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 1-15 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 1-15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-7 of US Patent 12,069,649.
Regarding claim 1, 8, 15 although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 1
‘649 patent Claim 1, 3
A method of receiving an UpLink (UL) signal by a User Equipment (UE) in a wireless
communication system, the method comprising:
A method of transmitting an UpLink (UL) signal by a User Equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
transmitting scheduling information for at least one first UL signal, wherein an Energy Detection (ED) threshold is determined based on a maximum Effective Isotropic Related Power
(EIRP) among at least one first EIRP for the at least one first UL signal, and
(claim 3) …wherein scheduling information for the at least one first UL signal is received
(claim 1) …determining an Energy Detection (ED) threshold based on a maximum Effective Isotropic Related Power (EIRP) among at least one first EIRP for at least one first UL signal;
a channel occupancy is acquired based on the ED threshold; and
acquiring a channel occupancy based on the ED threshold; and
receiving, within the channel occupancy, (i) the at least one first UL signal based on each of the at least one first EIRP for each of the at least one first UL signal and (ii) a second UL signal based on a second EIRP,
transmitting, within the channel occupancy, (i) the at least one first UL signal based on each of the at least one first EIRP for each of the at least one first UL signal and (ii) a second UL signal based on a second EIRP,
wherein the second UL signal is initiated during the channel occupancy and the second EIRP is limited to the maximum EIRP.
wherein the second UL signal is initiated during the channel occupancy and the second EIRP is limited to the maximum EIRP.
As can be seen by claim comparison, claim 1 of ‘649 recites a substantially similar variation of claim 1 of the instant application (claim 8, 15 recite substantially similar variations of claim 1); thus the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd.App.1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art. Moreover, the doctrine of double patenting seeks to prevent the unjustified extension of patent exclusivity beyond the term of a patent.
For claim 2, 9, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from claim 2 of ‘649.
For claim 3, 10, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from claim 3 of ‘649.
For claim 4, 11, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from claim 4 of ‘649.
For claim 5, 12, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from claim 5 of ‘649.
For claim 6, 13, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from claim 6 of ‘649.
For claim 7, 14, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from claim 7 of ‘649.
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.
Claim 8-14 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. Claim 8 recites “A Base Station (BS)” on line 1, but line 2 and dependent claims 9-14 are directed to a user equipment. Based on context, “Base Station (BS)” appears to be a typo of “User Equipment (UE)”.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “the BS” which appears to lack antecedent basis. It is noted claim 11 similarly recites “the BS”, which would lack antecedent basis if parent claim 8 was amended to be directed to a User Equipment instead of a Base Station (see aforementioned 35 USC 112 rejection).
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-15 objected to as allowable subject matter upon any double patenting and/or 35 USC 112 rejections addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mukherjee et al. (US 2017/0339721) discloses a first radio node and method therein for performing a listen-before-talk (LBT) with a selected method.
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