DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7, 8, 10-13, 15, 16, 18-20, 22, 23, 27, 29 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.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 14, 24, 28 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15, 19 of copending Application No. 17449012 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
As to claim 1, 24: 17449012 teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a first wireless communication device, the method comprising: receiving, from a second wireless communication device, one or more signals associated with a beam parameter (claim 15, claim 19); determining, at each of plurality of locations, a signal measurement for at least one received signal of the one or more received signals (claim 15, claim 19); and determining, based at least in part on an p-th percentile signal measurement and a q-th percentile signal measurement of the signal measurements at the plurality of locations (claim 15, claim 19), whether the second wireless communication device satisfies an interference condition (claim 15, claim 19).
As to claim 14, 28: 17449012 teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a wireless communication device, the method comprising: selecting a channel access configuration for transmitting a communication signal in an unlicensed frequency band using a transmission beam (claim 15, claim 19), wherein the selecting is based at least in part on an p-th percentile signal measurement and a q-th percentile signal measurement of signal measurements associated with the transmission beam (claim 15, claim 19), wherein the signal measurements include one signal measurement at each of a plurality of locations (claim 15, claim 19); and transmitting, based on the channel access configuration and using the transmission beam, the communication signal in the unlicensed frequency band (claim 15, claim 19).
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.
Independent Claim 1, 24
Claim(s) 1, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuru (US-20220038931) in view of Romijn (US-20070210961).
As to claim 1, 24: Kuru teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a first wireless communication device, the method comprising: receiving, from a second wireless communication device, one or more signals associated with a beam parameter ([0064] SINR distribution measures obtained via beamformed signals); determining, at … , a signal measurement for at least one received signal of the one or more received signals (abstract, [0065] distribution measures obtained by terminal device); and determining, based at least in part on an p-th percentile signal measurement and a q-th percentile signal measurement of the signal measurements at the plurality of locations ([0060, 66] SINR distribution measurements reported by terminal device to access node), whether the second wireless communication device satisfies an interference condition ([0005, 50, 52, 60] produce SINR measurement report; 1dB granularity).
Kuru may not explicitly teach each of a plurality of locations. However, Romijn teaches each of a plurality of locations (fig.2 [0037]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement plurality of locations, taught by Romijn, into the SINR measurement, taught by Kuru, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and improve accuracy and provide spatial characterization . In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Romijn and Kuru in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Independent Claim 14, 28
Claim(s) 14, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuru (US-20220038931) in view of Lauridsen (WO-2022152378-A1), Romijn (US-20070210961).
As to claim 14, 28: Kuru teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a wireless communication device, the method comprising: … , wherein the selecting is based at least in part on an p-th percentile signal measurement and a q-th percentile signal measurement of signal measurements associated with the transmission beam … (abstract, [0065] distribution measures obtained by terminal device).
Kuru may not explicitly teach selecting a channel access configuration for transmitting a communication signal in an unlicensed frequency band using a transmission beam … and transmitting, based on the channel access configuration and using the transmission beam, the communication signal in the unlicensed frequency band. However, Lauridsen teaches selecting a channel access configuration for transmitting a communication signal in an unlicensed frequency band using a transmission beam … and transmitting, based on the channel access configuration and using the transmission beam, the communication signal in the unlicensed frequency band (17:12-29 In an embodiment, the terminal device determines at least one threshold for selecting a random access configuration, compares the measured received signal strength with the at least one threshold and selects the first random access configuration or the second random access configuration further on the basis of the comparison).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement determining a channel access configuration based on measurements, taught by Lauridsen, into the measurement report, taught by Kuru, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable communications over the channel. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Lauridsen and Kuru in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Kuru may not explicitly teach wherein the signal measurements include one signal measurement at each of a plurality of locations. However, Romijn teaches wherein the signal measurements include one signal measurement at each of a plurality of locations (fig.2 [0037]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement plurality of locations, taught by Romijn, into the SINR measurement, taught by Kuru, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and improve accuracy and provide spatial characterization . In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Romijn and Kuru in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuru (US-20220038931) in view of Romijn (US-20070210961).
As to claim 2: Romijn teaches the method of claim 1.
Romijn may not explicitly teach However, Kuru teaches wherein the plurality of locations is associated with a spherical coverage of the second wireless communication device (fig.2 [0037]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement plurality of locations, taught by Romijn, into the SINR measurement, taught by Kuru, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and improve accuracy and provide spatial characterization . In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Romijn and Kuru in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuru (US-20220038931), Romijn (US-20070210961) in view of Kim (US-6639554).
As to claim 3: Kuru teaches the method of claim 1.
Kuru may not explicitly teach wherein the determining the signal measurement at each of the plurality of locations comprises: determining the signal measurement at a respective azimuth angle and a respective elevation angle with respect to the second wireless communication device. However, Kim teaches wherein the determining the signal measurement at each of the plurality of locations comprises: determining the signal measurement at a respective azimuth angle and a respective elevation angle with respect to the second wireless communication device (abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement elevation and azimuth angle in signal measurement, taught by Kim, into the measurement report, taught by Kuru , in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and provide improved spatial information and interference measurement. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kim and Kuru in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuru (US-20220038931), Romijn (US-20070210961), Kim (US-6639554) in view of Deng (US-20190104549).
As to claim 4: Kuru teaches the method of claim 3.
Although Kim teaches azimuth and elevation angles, Kuru may not explicitly teach wherein the azimuth angles and the elevation angles associated with the plurality of locations are based on an operating parameter of the second wireless communication device. However, Deng teaches wherein the azimuth angles and the elevation angles associated with the plurality of locations are based on an operating parameter of the second wireless communication device ([0148] An mWTRU may form one or more narrow receive antenna patterns and initiate receive sweeping per the sweeping pattern, periodicity and other configuration parameters according to the mWTRU capability and network configurations).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement implementing operation parameters in beamforming, taught by Deng, into the measurement report, taught by Kuru, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and perform signal measurements. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kuru and Deng in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuru (US-20220038931), Romijn (US-20070210961) in view of Yang (US-20220150844).
As to claim 5: Kuru teaches the method of claim 1.
Kuru may not explicitly teach wherein the determining the signal measurement at each of the plurality of locations comprises: determining an effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) for the at least one received signal. However, Yang teaches wherein the determining the signal measurement at each of the plurality of locations comprises: determining an effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) for the at least one received signal ([0132] When a vehicular terminal capable of performing communication in an operating band (eg, n260) including 39 GHz transmits a signal, when the CDF is calculated by measuring the EIRP of the terminal in the full sphere around the terminal).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement EIRP, taught by Yang, into the measurement report, taught by Kuru, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and obtain interference measurements. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kuru and Yang in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 6, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuru (US-20220038931), Romijn (US-20070210961) in view of He (US-6330429).
As to claim 6, 26: Kuru teaches the method of claim 1.
Kuru may not explicitly teach further comprising: determining the p-th percentile signal measurement and the q-th percentile signal measurement of the signal measurements at the plurality of locations based on a cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the signal measurements at the plurality of locations. However, He teaches further comprising: determining the p-th percentile signal measurement and the q-th percentile signal measurement of the signal measurements at the plurality of locations based on a cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the signal measurements at the plurality of locations (4:30-41, 5:4-17).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement CDF, taught by He, into the measurement report, taught by Kuru, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and provide full distribution of measurements. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kuru and He in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuru (US-20220038931) in view of Romijn (US-20070210961).
As to claim 9: Kuru teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of a value of p for the p-th percentile signal measurement or a value of q for the q-th percentile signal measurement is based on an operating parameter associated with the second wireless communication device ([0064] SINR distribution measures obtained via beamformed signals).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuru (US-20220038931) in view of Lauridsen (WO-2022152378-A1), Romijn (US-20070210961).
As to claim 17: Kuru teaches the method of claim 14, wherein at least one of a value of p for the p-th percentile signal measurement or a value of q for the q-th percentile signal measurement of the signal measurements at the plurality of locations is based on an operating parameter of the wireless communication device ([0064] SINR distribution measures obtained via beamformed signals).
Claim(s) 21, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuru (US-20220038931), Lauridsen (WO-2022152378-A1), Romijn (US-20070210961) in view of Li (US-20190141702).
As to claim 21, 30: Kuru teaches the method of claim 14, 28.
Kuru may not explicitly teach wherein the transmitting the communication signal comprises: transmitting, based on the channel access configuration, the communication signal using the transmission beam without performing channel sensing. However, Li teaches wherein the transmitting the communication signal comprises: transmitting, based on the channel access configuration, the communication signal using the transmission beam without performing channel sensing ([0010, 89, 99]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement non channel sensing channel access, taught by Li, into the communication system, taught by Kuru, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce latency and complexity. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kuru and Li in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuru (US-20220038931), Romijn (US-20070210961) in view of Kim (US-6639554), Yang (US-20220150844).
As to claim 25: Kuru teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 24,
wherein the at least one processor configured to determine the signal measurement at each of the plurality of locations is configured to: determine the signal measurement at a respective azimuth angle and a respective elevation angle with respect to the second wireless communication device (abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement elevation and azimuth angle in signal measurement, taught by Kim, into the measurement report, taught by Kuru , in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and provide improved spatial information and interference measurement. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kim and Kuru in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Kuru may not explicitly teach and determine an effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) for the at least one received signal. However, Yang teaches and determine an effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) for the at least one received signal ([0132] When a vehicular terminal capable of performing communication in an operating band (eg, n260) including 39 GHz transmits a signal, when the CDF is calculated by measuring the EIRP of the terminal in the full sphere around the terminal).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement EIRP, taught by Yang, into the measurement report, taught by Kuru, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and obtain interference measurements. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kuru and Yang in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466