty is identified as Ty = 0.95Tx (see at least 0124, maximum COT may not be greater than 95% of a fixed frame period FFP).
Liu does not explicitly teach: where Tx is a duration configured by a higher layer parameter. Tooher from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0155, FFP may be indicated using higher layer signaling). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Tooher to the system of Liu, so the FFP is configured using higher layer signaling, as suggested by Tooher. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by configuring frame period via an appropriate signaling (Tooher 0155).
For claim 17, Liu, Tooher teaches claim 15, Liu further teaches: wherein the DL transmission is transmitted within the COT without the channel sensing in case that the value of the time gap is at most 16 µs (see at least 0125, transmission may be performed without LBT procedure if gap is less than 16µs).
For claim 18, Liu, Tooher teaches claim 15, Liu further teaches: wherein the DL transmission is transmitted within the COT after the channel sensing in case that the value of the time gap is more than 16 µs and the channel is identified to be idle for at least a sensing slot duration (see at least 0126, fig. 2, one-shot e.g. 25µs LBT may be performed if gap is larger than 16µs).
Claim 2, 9, 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2020/0084759) in view of Tooher et al. (US 2018/0103458) in view of Lou et al. (US 2020/0374933).
For claim 2, Liu, Tooher teaches claim 1, Liu further teaches: wherein: a channel occupancy associated with the COT is initiated by the base station (see at least 0124, 0122, base station may initiate COT after clearing LBT procedure), but not explicitly: the UL transmission of the UE is transmitted based on a detection of the DL transmission within the COT. Lou from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0152, 0147, fig. 4a, COT may comprise HARQ-ACKs for both UL and DL transmissions in the COT). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Lou to the system of claim 1, so the UL transmission may be based on DL transmission in the COT e.g. HARQ-ACK for DL transmission, as suggested by Lou. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by implementing HARQ feedback for transmissions (Lou fig. 4a).
Claim 9 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 2 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
For claim 16, Liu, Tooher teaches claim 15, Liu further teaches: wherein: a channel occupancy associated with the COT is initiated by the base station (see at least 0124, 0122, base station may initiate COT after clearing LBT procedure), but not explicitly: the DL transmission of the base station is transmitted based on a detection of the UL transmission within the COT. Lou from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0152, 0147, fig. 4a, COT may comprise HARQ-ACKs for both UL and DL transmissions in the COT). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Lou to the system of claim 15, so the DL transmission may be based on UL transmission in the COT e.g. HARQ-ACK for UL transmission, as suggested by Lou. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by implementing HARQ feedback for transmissions (Lou fig. 4a).
Claim 5, 12, 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2020/0084759) in view of Tooher et al. (US 2018/0103458) in view of Yang et al. (US 2019/0014596).
For claim 5, Liu, Tooher teaches claim 4, but not explicitly: wherein the sensing slot duration equals 9 µs. Yang from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0257, 9 µs CCA duration may be used in LBT Cat2). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Yang to the system of claim 4, so the sensing duration is 9 µs, as suggested by Yang. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by implementing a well known LBT sensing duration (Yang 0257).
Claim 12 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 5 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
For claim 19, Liu, Tooher teaches claim 18, but not explicitly: wherein the sensing slot duration equals 9 µs. Yang from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0257, 9 µs CCA duration may be used in LBT Cat2). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Yang to the system of claim 18, so the sensing duration is 9 µs, as suggested by Yang. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by implementing a well known LBT sensing duration (Yang 0257).
Claim 6, 13, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2020/0084759) in view of Tooher et al. (US 2018/0103458) in view of Murray et al. (US 2021/0289548).
For claim 6, Liu, Tooher teaches claim 1, Liu further teaches LBT period before COT (see at least fig. 2, LBT prior to COT frame 205), but not explicitly: wherein physical random access channel (PRACH) occasion is identified to be valid based on whether the PRACH occasion overlaps with a time period before a start of the COT. Murray from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0160, if PRACH occasion collides with LBT, the PRACH occasion may be determined invalid). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Murray to the system of claim 1, so a PRACH occasion may be determined invalid if it collides (overlaps) with an LBT period e.g. prior to COT, as suggested by Murray. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by avoiding collisions on the medium between LBT and PRACH (Murray 0160).
Claim 13 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 6 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
For claim 20, Liu, Tooher teaches claim 15, Liu further teaches LBT period before COT (see at least fig. 2, LBT prior to COT frame 205), but not explicitly: wherein physical random access channel (PRACH) occasion is identified to be valid based on whether the PRACH occasion overlaps with a time period before a start of the COT. Murray from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0160, if PRACH occasion collides with LBT, the PRACH occasion may be determined invalid). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Murray to the system of claim 15, so a PRACH occasion may be determined invalid if it collides (overlaps) with an LBT period e.g. prior to COT, as suggested by Murray. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by avoiding collisions on the medium between LBT and PRACH (Murray 0160).
Claim 7, 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2020/0084759) in view of Tooher et al. (US 2018/0103458) in view of Murray et al. (US 2021/0289548) in view of Jeon et al. (US 2020/0351801).
For claim 7, Liu, Tooher, Murray teaches claim 6, but not explicitly: wherein the time period is associated with a duration of the COT. Jeon from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0431, COT length may be based on LBT procedure e.g. Cat2 or short backoff Cat4 LBT may provide short COTs while longer backoff Cat4 may provide longer COT). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Jeon to the system of claim 6, so the length/duration of COT is associated with the LBT time period e.g. longer LBT provides longer COT, as suggested by Jeon. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by providing an appropriate COT length based on corresponding length of the LBT (Jeon 0431).
Claim 14 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 7 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park (US 2021/0235487) discloses a method and apparatus for transmitting or receiving data 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