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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 24, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 9-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 9-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-14 and 18-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,035,368 (the Kusashima Patent hereafter) in view of Applicants Admitted Prior Art (AAPA hereafter) and further in view of Tooher et al. (US 2018/0103458, Tooher hereafter).
RE claim 1, the Kusashima Patent discloses a base station, comprising; a control unit configured to: set a channel access scheme for communication with a terminal device; and notify, the terminal device, of setting information regarding the set channel access scheme to be used and a carrier sense process, wherein the terminal device implements, based on the notified setting information, at least one of a first scheme or a second scheme as the set channel access scheme (Claim 1 claims “A first base station, comprising: a control unit configured to notify a terminal device of setting information that indicates both: information regarding a channel access scheme, and information regarding a setting for channel sense,”).
The Kusashima Patent does not explicitly claim the terminal device further performs, in the first scheme, the carrier sense process at a plurality of time instants, and the terminal device further performs in the second scheme, the carrier sense process at a specific time instant different from the plurality of time instants, at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period.
However, AAPA teaches the terminal device further performs, in the first scheme, the carrier sense process at a plurality of time instants, and the terminal device further performs in the second scheme, the carrier sense process at a specific time instant different from the plurality of time instants (Upon review of Applicant’s originally filed specification, paragraphs 26-36 are directed to the details and differences between LBE and FBE as defined by ETSI BRAN for NR-U. As such, it is clear this is not a disclosure of Applicant’s invention. Instead this is admitted prior art as the specification is merely describing already an existing specification as introduction to Applicant’s proposed invention. Paragraph 33 teaches that “CCA is performed one or more times in LBE before transmission. In contrast, CCA is performed one time in FBE before transmission.” and paragraph 35 teaches “the timing of CCA is a third different point between LBE and FBE. CCA is performed at any timing in FBE. In contrast, CCA is performed at the fixed timing immediately before a fixed frame period in LBE.”. )
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 base station of the Kusashima Patent with the teachings of AAPA since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007))
The Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA does not explicitly disclose at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period.
However, Tooher teaches at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period (Paragraphs 176, 178, 196, 201 and 203 discloses a WRTU may be configured with an uplink Fixed Frame Period, of FFP. The FFP is configured according to a starting subframe and a length specified as a number of subframes. The WRTU FFP may be semi-statically configured by higher layer signaling. It may also be configured dynamically. The configuration may be sent to the WRTU in DCI. Paragraph 204 further teaching an FFP length may be set as a set of lengths, the FFP length hopping from one length to the next.).
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 base station of the Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA with the teachings of Tooher since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007))
RE claim 2, the Kusashima Patent in view of APPA and further in view of Tooher claims the base station according to claim 1 as set forth above. Note that the Kusashima Patent further discloses wherein the setting information further includes information that indicates at least one of a use of the second scheme (Claim 2 claims “wherein the setting information includes information indicating whether to use the second channel access scheme.” ) or an establishment of synchronization between the base station and a node (Claim 1 claims “wherein the setting information includes information indicating establishment of synchronization between the first base station and a second base station.”).
RE claim 4, the Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher claims the base station according to claim 1 as set forth above. Note that the Kusashima Patent further claims wherein the setting information includes information that indicates a position associated with the one of the first scheme or the second scheme, and the terminal device further implements, based on the position associated with the one of the first scheme or the second scheme, the one of the first scheme or the second scheme as the channel access scheme (Claim 3 is directed to identical features and scope).
RE claim 5, the Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher claims the base station according to claim 1 as set forth above. Note that the Kusashima Patent further claims wherein the setting information further includes information that indicates a frequency band associated with the at least one of the first scheme or the second scheme, and the terminal device further implements, based on the frequency band associated with the at least one of the first scheme or the second scheme, the at least one of the first scheme or the second scheme as the channel access scheme (Claim 4 is directed to identical features and scope).
RE claim 6, the Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher claims the base station according to claim 1 as set forth above. Note that the Kusashima Patent further claims wherein the setting information further includes information that indicates a time period associated with the at least one of the first scheme or the second scheme, and the terminal device further implements, based on the time period, the at least one of the first scheme or the second scheme as the channel access scheme (Claim 5 is directed to identical features and scope).
RE claim 9, the Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher claims the base station according to claim 1 as set forth above. Note that the Kusashima Patent further claims wherein the control unit is further configured to: detect a note that uses the first scheme; and set, based on the detection of the node, the channel access scheme for the communication with the terminal device (Claim 8 is directed to identical features and scope).
RE claim 10, the Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher claims the base station according to claim 9 as set forth above. Note that the Kusashima Patent further claims wherein the control unit is further configured to detect the node based on a signal from the node (Claim 9 is directed to identical features and scope).
RE claim 11, the Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher claims the base station according to claim 9 as set forth above. Note that the Kusashima Patent further claims wherein the control unit is further configured to detect the node based on sensor information associated with the node (Claim 10 is directed to identical features and scope).
RE claim 12, the Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher claims the base station according to claim 1 as set forth above. Note that the Kusashima Patent further claims wherein the control unit is further configured to: detect a node that uses the first scheme; and set, based on the detection of the node, a frame configuration in the second scheme (Claim 11 is directed to identical features and scope).
RE claim 13, the Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher claims the base station according to claim 1 as set forth above. Note that the Kusashima Patent further claims wherein the control unit is further configured to set, based on a priority of a packet from a node, the channel access scheme to be used for the communication with the terminal device (Claim 12 is directed to identical features and scope).
RE claim 14, the Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher claims the base station according to claim 1 as set forth above. Note that the Kusashima Patent further claims wherein the control unit is further configured to switch in a specific cycle, between the first scheme and the second scheme as the channel access scheme (Claim 13 is directed to identical features and scope).
RE claim 15, the Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher claims the base station according to claim 1 as set forth above. Note that the Kusashima Patent further claims wherein the first scheme includes LBE (Load-based equipment), and the second scheme includes FBE (Frame-based equipment) (Claim 14 is directed to identical features and scope).
RE claim 16, the Kusashima Patent claims a terminal device comprising; a communication unit configured to receive, from a base station, a notification of setting information regarding a channel access scheme and a carrier sense process, wherein the channel access scheme is set by the base station to generate the setting information; and a control unit configured to: set, based on the received notification of the setting information, the channel access scheme as at least one of a first scheme or a second scheme (Claim 18 claims “A terminal device, comprising: a control unit configured to: receive, from a first base station, setting information that indicates both: information regarding a channel access scheme, and information regarding a setting for channel sense, wherein the information regarding the setting for the channel sense indicates information regarding a frame period in the channel access scheme; set the channel access scheme based on the received setting information; and generate the setting for the channel sense, based on the received setting information”).
The Kusashima Patent does not explicitly claim the terminal being configured to implement, in the first scheme, the carrier sense process at a plurality of time instants; and implement, in the second scheme, the carrier sense process at a specific time instant different from the plurality of time instants, at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period.
However, AAPA teaches the terminal being configured to implement, in the first scheme, the carrier sense process at a plurality of time instants; and implement, in the second scheme, the carrier sense process at a specific time instant different from the plurality of time instants (Upon review of Applicant’s originally filed specification, paragraphs 26-36 are directed to the details and differences between LBE and FBE as defined by ETSI BRAN for NR-U. As such, it is clear this is not a disclosure of Applicant’s invention. Instead this is admitted prior art as the specification is merely describing already an existing specification as introduction to Applicant’s proposed invention. Paragraph 33 teaches that “CCA is performed one or more times in LBE before transmission. In contrast, CCA is performed one time in FBE before transmission.” and paragraph 35 teaches “the timing of CCA is a third different point between LBE and FBE. CCA is performed at any timing in FBE. In contrast, CCA is performed at the fixed timing immediately before a fixed frame period in LBE.”. )
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 terminal of Matsumoto with the teachings of AAPA since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007))
The Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA does not explicitly disclose at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period.
However, Tooher teaches at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period (Paragraphs 176, 178, 196, 201 and 203 discloses a WRTU may be configured with an uplink Fixed Frame Period, of FFP. The FFP is configured according to a starting subframe and a length specified as a number of subframes. The WRTU FFP may be semi-statically configured by higher layer signaling. It may also be configured dynamically. The configuration may be sent to the WRTU in DCI. Paragraph 204 further teaching an FFP length may be set as a set of lengths, the FFP length hopping from one length to the next.).
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 terminal device of the Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA with the teachings of Tooher since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007))
RE claim 17 and 19, the Kusashima Patent claims a method and non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising; in a base station that includes a processor: setting a channel access scheme for communication with a terminal device; and notifying the terminal device of setting information regarding the set channel access scheme to be used and a carrier sense process, wherein the terminal device implements, based on the notified setting information, at least one of a first scheme or a second scheme as the set channel access scheme (Claims 19 and 21 claim a method and non-transitory computer readable medium, respectively, performing the steps of “notifying a terminal device of setting information that indicates both: information regarding a channel access scheme, and information regarding a setting for channel sense, wherein the information regarding the setting for the channel sense indicates information regarding a frame period in the channel access scheme“).
The Kusashima Patent does not explicitly claim the terminal device further performs, in the first scheme, the carrier sense process at a plurality of time instants, and the terminal device further performs, in the second scheme, the carrier sense process at a specific time instant different from the plurality of time instants, at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period.
However, AAPA teaches the terminal device further performs, in the first scheme, the carrier sense process at a plurality of time instants, and the terminal device further performs, in the second scheme, the carrier sense process at a specific time instant different from the plurality of time instants (Upon review of Applicant’s originally filed specification, paragraphs 26-36 are directed to the details and differences between LBE and FBE as defined by ETSI BRAN for NR-U. As such, it is clear this is not a disclosure of Applicant’s invention. Instead this is admitted prior art as the specification is merely describing already an existing specification as introduction to Applicant’s proposed invention. Paragraph 33 teaches that “CCA is performed one or more times in LBE before transmission. In contrast, CCA is performed one time in FBE before transmission.” and paragraph 35 teaches “the timing of CCA is a third different point between LBE and FBE. CCA is performed at any timing in FBE. In contrast, CCA is performed at the fixed timing immediately before a fixed frame period in LBE.”. )
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 base station of the Kusashima Patent with the teachings of AAPA since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
The Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA does not explicitly disclose at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period.
However, Tooher teaches at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period (Paragraphs 176, 178, 196, 201 and 203 discloses a WRTU may be configured with an uplink Fixed Frame Period, of FFP. The FFP is configured according to a starting subframe and a length specified as a number of subframes. The WRTU FFP may be semi-statically configured by higher layer signaling. It may also be configured dynamically. The configuration may be sent to the WRTU in DCI. Paragraph 204 further teaching an FFP length may be set as a set of lengths, the FFP length hopping from one length to the next.).
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 base station method and medium of the Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA with the teachings of Tooher since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007))
RE claims 18 and 20, the Kusashima Patent claims a method and non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising; in a terminal device: receiving, from a base station, a notification of setting information regarding a channel access scheme and a carrier sense process, wherein the channel access scheme is set by the base station to generate the setting information; setting, based on the received notification of the setting information, the channel access scheme as at least one of a first scheme or a second scheme (Claims 20 and 22 claim a method and non-transitory computer readable medium, respectively, performing the steps of “receiving, from a first base station, setting information that indicates both: information regarding a channel access scheme, and information regarding a setting for channel sense, wherein the information regarding the setting for the channel sense indicates information regarding a frame period in the channel access scheme“).
The Kusashima Patent does not explicitly claim implementing, in the first scheme, the carrier sense process at a plurality of time instants; and implementing, in the second scheme, the carrier sense process at a specific time instant different from the plurality of time instants, at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period.
However, AAPA teaches implementing, in the first scheme, the carrier sense process at a plurality of time instants; and implementing, in the second scheme, the carrier sense process at a specific time instant different from the plurality of time instants (Upon review of Applicant’s originally filed specification, paragraphs 26-36 are directed to the details and differences between LBE and FBE as defined by ETSI BRAN for NR-U. As such, it is clear this is not a disclosure of Applicant’s invention. Instead this is admitted prior art as the specification is merely describing already an existing specification as introduction to Applicant’s proposed invention. Paragraph 33 teaches that “CCA is performed one or more times in LBE before transmission. In contrast, CCA is performed one time in FBE before transmission.” and paragraph 35 teaches “the timing of CCA is a third different point between LBE and FBE. CCA is performed at any timing in FBE. In contrast, CCA is performed at the fixed timing immediately before a fixed frame period in LBE.”. )
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 method and medium of the Kusashima Patent with the teachings of AAPA since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
The Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA does not explicitly disclose at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period.
However, Tooher teaches at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period (Paragraphs 176, 178, 196, 201 and 203 discloses a WRTU may be configured with an uplink Fixed Frame Period, of FFP. The FFP is configured according to a starting subframe and a length specified as a number of subframes. The WRTU FFP may be semi-statically configured by higher layer signaling. It may also be configured dynamically. The configuration may be sent to the WRTU in DCI. Paragraph 204 further teaching an FFP length may be set as a set of lengths, the FFP length hopping from one length to the next.).
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 terminal method and medium of the Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA with the teachings of Tooher since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007))
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over of the Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA, in view of Tooher and further in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 2018/0020375, Matsumoto hereafter)
RE claim 3, the Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher claims the base station according to claim 1 as set forth above. Note that the Kusashima Patent further claims wherein the control unit is further configured to set, based on a position, the channel access scheme (Claim 3 claims “wherein the setting information includes information in which a position of the terminal device and the channel access scheme for the terminal device are associated, and the first channel access scheme or the second channel access scheme is used by the terminal device based on the position of the terminal device”)
The Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA does not explicitly claim wherein the control unit is further configured to set, based on a surrounding communication environment of the base station, the channel access scheme.
However, Matsumoto teaches wherein the control unit is further configured to set, based on a surrounding communication environment of the base station, the channel access scheme. (Matsumoto, Figure 14, P value based on uplink frames received to determine by the eNB if the wireless environment is congested and the eNB sets the LBT mode, FBE or LBE, accordingly).
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 base station of Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher with the teachings of Matsumoto since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA, in view of Tooher and further in view of Yoon et al. (US 2017/0238249).
RE claim 7, the Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA claims the base station according to claim 1 as set forth above. Note that the Kusashima Patent further claims wherein the setting information further includes information indicating a frame configuration in the second scheme (Claim 6 is directed to identical features and scope).
The Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA does not explicitly disclose the frame configuration includes: a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period, and a channel occupancy time associated with the second scheme
However, Tooher teaches the frame configuration: a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period, (Paragraphs 176, 178, 196, 201 and 203 discloses a WRTU may be configured with an uplink Fixed Frame Period, of FFP. The FFP is configured according to a starting subframe and a length specified as a number of subframes. The WRTU FFP may be semi-statically configured by higher layer signaling. It may also be configured dynamically. The configuration may be sent to the WRTU in DCI. Paragraph 204 further teaching an FFP length may be set as a set of lengths, the FFP length hopping from one length to the next.)
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 base station of the Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA with the teachings of Tooher since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007))
The Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher does not explicitly disclose the frame configuration includes a channel occupancy time associated with the second scheme.
However, Yoon teaches the frame configuration includes a channel occupancy time associated with the second scheme (Paragraph 75, DCI may be configured to carry channel occupancy time information via an existing or newly defined field).
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 base station of the Kusashima Patent in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher with the teachings of Yoon since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007))
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.
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 1-2 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto, in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher.
RE claim 1, Matsumoto discloses a base station, comprising; a control unit configured to: set a channel access scheme for communication with a terminal device; and notify, the terminal device, of setting information regarding the set channel access scheme to be used and a carrier sense process, wherein the terminal device implements, based on the notified setting information, at least one of a first scheme or a second scheme as the set channel access scheme (Paragraphs 150-165, eNB selects between a frame based equipment, FBE, scheme or a load based equipment, LBE, scheme for Listen Before Talk LBT and signals the setting of one or the other to a UE.).
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the terminal device further performs, in the first scheme, the carrier sense process at a plurality of time instants, and the terminal device further performs in the second scheme, the carrier sense process at a specific time instant different from the plurality of time instants, wherein at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period.
However, AAPA teaches the terminal device further performs, in the first scheme, the carrier sense process at a plurality of time instants, and the terminal device further performs in the second scheme, the carrier sense process at a specific time instant different from the plurality of time instants (Upon review of Applicant’s originally filed specification, paragraphs 26-36 are directed to the details and differences between LBE and FBE as defined by ETSI BRAN for NR-U. As such, it is clear this is not a disclosure of Applicant’s invention. Instead this is admitted prior art as the specification is merely describing already an existing specification as introduction to Applicant’s proposed invention. Paragraph 33 teaches that “CCA is performed one or more times in LBE before transmission. In contrast, CCA is performed one time in FBE before transmission.” and paragraph 35 teaches “the timing of CCA is a third different point between LBE and FBE. CCA is performed at any timing in FBE. In contrast, CCA is performed at the fixed timing immediately before a fixed frame period in LBE.”. )
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 base station of Matsumoto with the teachings of AAPA since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007))
Matsumoto in view of AAPA does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period.
However, Tooher teaches wherein at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period (Paragraphs 176, 178, 196, 201 and 203 discloses a WRTU may be configured with an uplink Fixed Frame Period, of FFP. The FFP is configured according to a starting subframe and a length specified as a number of subframes. The WRTU FFP may be semi-statically configured by higher layer signaling. It may also be configured dynamically. The configuration may be sent to the WRTU in DCI. Paragraph 204 further teaching an FFP length may be set as a set of lengths, the FFP length hopping from one length to the next.)
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 terminal device of Matsumoto in view of AAPA with the teachings of Tooher since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 2, Matsumoto in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher discloses the base station according to claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Matsumoto further discloses wherein the setting information includes information that indicates at least one of a use of the second scheme (Paragraphs 150-165, eNB selects between a frame based equipment, FBE, scheme or a load based equipment, LBE, scheme for Listen Before Talk LBT and signals the setting of one or the other to a UE.) or an establishment of synchronization between the base station and a node.
RE claim 15, Matsumoto in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher discloses the base station according to claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Matsumoto further discloses wherein the first scheme includes LBE (Load-based equipment), and the second scheme includes FBE (Frame-based equipment) (Paragraphs 150-165, eNB selects between a frame based equipment, FBE, scheme or a load based equipment, LBE, scheme for Listen Before Talk LBT and signals the setting of one or the other to a UE.).
RE claim 16, Matsumoto discloses a terminal device comprising; a communication unit configured to receive, from a base station, a notification of setting information regarding a channel access scheme and a carrier sense process, wherein the channel access scheme is set by the base station to generate the setting information; and a control unit configured to: set, based on the received notification of the setting information, the channel access scheme as at least one of a first scheme or a second scheme (Paragraphs 150-165, eNB selects between a frame based equipment, FBE, scheme or a load based equipment, LBE, scheme for Listen Before Talk LBT and signals the setting of one or the other to a UE. Communication and control units are generic components inherently present in a terminal/UE device).
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the terminal being configured to implement, in the first scheme, the carrier sense process at a plurality of time instants; and implement, in the second scheme, the carrier sense process at a specific time instant different from the plurality of time instants, wherein at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period.
However, AAPA teaches the terminal being configured to implement, in the first scheme, the carrier sense process at a plurality of time instants; and implement, in the second scheme, the carrier sense process at a specific time instant different from the plurality of time instants (Upon review of Applicant’s originally filed specification, paragraphs 26-36 are directed to the details and differences between LBE and FBE as defined by ETSI BRAN for NR-U. As such, it is clear this is not a disclosure of Applicant’s invention. Instead this is admitted prior art as the specification is merely describing already an existing specification as introduction to Applicant’s proposed invention. Paragraph 33 teaches that “CCA is performed one or more times in LBE before transmission. In contrast, CCA is performed one time in FBE before transmission.” and paragraph 35 teaches “the timing of CCA is a third different point between LBE and FBE. CCA is performed at any timing in FBE. In contrast, CCA is performed at the fixed timing immediately before a fixed frame period in LBE.”. )
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 terminal of Matsumoto with the teachings of AAPA since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Matsumoto in view of AAPA does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period.
However, Tooher teaches wherein at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period (Paragraphs 176, 178, 196, 201 and 203 discloses a WRTU may be configured with an uplink Fixed Frame Period, of FFP. The FFP is configured according to a starting subframe and a length specified as a number of subframes. The WRTU FFP may be semi-statically configured by higher layer signaling. It may also be configured dynamically. The configuration may be sent to the WRTU in DCI. Paragraph 204 further teaching an FFP length may be set as a set of lengths, the FFP length hopping from one length to the next.)
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 terminal device of Matsumoto in view of AAPA with the teachings of Tooher since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 17 and 19, Matsumoto discloses a method and non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising; in a base station that includes a processor: setting a channel access scheme for communication with a terminal device; and notifying the terminal device of setting information regarding the set channel access scheme to be used and a carrier sense process, wherein the terminal device implements, based on the notified setting information, at least one of a first scheme or a second scheme as the set channel access scheme (Paragraphs 150-165, eNB selects between a frame based equipment, FBE, scheme or a load based equipment, LBE, scheme for Listen Before Talk LBT and signals the setting of one or the other to a UE. See further paragraph 104).
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the terminal device further performs, in the first scheme, the carrier sense process at a plurality of time instants, and the terminal device further performs, in the second scheme, the carrier sense process at a specific time instant different from the plurality of time instants, wherein at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period.
However, AAPA teaches the terminal device further performs, in the first scheme, the carrier sense process at a plurality of time instants, and the terminal device further performs, in the second scheme, the carrier sense process at a specific time instant different from the plurality of time instants (Upon review of Applicant’s originally filed specification, paragraphs 26-36 are directed to the details and differences between LBE and FBE as defined by ETSI BRAN for NR-U. As such, it is clear this is not a disclosure of Applicant’s invention. Instead this is admitted prior art as the specification is merely describing already an existing specification as introduction to Applicant’s proposed invention. Paragraph 33 teaches that “CCA is performed one or more times in LBE before transmission. In contrast, CCA is performed one time in FBE before transmission.” and paragraph 35 teaches “the timing of CCA is a third different point between LBE and FBE. CCA is performed at any timing in FBE. In contrast, CCA is performed at the fixed timing immediately before a fixed frame period in LBE.”. )
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 method and medium of Matsumoto with the teachings of AAPA since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007))
Matsumoto in view of AAPA does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period.
However, Tooher teaches wherein at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period (Paragraphs 176, 178, 196, 201 and 203 discloses a WRTU may be configured with an uplink Fixed Frame Period, of FFP. The FFP is configured according to a starting subframe and a length specified as a number of subframes. The WRTU FFP may be semi-statically configured by higher layer signaling. It may also be configured dynamically. The configuration may be sent to the WRTU in DCI. Paragraph 204 further teaching an FFP length may be set as a set of lengths, the FFP length hopping from one length to the next.)
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 base station method and medium of Matsumoto in view of AAPA with the teachings of Tooher since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 18 and 20, Matsumoto discloses a method and non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising; in a terminal device: receiving, from a base station, a notification of setting information regarding a channel access scheme and a carrier sense process, wherein the channel access scheme is set by the base station to generate the setting information; setting, based on the received notification of the setting information, the channel access scheme as at least one of a first scheme or a second scheme (Paragraphs 150-165, eNB selects between a frame based equipment, FBE, scheme or a load based equipment, LBE, scheme for Listen Before Talk LBT and signals the setting of one or the other to a UE. See further paragraph 99).
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose implementing, in the first scheme, the carrier sense process at a plurality of time instants; and implementing, in the second scheme, the carrier sense process at a specific time instant different from the plurality of time instants, wherein at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period.
However, AAPA teaches implementing, in the first scheme, the carrier sense process at a plurality of time instants; and implementing, in the second scheme, the carrier sense process at a specific time instant different from the plurality of time instants (Upon review of Applicant’s originally filed specification, paragraphs 26-36 are directed to the details and differences between LBE and FBE as defined by ETSI BRAN for NR-U. As such, it is clear this is not a disclosure of Applicant’s invention. Instead this is admitted prior art as the specification is merely describing already an existing specification as introduction to Applicant’s proposed invention. Paragraph 33 teaches that “CCA is performed one or more times in LBE before transmission. In contrast, CCA is performed one time in FBE before transmission.” and paragraph 35 teaches “the timing of CCA is a third different point between LBE and FBE. CCA is performed at any timing in FBE. In contrast, CCA is performed at the fixed timing immediately before a fixed frame period in LBE.”. )
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 method and medium of Matsumoto with the teachings of AAPA since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Matsumoto in view of AAPA does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period.
However, Tooher teaches wherein at least one of a transmission configuration of the second scheme or a reception configuration of the second scheme is associated with a fixed frame period, and the setting information includes a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period (Paragraphs 176, 178, 196, 201 and 203 discloses a WRTU may be configured with an uplink Fixed Frame Period, of FFP. The FFP is configured according to a starting subframe and a length specified as a number of subframes. The WRTU FFP may be semi-statically configured by higher layer signaling. It may also be configured dynamically. The configuration may be sent to the WRTU in DCI. Paragraph 204 further teaching an FFP length may be set as a set of lengths, the FFP length hopping from one length to the next.)
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 terminal method and medium of Matsumoto in view of AAPA with the teachings of Tooher since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of AAPA, in view of Tooher and further in view of KWON et al. (US 2017/0034851, Kwon hereafter).
RE claim 3, Matsumoto in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher discloses the base station according to claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Matsumoto further discloses wherein the control unit is further configured to set, based on a surrounding communication environment of the base station, the channel access scheme (Matsumoto, Figure 14, P value based on uplink frames received to determine by the eNB if the wireless environment is congested and the eNB sets the LBT mode, FBE or LBE, accordingly).
Matsumoto in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher does not explicitly disclose wherein the control unit is further configured to set, based on a position, the channel access scheme.
However, Kwon teaches wherein the control unit is further configured to set, based on a position, the channel access scheme (Paragraphs 45 and 50 teaches grouping UEs according to position and location of UEs in proximity to an ENB by said eNB. Paragraph 50 specifically teaches “the eNB may know the locations of the two (or more) UEs and information related to which LBT scheme is proper for the particular locations, and may inform the D2D UEs of an appropriate LBT scheme based at least in part on this information”).
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 base station of Matsumoto in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher with the teachings of Kwon since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of AAPA, in view of Tooher and further in view of Uchida et al. (US 5,805,581, Uchida hereafter).
RE claim 5, Matsumoto in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher discloses the base station according to claim 1 as set forth above. Matsumoto in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher does not explicitly disclose wherein the setting information includes information that indicates a frequency band associated with the one of the first channel access scheme or the second scheme, and the terminal device further implements, based on the frequency band, the one of the first scheme or the second scheme as the channel access scheme
However, Uchida teaches wherein the setting information includes information that indicates a frequency band associated with the one of the first channel access scheme or the second scheme, and the terminal device further implements, based on the frequency band, the one of the first scheme or the second scheme as the channel access scheme (Column 43, lines 2-30, “The information to be notified from the conventional control channel are frequencies to be used merely as control channels and those to be used as information channels. Whereas this embodiment is characterized in that, in addition to the frequency to be used as the control channel and the information channel, the access method and modulation method associated with that frequency are notified.”).
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 base station of Matsumoto in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher with the teachings of Uchida since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007))
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of AAPA, in view of Tooher and further in view of Shao et al. (US 2009/0080366, Shao hereafter).
RE claim 6, Matsumoto in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher discloses the base station according to claim 1 as set forth above. Matsumoto in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher does not explicitly disclose wherein the setting information includes information that indicates a time period associated with the one of the first channel access scheme or the second scheme, and the terminal device further implements, based on the time period, the one of the first scheme or the second scheme as the channel access scheme
However, Shao teaches wherein the setting information includes information that indicates a time period associated with the one of the first channel access scheme or the second scheme, and the terminal device further implements, based on the time period, the one of the first scheme or the second scheme as the channel access scheme (Paragraph 3, known in the IEEE 802.11e standard specifies a type of time reservation scheme in which an access point (AP) allocates time periods for channel access by different stations (STAs) during a contention-free period.)
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 base station of Matsumoto in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher with the teachings of Shao since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007))
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of AAPA and further in view of Yoon.
RE claim 7, Matsumoto discloses the base station according to claim 1 as set forth above. Matsumoto in view of APPA does not explicitly disclose wherein the setting information further includes information indicating a frame configuration in the second scheme and the frame configuration includes: the ratio of the length of the fixed frame period and the timing of the fixed frame period, and a channel occupancy time associated with the second scheme.
However, Tooher teaches a frame configuration including: a ratio of a length of the fixed frame period and a timing of the fixed frame period (Paragraphs 176, 178, 196, 201 and 203 discloses a WRTU may be configured with an uplink Fixed Frame Period, of FFP. The FFP is configured according to a starting subframe and a length specified as a number of subframes. The WRTU FFP may be semi-statically configured by higher layer signaling. It may also be configured dynamically. The configuration may be sent to the WRTU in DCI. Paragraph 204 further teaching an FFP length may be set as a set of lengths, the FFP length hopping from one length to the next.)
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 base station of Matsumoto in view of AAPA with the teachings of Tooher since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007))
Matsumoto in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher does not explicitly disclose the frame configuration includes a channel occupancy time associated with the second scheme.
However, Yoon teaches a frame configuration including a channel occupancy time associated with the second scheme (Paragraph 75, DCI may be configured to carry channel occupancy time information via an existing or newly defined field).
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 base station of the Matsumoto in view of AAPA and further in view of Tooher with the teachings of Yoon since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007))
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/James P Duffy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461