DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 1-5, 7-8, 11-15, 17-18, 21-25, and 27-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 11, 13-15, 18, 20-21, 24, 26-28, 31, 33-34, 37, and 39 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,828 B2, respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the above claims of the instant application are broader than and/or included in the claims of the U.S. corresponding patent.
Regarding claims 6, 9-10, 16, 19-20, 26, and 29-30 are rejected based on their dependencies and in view of the prior arts cited in the 102/103 rejection bellow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-12, 15-19, 21-22, and 25-28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Ahn et al. (US Provisional Application 61/554,493 for US 2014/0126475 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ahn discloses a method comprising: transmitting, by a wireless device (UE), a random access preamble (RAP) via a cell of a cell1 of a group (section 3.1- 3.1.2; page 22-25, clearly illustrating the transmission of PRACH on first cell group); and
transmitting, via a cell of a second cell group and in parallel with transmission of the RAP (section 3.1-3.3, pages 22-27, describing PRACH transmission is simultaneous transmission with transmission of SRS), a sounding reference signal (SRS) using an adjusted transmission power that satisfies an allowable transmission power associated with transmission of the SRS and the transmission of the RAP (section 3.1- 3.1.2; page 22-25, explaining the transmission of SRS is by adjusting transmission available power satisfying the allowable power related to the transmission of PRACH, SRS, and parameters and/or channels).
Regarding claims 11, 19, and 21, the claims include features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding wireless device and non-transitory computer-readable medium, and the rejection to claim is applied hereto.
Regarding claim 2, 12, and 22, Ahn discloses wherein for any overlapped portion of the SRS and the RAP, a total transmission power of the wireless device does not exceed the allowable transmission power associated with the transmission of the SRS and the transmission of the RAP (section 3.1.1-3.3, pages 24-31).
Regarding claim 5, 15, and 25, Ahn discloses wherein the adjusted transmission power of the transmission of the SRS is adjusted over a period of one subframe (section 3.1.1-3.3, pages 24-31).
Regarding claim 6, 16, and 26, Ahn discloses wherein: uplink transmission timing associated with the first cell group is based on a first reference cell of the first cell group (section 3.1- 3.1.2; page 22-25); and uplink transmission timing associated with the second cell group is based on a second reference cell of the second cell group (section 3.1- 3.1.2; page 22-25).
Regarding claim 7, 17, and 27, Ahn further discloses comprising determining a transmission power for a transmission of the RAP before transmitting the RAP (section 3.1.2-3.3).
Regarding claim 8, 18, and 28, Ahn discloses wherein the transmitting the SRS is based on: the SRS not being configured for transmission in parallel with and in a same cell as transmission of one or more other signals (section 3.1- 3.1.2; page 22-25).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 10, 13, 20, 23, and 30 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ahn in view Feuersanger et al. (US 9,008,050 B2).
Regarding claim 3, 13, and 23, as applied above, Ahn discloses the adjusted transmission power of the transmission of the SRS. Ahn does not disclose wherein the adjusted transmission power of the SRS is scaled by a scaling factor that is greater than zero and smaller than or equal to one.
Feuersanger teaches wherein the adjusted transmission power of the SRS is scaled by a scaling factor that is greater than zero and smaller than or equal to one (e.g. col. 19, lines 13-28; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use wherein the adjusted transmission power of the SRS is scaled by a scaling factor that is greater than zero and smaller than or equal to one as taught by Feuersanger into Ahn in order to improve power consumption.
Regarding claim 10, 20, and 30, as applied above, Ahn discloses transmitting RAP via a cell of the first cell group. However, Ahn does not further disclose comprising: transmitting, by the wireless device, a second RAP via a cell of the first cell group; and transmitting, by the wireless device, a second transport block via a cell of the second cell group using an adjusted transmission power that satisfies an allowable transmission power associated with transmission of the second transport block and the transmission of the second RAP.
Feuersanger further teaches comprising: transmitting, by the wireless device, a second RAP via a cell of the first cell group (e.g. col. 48, lines 2-11; and so on); and transmitting, by the wireless device, a second transport block via a cell of the second cell group using an adjusted transmission power that satisfies an allowable transmission power associated with transmission of the second transport block and the transmission of the second RAP (col. 48, lines 2-28; col. 48, line 63-col. 49, line 18; and etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use further comprising: transmitting, by the wireless device, a second RAP via a cell of the first cell group; and transmitting, by the wireless device, a second transport block via a cell of the second cell group using an adjusted transmission power that satisfies an allowable transmission power associated with transmission of the second transport block and the transmission of the second RAP as taught by Feuersanger into Ahn in order to improve power consumption and resource utilization.
Claims 4, 14, and 24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ahn in view Ouchi et al. (US 2013/0265962 A1).
Regarding claim 4, 14, and 24, as applied above, Ahn discloses SRS. However, Ahn does not disclose wherein the SRS is a type zero SRS.
Ouchi teaches wherein the SRS is a type zero SRS (e.g. paragraph [0119]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use wherein the SRS is a type zero SRS as taught by Ouchi into Ahn in order to improve resource allocation and maintain orthogonality among mobile devices.
Claims 9, 19, and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ahn in view Yamada (US 2012/0257513 A1).
Regarding claim 9, 19, and 29, Ahn discloses transmitting the SRS is based on the first cell group. However, Ahn does not disclose the transmitting is being in-sync.
Yamada teaches the transmitting is being in-sync (paragraph [0043]-[0057]; [0074]-[0087]; [0107]-[0125]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the transmitting is being in-sync as taught by Yamada into Ahn in order to improve speed and quality of service.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIBROM T HAILU whose telephone number is (571)270-1209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
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.
/KIBROM T HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights