DETAILED ACTION
Status of Case
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 7/19/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 8/9/2024, 10/15/2024, and 1/16/2025 have been considered by Examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,075,469. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of the noted claims in the instant application are recited in the noted claims of the 12,075,469 patent (see correspondence table below):
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,075,469
1. Processing circuitry, comprising one or more modules configured to, in association with communication of data in a New Radio-Unlicensed (NR-U) spectrum: instruct a physical layer to signal a scheduling request (SR) for transmission to a base station; in response to a listen-before-talk (LBT) failure, increment a LBT failure counter without incrementing a SR counter and without starting an SR prohibit timer; and based on the LBT failure counter reaching a configured maximum value, generate medium access control (MAC) signaling comprising a report of the LBT failure.
2. The processing circuitry of claim 1, wherein determination of the LBT failure is based on a physical layer indication.
3. The processing circuitry of claim 1, wherein said instructing and incrementing is performed by a MAC layer.
4. The processing circuitry of claim 1, wherein the one or more modules are further configured to: perform radio resource control (RRC) connection re-establishment when the LBT failure counter reaches the configured maximum value.
5. The processing circuitry of claim 1, wherein said instructing is response to triggering of an SR, and wherein the SR is triggering by a buffer status report (BSR).
6. The processing circuitry of claim 1, wherein resources for the SR are provided by an SR configuration, and wherein the SR configuration includes SR resources on corresponding physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resources in a plurality of bandwidth parts.
7. The processing circuitry of claim 1, wherein the one or more modules are further configured to: increment the SR counter and start the SR prohibit timer when the LBT is successful and the SR fails.
1. An apparatus comprising: at least one processor, wherein to configure a user equipment (UE) for communication of data in a New Radio-Unlicensed (NR-U) spectrum, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: instruct a physical layer to signal a scheduling request (SR) for transmission to a base station; based on the SR transmission being unsuccessful due to a listen-before-talk (LBT) failure, increment an LBT failure counter without incrementing a SR counter and starting an SR prohibit timer; and based on the LBT failure counter reaching a configured maximum value, report the LBT failure counter reaching the configured maximum value to the base station using medium access control (MAC) signaling.
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein determination of the LBT failure is based on a physical layer indication.
3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said instructing and incrementing is performed by a medium access control (MAC) layer.
4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: perform RRC connection re-establishment when the LBT failure counter reaches the configured maximum value.
5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said instructing is response to triggering of an SR, and wherein the SR is triggering by a buffer status report (BSR).
6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein resources for the SR transmission are provided by an SR configuration, and wherein the SR configuration includes SR resources on corresponding physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resources in a plurality of bandwidth parts.
7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: increment the SR counter and start the SR prohibit timer when the LBT is successful and the SR transmission fails.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are allowed, subject to correction of the noted double patenting rejection above.
Claims 8-20 are allowed.
The closest prior art consists of Dinan (USPAN 2017/0311317).
For example, in Dinan, see paragraph 222, wherein disclosed is that “ the wireless device, in response to triggering the first scheduling request (SR) process, may transmit to the base station a first SR signal on an uplink control channel and the wireless device may start a first scheduling request prohibit timer. The first SR signal may indicate that the wireless device requires radio resources of at least one first radio resource type. In an example, the base station may determine that the first SR signal is for a request for the at least one first radio resource type based on the at least one message (RRC signaling) transmitted to the wireless device. In an example, the one or more messages indicate that the uplink transmissions require uplink resources of the at least one first radio resource type.”
In addition, paragraph 122 of Dinan discloses that “an LBT procedure may be employed for fair and friendly coexistence of LAA with other operators and technologies operating in an unlicensed spectrum. LBT procedures on a node attempting to transmit on a carrier in an unlicensed spectrum may require the node to perform a clear channel assessment to determine if the channel is free for use. An LBT procedure may involve at least energy detection to determine if the channel is being used. For example, regulatory requirements in some regions, for example, in Europe, may specify an energy detection threshold such that if a node receives energy greater than this threshold, the node assumes that the channel is not free. While nodes may follow such regulatory requirements, a node may optionally use a lower threshold for energy detection than that specified by regulatory requirements. In an example, LAA may employ a mechanism to adaptively change the energy detection threshold. For example, LAA may employ a mechanism to adaptively lower the energy detection threshold from an upper bound. Adaptation mechanism(s) may not preclude static or semi-static setting of the threshold. In an example a Category 4 LBT mechanism or other type of LBT mechanisms may be implemented.”
However, Dinan does not disclose, suggest, or render obvious the limitations of the instant claims that recite instructing a physical layer to signal a scheduling request (SR) for transmission to a base station; in response to a listen-before-talk (LBT) failure, increment a LBT failure counter without incrementing a SR counter and without starting an SR prohibit timer; and based on the LBT failure counter reaching a configured maximum value, generate medium access control (MAC) signaling comprising a report of the LBT failure, as recited in the instant claims.
In particular, Examiner notes that no prior art was found that beats the effective priority date of 10/31/2018 of the instant application that teaches the specific limitation of the instant claims that recites incrementing a LBT failure counter without incrementing a SR counter and without starting an SR prohibit timer in response to a LBT failure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jamal Javaid whose telephone number is 571-270-5137 and email address is Jamal.Javaid@uspto.gov.
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, Charles Jiang, can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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).
/JAMAL JAVAID/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights