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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed 28 September 2023, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1-17 are canceled.
Claims 18-37 are newly added and currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 13 September 2024, 14 November 2024, and 25 April 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 20, 23, 24, 29, 31, 34 and 36 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 20, language “until amount” should read “until an amount” or similar phrasing.
Regarding Claims 23, 24, 29, 31, 34 and 36, the Office recommends amending “the another group” to read similar to “the second group”, along with appropriate antecedent basis in the independent claims.
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 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 18 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 86 of copending Application No. 18257490 in view of Alriksson et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0232624), hereinafter Alriksson. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in table below and the subsequent combination with the secondary reference:
Claim 18 of instant application
Claim 86 of copending Application No. 18257490
at least one processor; and
at least one memory comprising computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus at least to:
A user equipment, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the user equipment at least to
examine whether a signal to be transmitted by the apparatus belongs to a first group or to another group based on one or more of the following:
determine that one or more signals or channels can be transmitted as one or more short control signals
determine an allowance of time or an allowance of resources of a time period for one or more short control signals;
receive an indication of an allowance of time or resources of a time period for the one or more short control signals;
determine whether to transmit the signal as one or more short control signals based on the group the signal belongs to and on the allowance; and transmit the signal either as one or more short control signals without channel sensing, or as a signal subject to listen before talk procedure.
determine whether to transmit at least one of the one or more signals or channels, without performing listen-before-talk or without performing channel sensing, based on a type of the one or more signals or channels and on the allowance; and transmit the one or more short control signals.
However, claim 86 of copending Application No. 18257490 does not disclose examine whether a signal to be transmitted by the apparatus belongs to a first group or to another group based on one or more of the following: a transmission time instance of the signal; a beam or beam index of the signal; a type of the signal. In an analogous art, Alriksson discloses this. Specifically, Alriksson discloses examine whether a signal to be transmitted by the apparatus belongs to a first group or to another group (paragraph 0047 – a network node is subject to short control signaling criteria for its transmissions based on evaluation) based on one or more of the following: a transmission time instance of the signal (paragraph 0047 – the network node can evaluate a total transmission duration); a beam or beam index of the signal (Note: this is claimed in the alternative); a type of the signal (paragraph 0042 – the determination can be based on the type of transmission). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features in claim 86 of copending Application No. 18257490 with Alriksson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to limit interference in compliance with SCS criteria (see paragraph 0011 of Alriksson).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 18, 28 and 33, the claim language states (emphasis added by the Office) “determine an allowance of time or an allowance of resources of a time period for one or more short control signals” and “determine whether to transmit the signal as one or more short control signals based on the group the signal belongs to and on the allowance.” However, it is not clear which allowance is cited in the latter phrase.
Claims 19-27, 29-32 and 34-37 are rejected by virtue of dependency on the independent claims.
Further regarding Claim 19, the claim language states (emphasis added by the Office) “detect a start of a transmission cycle of a synchronization signal block” followed by “determine which synchronization signal blocks” and “ transmit the synchronization signal blocks”. As shown from the highlighted phrases, recitation of a single SSB is followed by reference to multiple SSBs without a clear link between the two recitations (i.e., that there are other SSBs present aside from the SSB detected as a start of a transmission cycle). Further, Claim 19 recites the following (emphasis added by the Office): “detect a start of a transmission cycle of a synchronization signal block or a remaining minimum system information; determine which synchronization signal blocks or remaining minimum system information belong to the first group; transmit the synchronization signal blocks and/or remaining minimum system information of the first group as short control signal transmissions; and transmit other synchronization signal blocks and/or remaining minimum system information…”. As shown above, synchronization blocks and remaining system information are claimed in the alternative to one another. However, the phrase “and/or” is not commensurate in scope with “or” recited earlier in the claim language. This issue is also present in Claim 20. Claims 20-22 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claim 19.
Further regarding Claim 23, the claim language recites (emphasis added by the Office) “associate the remaining beams of the plurality of beams with the another group for other than the short control signal transmission procedure.” It is not clear to what the phrase “for other than” is referring. Claims 24-26 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claim 23.
Further regarding Claim 24, the relationship between “an index for each of the plurality of beams” and a “first set of indices…for beams associated with the first group” and a “second set of indices…for beams associated with the second group” is unclear (i.e., whether the index for each of the beams is found within or separate from the first/second set of indices). Claims 25 and 26 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claim 23.
Further regarding Claims 30 and 35, claim language “the second group” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18-23 and 28-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alriksson.
Regarding Claim 18, Alriksson discloses an apparatus (paragraph 0049 – network node such as eNB or gNB), comprising:
at least one processor (paragraph 0049 – the node comprises processing circuitry); and
at least one memory comprising computer program code (paragraph 0049 – memory connected to the control circuitry that executes modules in the node), the at least one memory and computer program code configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus at least to:
examine whether a signal to be transmitted by the apparatus belongs to a first group or to another group (paragraph 0047 – a network node is subject to short control signaling criteria for its transmissions based on evaluation) based on one or more of the following:
a transmission time instance of the signal (paragraph 0047 – the network node can evaluate a total transmission duration); a beam or beam index of the signal (Note: this is claimed in the alternative); a type of the signal (paragraph 0042 – the determination can be based on the type of transmission);
determine an allowance of time or an allowance of resources of a time period for one or more short control signals (paragraph 0014 – SCS criteria may pertain to a maximum total transmission time or a maximum single transmission duration; paragraph 0015 – SCS transmission can be configured on allocated resources, where an intended transmission can be shorter than allocated resources);
determine whether to transmit the signal as one or more short control signals based on the group the signal belongs to and on the allowance (paragraphs 0042-0043 – some transmissions or types of transmissions can be sent as SCS transmissions or LBT); and
transmit the signal either as one or more short control signals without channel sensing, or as a signal subject to listen before talk procedure (paragraphs 0042-0043 – some transmissions or types of transmissions can be sent as SCS transmissions or LBT as a fallback).
Regarding Claim 19, Alriksson discloses the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to:
detect a start of a transmission cycle of a synchronization signal block or a remaining minimum system information (paragraph 0047 – determining whether SCS criteria apply in a particular SSB window);
determine which synchronization signal blocks or remaining minimum system information belong to the first group (paragraph 0047 – determining which SSBs should be transferred as SCS based on the criteria);
transmit the synchronization signal blocks and/or remaining minimum system information of the first group as short control signal transmissions (paragraph 0047 – transmitting particular SSBs in the window as SCS); and
transmit other synchronization signal blocks and/or remaining minimum system information of the transmission cycle using other than the short control signal transmission procedure (paragraph 0047 – the remainer of the SSBs in the window are not transmitted as SCS; paragraphs 0042-0043 – transmissions that are not subject to SCS criteria can be transmitted as LBT as a fallback).
Regarding Claim 20, Alriksson discloses the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to:
count from the start of a transmission cycle transmitted synchronization signal blocks and/or remaining minimum system information (paragraph 0047 – for a certain number of transmissions (B), a number of the first SSBs (B1) are subject to SCS criteria);
transmit the synchronization signal blocks and/or remaining minimum system information of the first group as short control signal transmissions until amount of counted transmissions equals a predetermined amount of transmissions (paragraph 0047 - in a given time interval, the first B1 SSBs transmissions may be subject to SCS criteria, and the remainder (B-B1) SSBs may not).
Regarding Claim 21, Alriksson discloses the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: use a pattern to determine which synchronization signal blocks or remaining minimum system information belong to the first group (paragraph 0047 – a certain number of SSB transmissions may be subject to SCS criteria while a remainder of the transmissions are not).
Regarding Claim 22, Alriksson discloses the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: change the pattern periodically (paragraph 0047 – a certain number of SSB transmissions may be subject to SCS criteria while a remainder of the transmissions are not, where the transmissions can be confined to a particular time interval (e.g., an SSB burst or particular durations in milliseconds)).
Regarding Claim 23, Alriksson discloses the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to:
use a plurality of beams for transmissions (paragraph 0012 – SCS transmissions are beam-formed);
associate at least one beam of the plurality of beams with the first group for short control signal transmissions (paragraph 0012-0013 – different SCS criteria can apply at different carrier frequencies or different carrier frequency ranges); and
associate the remaining beams of the plurality of beams with the another group for other than the short control signal transmission procedure (paragraph 0012 – SCS transmissions, as well as other associated types of transmission, are beam formed in order to limit potential interference with other contending transmitters).
Regarding Claim 33, Alriksson discloses an apparatus (paragraph 0048 – radio node such as a wireless device or UE), comprising:
at least one processor (paragraph 0048 – the radio node comprises processing circuitry comprising a controller); and
at least one memory comprising computer program code (paragraph 0048 – memory connected to controller),
the at least one memory and computer program code configured, with the at least one processor (paragraph 0048 – memory connected to the controller to execute modules in the radio node), to cause the apparatus at least to:
obtain information whether a signal to be received from a network element belongs to a first group or to another group (paragraph 0042 – the UE or radio node applies SCS criteria for a particular type of transmission based on a configuration obtained via RRC signaling) based on one or more of the following:
a transmission time instance of the signal (paragraph 0047 – the network node can evaluate a total transmission duration); a beam or beam index of the signal (Note: this is claimed in the alternative); a type of the signal (paragraph 0042 – the determination can be based on the type of transmission);
determine an allowance of time or an allowance of resources of a time period for one or more short control signals;
determine whether to receive the signal as one or more short control signals based on the group the signal belongs to and on the allowance (paragraph 0014 – SCS criteria may pertain to a maximum total transmission time or a maximum single transmission duration; paragraph 0015 – SCS transmission can be configured on allocated resources, where an intended transmission can be shorter than allocated resources); and
receive the signal either as one or more short control signals without channel sensing, or as a signal subject to listen before talk procedure (paragraphs 0042-0043 – some transmissions or types of transmissions can be sent as SCS transmissions or LBT as a fallback).
Claim 28 is directed to a method comprising the same steps as performed by the apparatus of Claim 33. Therefore, Claim 28 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for Claim 33.
Regarding Claims 29 and 34, Alriksson discloses receiving a further indication indicating that at least some of upcoming instances of downlink signals in the another group are transmitted as short control signals (paragraph 0043 – whether or not a UE adheres to SCS criteria for a particular transmission depends on configured periodicity of the transmission; otherwise, the transmission is fallback LBT).
Regarding Claims 30 and 35, Alriksson discloses performing at least one of the following based on the information on whether a given transmission instance of downlink signals or channels associated with a beam belongs to the first group or to the second group: synchronization and cell acquisition (paragraph 0045 – transmission types may comprise transmission of reference signaling (e.g., synchronization signaling); channel state information-reference symbols validation (Note: this is claimed in the alternative); channel state information and radio resource management measurements (paragraph 0045 – CSI-RS signaling); sharing of base station channel occupancy time (Note: this is claimed in the alternative), or initiation of a channel occupancy by the apparatus (Note: this is claimed in the alternative).
Regarding Claims 31 and 36, Alriksson discloses determining, which instances of downlink signals and channels belong to the first or the another group based on one or more patterns (paragraph 0047 – a certain number of SSB transmissions may be subject to SCS criteria while a remainder of the transmissions are not).
Regarding Claims 32 and 37, Alriksson discloses determining that at least one of the one or more patterns changes in time (paragraph 0047 – a certain number of SSB transmissions may be subject to SCS criteria while a remainder of the transmissions are not, where the transmissions can be confined to a particular time interval (e.g., an SSB burst or particular durations in milliseconds)).
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alriksson in view of Lee et al (WIPO Publication 2022031692), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding Claim 24, Alriksson discloses the limitations of Claim 23, as described above. However, Alriksson does not disclose provid(ing) an index for each of the plurality of beams, wherein a first set of indices is provided for beams associated with the first group and a second set of indices is provided for the another group. In an analogous art, Lee discloses this. Specifically, Lee discloses maintaining beam indexes in each cell corresponding to subframe numbers (page 8, lines 15-25 and Figure 20). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alriksson and Lee. One would have been motivated to do so in order to randomize SSB transmission such that the interference footprint can be randomized (see page 4, lines 12-14 of Lee).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Alriksson and Lee discloses the first set of indices is fixed or included in a system information (page 8, lines 15-25 and Figure 20 of Lee – the beam index is fixed for a certain cell) or is different for different types of downlink signals (Note: this is claimed in the alternative). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Alriksson and Lee. One would have been motivated to do so in order to randomize SSB transmission such that the interference footprint can be randomized (see page 4, lines 12-14 of Lee).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alriksson in view of Lee as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Ryu et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0247477), hereinafter Ryu. The combination of Alriksson and Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 25, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose determin(ing) grouping of beams based on channel occupancy ratios measured on different beams. In an analogous art, Ryu discloses this. Specifically, Ryu discloses grouping beams together based on a channel occupancy ratio (CR) measured on respective channels (paragraphs 0029, 0031 and 0040). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alriksson/Lee with Ryu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce congestion or reduce/prevent consumption of an amount of available resources by a UE that would adversely impact other devices (see paragraph 0032) of Ryu.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alriksson in view of Ryu. Alriksson discloses the limitations of Claim 18, as described above. However, Alriksson does not disclose determin(ing) grouping of beams based on downlink signal types. In an analogous art, Ryu discloses this. Specifically, Ryu discloses a UE selecting respective beam groups based on respective sets of properties associated with each of the beam groups (e.g., parameters related to different channels like PSFCH, PSCCH or PSSCH) (paragraph 0160 and Figure 12). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alriksson with Ryu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce congestion or reduce/prevent consumption of an amount of available resources by a UE that would adversely impact other devices (see paragraph 0032) of Ryu.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hu et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0124807) discloses SSB beam transmission as LBT-free short control signaling (paragraph 0128).
Lunttila et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2016/0043841) discloses transmitting SCS message without LBT (refer to claim 3)
Niu et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0146004) discloses SIBs utilizing LBT and SSBs as short control signaling without LBT (paragraph 0054).
Niu et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0096755) discloses transmitting SSBs as short control signaling (e.g., that an SSB burst is transmitted at a fixed location regardless of LBT results, similar to operation in a licensed band) (paragraph 0072).
Niu et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0312477) discloses transmitting RACH resource or SRS symbols as short control signaling without LBT (paragraph 0058).
Oteri et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0096490) discloses using contention-exempt SSB transmission for a situation in which LBT is required and short control signaling without LBT is allowed (paragraph 0071).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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 W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472