Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 4-8, 10 of US Patent 11,109,412 and claim 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 17 of US Patent 10,980,059 in view of Alfarhan et al. (US 2022/0400396).
Regarding claim 1, 11, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 1
‘412 patent Claim 1, 10
‘059 patent claim 1, 17
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause
a wireless device to: receive configuration parameters of:
A method comprising: receiving, by a wireless device, first configuration parameters
A method comprising: receiving, by a wireless device: first configuration parameters for listen-before-talk (LBT) failure recovery;
a plurality of cells; and
Not disclosed
Not disclosed
a scheduling request (SR) configuration associated with recovery from consistent listen-before-talk (LBT) failure and for requesting resources:
…of a scheduling request (SR) configuration associated with recovery from a listen-before-talk (LBT) event comprising a plurality of LBT failures;
and second configuration parameters of a scheduling request configuration associated with recovery from an LBT event comprising a plurality of LBT failures;
on one or more first cells of the plurality of cells; and
…wherein: the SR indicates a request for uplink resources;
…receiving an uplink grant for the third serving cell; and transmitting the LBT failure MAC CE based on the uplink grant.
excluding resources on other cells of the plurality of cells;
…wherein: the SR indicates a request for uplink resources; and the request excludes resources on the one or more first cells;
…wherein at least one of the scheduling request resource and the scheduling request configuration indicates a third serving cell;
in response to no resources, on one or more cells for which the consistent LBT failure is not triggered, being available for transmission of an LBT failure control element, transmit a SR based on the SR configuration;
…triggering the LBT event for one or more first cells; in response to no uplink resources, on one or more second cells for which the LBT event is not triggered, being available for transmission of an LBT failure control element, transmitting a SR via a SR resource based on the first configuration parameters;
…in response to no uplink resources, on one or more second serving cells for which the LBT event is not triggered, being available for transmission of an LBT failure medium access control (MAC) control element (CE), transmitting a scheduling request via a scheduling request resource based on the second configuration parameters;
receive an uplink grant for a first cell of the one or more first cells;
transmitting the LBT failure control element based on an uplink grant. (a grant may obviously have been received)
receiving an uplink grant for the third serving cell; and
transmit the LBT failure control element based on the uplink grant; and
transmitting the LBT failure control element based on an uplink grant.
transmitting the LBT failure MAC CE based on the uplink grant.
wherein: the LBT failure control element is of one octet or four octets; and
a logical channel identifier (LCID) associated with the LBT failure control element is:
a first LCID if the LBT failure control element is of one octet; and
a second LCID if the LBT failure control element is of four octets.
(claim 10) wherein: the LBT failure control element is of one octet or four octets; and a logical channel identifier (LCID) associated with the LBT failure control element is: a first LCID if the LBT failure control element is of one octet; and a second LCID if the LBT failure control element is of four octets.
(claim 17) wherein: the LBT failure MAC CE is of one octet or four octets; and a logical channel identifier (LCID) associated with the LBT failure MAC CE is: a first LCID if the LBT failure MAC CE is of one octet; and a second LCID if the LBT failure MAC CE is of four octets.
Claim 11 recites a similar variation of claim 1 from perspective of base station and is similarly not patentably distinct.
Claim 1 of the ‘412 patent, claim 1 of the ‘059 patent does not disclose: …configuration parameters of: a plurality of cells. However, Alfarhan teaches (see at least 0092, WTRU may be RRC configured with suitable cells, BWPs, priorities, numerologies, etc. for reporting failure MAC-CE). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the functionality of Alfarhan into the system of claim 1 of the ‘412 and ‘059 patent in order to enhance configuration for failure-MAC-CE reporting.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd.App.1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art. Moreover, the doctrine of double patenting seeks to prevent the unjustified extension of patent exclusivity beyond the term of a patent.
Regarding claim 2, 12 although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 2
‘412 patent Claim 5
‘059 patent Claim 9
wherein the one or more first cells comprise a licensed cell.
wherein a serving cell, of the uplink grant, is a licensed cell.
wherein the third serving cell is a licensed cell
Regarding claim 3, 13 although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 3
‘412 patent Claim 6
‘059 patent Claim 10
wherein the one or more first cells comprise a primary cell.
wherein a serving cell, of the uplink grant, is a primary cell.
wherein the third serving cell is a primary cell
Regarding claim 4, 14 although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 4
‘412 patent Claim 4
‘059 patent Claim 7
wherein the one or more first cells comprise a serving cell on which the SR is transmitted.
wherein a serving cell, of the uplink grant, is the same cell that the SR is transmitted.
wherein: the scheduling request resource is on the third serving cell; and the third serving cell, for which the uplink grant is received, is the same cell that the scheduling request is transmitted
Regarding claim 5, 15 although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 5
‘412 patent Claim 7
‘059 patent Claim 2, 3, 4, 5
wherein the instructions, when executed further cause the wireless device to: receive second configuration parameters, for LBT failure recovery, comprising: a first parameter indicating a first number of LBT failure instances; and a second parameter indicating a first value of an LBT failure detection timer; increment an LBT counter by one based on an LBT failure of an LBT procedure for an uplink transmission; and start the LBT failure detection timer, with the first value, based on the LBT failure.
further comprising: receiving second configuration parameters, for LBT failure recovery, comprising: a first parameter indicating a first number of LBT failure instances; and a second parameter indicating a first value of an LBT failure detection timer; incrementing an LBT counter by one based on an LBT failure of an LBT procedure for an uplink transmission; and starting the LBT failure detection timer, with the first value, based on the LBT failure.
wherein the first configuration parameters comprise: a first parameter indicating a first number of LBT failure instances; and a second parameter indicating a first value of an LBT failure detection timer (claim 3) further comprising incrementing an LBT counter by one based on an LBT failure of an LBT procedure for an uplink transmission (claim 5) further comprising starting the LBT failure detection timer, with the first value, based on the LBT failure.
Regarding claim 6, 16 although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 6
‘412 patent Claim 8
‘059 patent Claim 4
wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the wireless device to trigger a consistent LBT failure based on the LBT counter reaching the first number.
wherein triggering the LBT event: is based on the LBT counter reaching the first number; and indicates consistent LBT failures.
wherein triggering the LBT event: is based on the LBT counter reaching the first number; and indicates consistent LBT failures.
Regarding claim 7, 17 although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 7
‘412 patent Claim 1
‘059 patent Claim 1
wherein transmitting the SR based on the SR configuration indicates that the request is for resources: on one or more first cells of the plurality of cells; and excluding resources on other cells of the plurality of cells
…of a scheduling request (SR) configuration associated with recovery from a listen-before-talk (LBT) event comprising a plurality of LBT failures; …wherein: the SR indicates a request for uplink resources; …wherein: the SR indicates a request for uplink resources; and the request excludes resources on the one or more first cells;
and second configuration parameters of a scheduling request configuration associated with recovery from an LBT event comprising a plurality of LBT failures; …receiving an uplink grant for the third serving cell; and transmitting the LBT failure MAC CE based on the uplink grant. …wherein at least one of the scheduling request resource and the scheduling request configuration indicates a third serving cell;
Claim 8, 18 is rejected in view of Alfarhan (see at least 0132, TBs for failure MAC CE may be sent based on uplink grant). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the functionality of Alfarhan into the system of claim 1 of the ‘412 and ‘059 patent in order to enhance configuration for failure-MAC-CE reporting.
Claim 9, 19 is rejected in view of Alfarhan (see at least 0142, 0182, consistent LBT failure may trigger SR reporting). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the functionality of Alfarhan into the system of claim 1 of the ‘412 and ‘059 patent in order to enhance configuration for failure-MAC-CE reporting.
Claim 10, 20 is rejected in view of Alfarhan (see at least 0183, failure MAC CE includes indexes of cells associated with the consistent LBT failure). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the functionality of Alfarhan into the system of claim 1 of the ‘412 and ‘059 patent in order to enhance configuration for failure-MAC-CE reporting.
Claim 1-7, 11-17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-6 of US Patent 12,069,721.
Regarding claim 1, 11, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 1
‘721 patent Claim 1
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause
a wireless device to: receive configuration parameters of:
A method comprising: receiving, by a wireless device, configuration parameters of:
a plurality of cells; and
a plurality of cells; and
a scheduling request (SR) configuration associated with recovery from consistent listen-before-talk (LBT) failure and for requesting resources:
a scheduling request (SR) configuration associated with recovery from consistent listen-before-talk (LBT) failure and for requesting resources:
on one or more first cells of the plurality of cells; and
on one or more first cells of the plurality of cells; and
excluding resources on other cells of the plurality of cells;
excluding resources on other cells of the plurality of cells;
in response to no resources, on one or more cells for which the consistent LBT failure is not triggered, being available for transmission of an LBT failure control element, transmit a SR based on the SR configuration;
in response to no resources, on one or more cells for which the consistent LBT failure is not triggered, being available for transmission of an LBT failure control element, transmitting a SR based on the SR configuration;
receive an uplink grant for a first cell of the one or more first cells;
receiving an uplink grant for a first cell of the one or more first cells;
transmit the LBT failure control element based on the uplink grant; and
transmitting the LBT failure control element based on the uplink grant; and
wherein: the LBT failure control element is of one octet or four octets; and
a logical channel identifier (LCID) associated with the LBT failure control element is:
a first LCID if the LBT failure control element is of one octet; and
a second LCID if the LBT failure control element is of four octets.
wherein: the LBT failure control element is of one octet or four octets; and
a logical channel identifier (LCID) associated with the LBT failure control element is:
a first LCID if the LBT failure control element is of one octet; and
a second LCID if the LBT failure control element is of four octets.
As can be seen by claim comparison, claim 1 of ‘721 recites a similar variation of claim 1 of the instant application; thus the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct. Claim 11 recites a similar variation of claim 1 from perspective of base station and is similarly not patentably distinct.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd.App.1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art. Moreover, the doctrine of double patenting seeks to prevent the unjustified extension of patent exclusivity beyond the term of a patent.
Regarding claim 2, 12 although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 2 of ‘721.
Regarding claim 3, 13 although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 3 of ‘721.
Regarding claim 4, 14 although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 4 of ‘721.
Regarding claim 5, 15 although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 5 of ‘721.
Regarding claim 6, 16 although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 6 of ‘721.
Regarding claim 7, 17 although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 1 of ‘721.
Claim 8-10, 18-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-6 of US Patent 12,069,721 in view of Alfarhan et al. (US 2022/0400396).
Claim 8, 18 is rejected in view of Alfarhan (see at least 0132, TBs for failure MAC CE may be sent based on uplink grant). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the functionality of Alfarhan into the system of claim 1 of ‘721 in order to enhance configuration for failure-MAC-CE reporting.
Claim 9, 19 is rejected in view of Alfarhan (see at least 0142, 0182, consistent LBT failure may trigger SR reporting). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the functionality of Alfarhan into the system of claim 1 of ‘721 in order to enhance configuration for failure-MAC-CE reporting.
Claim 10, 20 is rejected in view of Alfarhan (see at least 0183, failure MAC CE includes indexes of cells associated with the consistent LBT failure). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the functionality of Alfarhan into the system of claim 1 of ‘721 in order to enhance configuration for failure-MAC-CE reporting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-20 objected to as being allowable upon any double patenting issues being addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen et al. (US 2020/0221495) discloses a method and apparatus for LBT failure detection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIREN WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-0687. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7-4. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 571-272-3940. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Siren Wei/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights