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 21-37 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 objected to because of the following informalities: The acronym ‘FFP’ does not appear to be defined in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-33, 35-37 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-9 of US Patent 11,871,448.
Regarding claim 21, 29, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 21
‘448 patent Claim 1, 6
A user equipment (UE) for use in a wireless communication system, the UE comprising: a communication module; and a processor configured to control the communication module, wherein the processor is configured to receive configuration information related to a UE FFP including a first idle duration, and
A user equipment (UE) for use in a wireless communication system, the UE comprising: a communication module; and a processor configured to control the communication module, wherein the processor is configured to …receive configuration information related to a UE FFP including a second idle duration, and
perform an uplink (UL) transmission based on whether the UL transmission is associated with either BS-initiated channel occupancy (CO) or UE-initiated CO,
perform an uplink (UL) transmission based on whether the UL transmission is associated with either BS-initiated channel occupancy (CO) or UE-initiated CO,
wherein, when the UL transmission is scheduled by a configured grant (CG),
wherein, when the UL transmission is scheduled by a configured grant (CG),
- if a previously-initiated UE-initiated CO is in the UE FFP, the UL transmission is determined as being associated with the previously-initiated UE-initiated CO, and
if a previously-initiated UE-initiated CO is in the UE FFP, the UL transmission is determined as being associated with the previously-initiated UE-initiated CO, and
- if no previously-initiated UE-initiated CO is in the UE FFP, whether the UL transmission is determined as being associated with the BS-initiated CO is based on a downlink (DL) channel detection result of the UE, and
if no previously-initiated UE-initiated CO is in the UE FFP, whether the UL transmission is determined as being associated with the BS-initiated CO is based on a downlink (DL) channel detection result of the UE.
wherein, when the UL transmission is performed based on the UE-initiated CO, the UL transmission is performed regardless of whether a duration where the UL transmission is performed is included in a second idle duration in a base station (BS) FFP.
(claim 6) wherein, when the UL transmission is performed based on the UE-initiated CO, the UL transmission is performed regardless of whether a duration where the UL transmission is performed is included in the first idle duration in the BS FFP.
As can be seen by claim comparison, claim 21 of the instant application recites a substantially similar variation of claim 1, 6 of ‘448; 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 22, 30, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 22
‘448 patent Claim 2
wherein, when the UL transmission is scheduled by downlink control information (DCI), the UL transmission is determined as being associated with the BS-initiated CO or the UE-initiated CO based on information of a channel access-related field in the DCI.
wherein, when the UL transmission is scheduled by downlink control information (DCI), the UL transmission is determined as being associated with the BS-initiated CO or the UE-initiated CO based on information of a channel access-related field in the DCI.
Regarding claim 23, 31, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 23
‘448 patent Claim 3
wherein the DCI includes DL grant information or UL grant information.
wherein the DCI includes DL grant information or UL grant information.
Regarding claim 24, 32, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 24
‘448 patent Claim 4
wherein the UL transmission is performed as follows:
- when the UL transmission is associated with the UE-initiated CO, the UL transmission is performed in a duration other than the first idle duration in the UE FFP, and
- when the UL transmission is associated with the BS-initiated CO, the UL transmission is performed in a duration other than the second idle duration in the BS FFP.
wherein the UL transmission is performed as follows:
when the UL transmission is associated with the BS-initiated CO, the UL transmission is performed in a duration other than the first idle duration in the BS FFP, and
when the UL transmission is associated with the UE-initiated CO, the UL transmission is performed in a duration other than the second idle duration in the UE FFP.
Regarding claim 25, 33, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 25
‘448 patent Claim 5
wherein, when the UE detects a DL channel, the UL transmission is determined as being associated with the BS-initiated CO.
wherein, when the UE detects a DL channel, the UL transmission is determined as being associated with the BS-initiated CO.
Regarding claim 26, 35, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 26
‘448 patent Claim 7
wherein the configuration information related to the UE FFP is received through a dedicated radio resource control (RRC) signaling
wherein the configuration information related to the UE FFP is received through a dedicated radio resource control (RRC) signaling.
Regarding claim 27, 36, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 27
‘448 patent Claim 8
wherein the BS FFP and the UE FFP are independently configured.
wherein the BS FFP and the UE FFP are independently configured.
Regarding claim 28, 37, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 28
‘448 patent Claim 9
wherein the BS FFP and the UE FFP have different starting times.
wherein the BS FFP and the UE FFP have different starting times.
Claim 21-33, 35-37 rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21-28 of US copending application 18/528,770.
Regarding claim 21, 29, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 21
‘770 Claim 21, 25
A user equipment (UE) for use in a wireless communication system, the UE comprising: a communication module; and a processor configured to control the communication module, wherein the processor is configured to receive configuration information related to a UE FFP including a first idle duration, and
A user equipment (UE) for use in a wireless communication system, the UE comprising: a communication module; and a processor configured to control the communication module, wherein the processor is configured to …receive dedicated-configuration information related to a UE FFP including a second idle duration, and
perform an uplink (UL) transmission based on whether the UL transmission is associated with either BS-initiated channel occupancy (CO) or UE-initiated CO,
perform an uplink (UL) transmission based on whether the UL transmission is associated with either BS-initiated channel occupancy (CO) or UE-initiated CO,
wherein, when the UL transmission is scheduled by a configured grant (CG),
wherein, when the UL transmission is scheduled by a configured grant (CG),
- if a previously-initiated UE-initiated CO is in the UE FFP, the UL transmission is determined as being associated with the previously-initiated UE-initiated CO, and
- if a previously-initiated UE-initiated CO is in the UE FFP, the UL transmission is determined as being associated with the previously-initiated UE-initiated CO, and
- if no previously-initiated UE-initiated CO is in the UE FFP, whether the UL transmission is determined as being associated with the BS-initiated CO is based on a downlink (DL) channel detection result of the UE, and
- if no previously-initiated UE-initiated CO is in the UE FFP, whether the UL transmission is determined as being associated with the BS-initiated CO is based on a downlink (DL) channel detection result of the UE, and
wherein, when the UL transmission is performed based on the UE-initiated CO, the UL transmission is performed regardless of whether a duration where the UL transmission is performed is included in a second idle duration in a base station (BS) FFP.
(claim 25) wherein, when the UL transmission is performed based on the UE-initiated CO, the UL transmission is performed regardless of whether a duration where the UL transmission is performed is included in the first idle duration in the BS FFP.
As can be seen by claim comparison, claim 21 of the instant application recites a substantially similar variation of claim 21, 25 of ‘770; 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 22, 30, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 21 of ‘770.
Regarding claim 23, 31, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 22 of ‘770.
Regarding claim 24, 32, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 23 of ‘770.
Regarding claim 25, 33, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 24 of ‘770.
Regarding claim 26, 35, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 26 of ‘770.
Regarding claim 27, 36, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 27 of ‘770.
Regarding claim 28, 37, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 28 of ‘770.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21-37 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and any double patenting issues addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Oviedo et al. (US 2022/0167407) discloses a system and method for channel occupancy time (COT) sharing for in an unlicensed spectrum.
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