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 have been examined and are pending.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites “transmitting the first data transmission using the second opportunity for the first data transmission upon determining that the frequency channel is not occupied”. However, the claim language of claim 1 defines an action of determining a second opportunistic resource, which is a second opportunity… to be performed upon detecting that the frequency channel is occupied. As such, if the action of determining the second opportunistic resource is performed only when the frequency channel is occupied, it is vague and unclear how the wireless device can transmit the first data transmission using the second opportunity upon determining that the frequency channel is not occupied.
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6, 8-15 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,127,250 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claim 1, Patent 12,127,250 teaches A method for a cellular wireless device, the method comprising: (Claim 1, “A method for a cellular wireless device, comprising:”)
obtaining, from a cellular base station, a first opportunity for a first data transmission on an unlicensed frequency band, wherein the first opportunity is within a first period reserved for first transmission opportunities on a frequency channel; (Claim 1, “obtaining, from a cellular base station, a first opportunity for an uplink data transmission on an unlicensed frequency band, wherein the first opportunity is within a first period reserved for first transmission opportunities on a frequency channel;”)
determining an ending time of the first period reserved for first transmission opportunities and/or an ending time of a maximum period of time based on a received signalling, wherein the received signalling comprises a group or cell common control signalling; (Claim 4, “determining an ending time of the first period reserved for first transmission opportunities and an ending time of a maximum period of time based on a received signalling, wherein the received signalling comprises a group or cell common control signalling.”)
upon detecting that the frequency channel is occupied at a beginning of the first opportunity, determining a second opportunistic resource for the first data transmission or a second transmission, (Claim 1 “upon detecting that the frequency channel is occupied at a beginning of the first opportunity, determining a second opportunistic resource for the uplink data transmission or a downlink transmission)
wherein the second opportunistic resource is a second opportunity for the first data transmission outside of the first period reserved for first transmission opportunities and within or outside of the maximum period of time; (Claim 6 “wherein the second opportunistic resource is a second opportunity for the uplink data transmission outside of the first period reserved for first transmission opportunities and within the maximum period of time”) and
receiving or transmitting using the second opportunistic resource. (Claim 1, “receiving or transmitting using the second opportunistic resource,”)
Regarding Claim 2, Patent 12,127,250 teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the first period reserved for first transmission opportunities is acquired by the cellular base station of a cellular communication system. (Claim 2, “wherein the first period reserved for first transmission opportunities is acquired by the cellular base station of a cellular communication system.”)
Regarding Claim 3, Patent 12,127,250 teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein a difference in time between the first and the second opportunity for the first data transmission is at least as long as a slot. (Claim 3, “a difference in time between the first and the second opportunity for the uplink data transmission is at least as long as a slot.”)
Regarding Claim 4, Patent 12,127,250 teaches The method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining an ending time of a maximum period of time, wherein the ending time of the maximum period of time is equal to, or larger than, the ending time of the first period reserved for first transmission opportunities. (Claim 5, “ determining an ending time of a maximum period of time, wherein the ending time of the maximum period of time is equal to, or larger than, an ending time of the first period reserved for first transmission opportunities.”)
Regarding Claim 5, Patent 12,127,250 teaches The method according to claim 4, further comprising: transmitting the first data transmission using the second opportunity for the first data transmission upon determining that the frequency channel is not occupied. (Claim 8, “transmitting the uplink data transmission using the second opportunity for the uplink data transmission upon determining that the frequency channel is not occupied.”)
Regarding Claim 6, Patent 12,127,250 teaches The method according to claim 4, further comprising: determining whether the maximum period of time would be exceeded; and selecting, based on the determination that the maximum period of time has exceeded, a type of listen-before-talk procedure to be performed before the second opportunity for the first data transmission. (Claim 9, “determining whether the maximum period of time would be exceeded; and selecting, based on the determination, a type of listen-before-talk procedure to be performed before the second opportunity for the uplink data transmission”)
Regarding Claim 7, Patent 12,127,250 teaches The method according to claim 6, further comprising: upon determining that the maximum period of time has been exceeded, performing a first type listen-before-talk procedure on the frequency channel before the second opportunity for the first data transmission. (Claim 10, “upon determining that the maximum period of time has been exceeded, performing a first type listen-before-talk procedure on the frequency channel before the second opportunity for the uplink data transmission.”)
Regarding Claim 8, Patent 12,127,250 teaches The method according to claim 6, further comprising: upon determining that the maximum period of time would not be exceeded, performing a second type listen-before-talk procedure on the frequency channel before the second opportunity for the first data transmission. (Claim 11, “ upon determining that the maximum period of time would not be exceeded, performing a second type listen-before-talk procedure on the frequency channel before the second opportunity for the uplink data transmission.”)
Regarding Claim 9, Patent 12,127,250 teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the second opportunistic resource is an opportunity for the second transmission, and the method further comprises: upon detecting that the frequency channel is occupied at the beginning of the first opportunity for the first data transmission, determining the opportunity for the second transmission. (Claim 12, “wherein the second opportunistic resource is an opportunity for a downlink transmission, and the method further comprises: upon detecting that the frequency channel is occupied at the beginning of the first opportunity for the uplink data transmission, determining the opportunity for the downlink transmission.”)
Regarding Claim 10, Patent 12,127,250 teaches The method according to claim 9, wherein the opportunity for the second transmission is within, or at least partially overlapping with, the first opportunity for the first data transmission. (Claim 13, “wherein the opportunity for the downlink transmission is within, or at least partially overlapping with, the first opportunity for the uplink data transmission.”)
Regarding Claim 11, Patent 12,127,250 teaches A method according to claim 9, wherein the opportunity for the second transmission is within a second period reserved for first transmission opportunities, wherein the second period reserved for first transmission opportunities is subsequent to the first period reserved for first transmission opportunities. (Claim 14 “wherein the opportunity for the downlink transmission is within a second period reserved for first transmission opportunities, wherein the second period reserved for first transmission opportunities is subsequent to the first period reserved for first transmission opportunities.”)
Regarding Claim 13, Patent 12,127,250 teaches The method according to claim 9, further comprising: receiving the second transmission using the opportunity for the second transmission. (Claim 15, “receiving the downlink transmission using the opportunity for the downlink transmission”)
Regarding Claim 14, Patent 12,127,250 teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the first data transmission is an uplink data transmission and the second transmission is a downlink transmission. (Claim 1, “uplink data transmission or a downlink transmission”)
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected for having similar limitations as in claim 1, and 14, except the claims are in apparatus and system format.
Claims 16-18 are rejected for having the same limitations as claims 2-4, except the claims are in apparatus format.
Claim 20 is rejected for having similar limitations as claim 14, except the claim is in system format.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0227944 A1 to Yerramalli et al. (hereinafter “Yerramalli’944”) in view of US 2018/0027582 A1 to Yerramalli et al. (hereinafter “Yerramalli’582”)
Regarding Claim 1, 15, and 19, Yerramalli’944 teaches A method for a cellular wireless device, the method comprising:
An apparatus comprising: at least one processing core, at least one non-transitory memory and computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the apparatus at least to perform: (Figure 10 and [0126], discloses a wireless device or UE, comprising processor and memory)
A system comprising: an apparatus; at least one processor core; at least one non-transitory memory and computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the apparatus at least to perform: (Figure 10 and [0126], discloses a wireless device or UE, comprising processor and memory)
obtaining, from a cellular base station, a first opportunity for a first data transmission on an unlicensed frequency band, wherein the first opportunity is within a first period reserved for first transmission opportunities on a frequency channel; ([0066], discloses At 215, the UE 205 may receive (and base station 210 may transmit) an uplink grant. In some examples, the uplink grant may be transmitted in an unlicensed (or shared) spectrum (i.e. unlicensed frequency band). The uplink grant may include a multi-TxOP grant that conveys an indication of resources to be used by UE 205 in subsequent uplink transmissions. The uplink resources may span multiple TxOPs, may identify a TxOP outside of the subframe/TxOP carrying the uplink grant, and the like. The multi-TxOP grant may indicate which TxOPs that UE 205 uses to transmit the uplink transmissions. [0071], discloses At 220, the UE 205 may transmit (and base station 210 may receive) a first uplink transmission during a first TxOP (i.e. a first period). In some examples, the first uplink transmission may be transmitted in the unlicensed spectrum. The uplink transmission may be transmitted in subframe(s) (i.e. opportunities, including first opportunity) of the TxOP in accordance with the uplink grant, e.g., the multi-TxOP grant.)
upon detecting that the frequency channel is occupied at a beginning of the first opportunity, determining a second opportunistic resource for the first data transmission or a second transmission, ([0078], discloses For example, when an LBT procedure in one subframe of a TxOP fails (i.e. frequency channel is occupied at beginning of first opportunity), the UE 205 may attempt another LBT procedure in the next subframe (i.e. second opportunistic resource) of the TxOP. If the second LBT procedure fails, the UE 205 may attempt a third LBT procedure in the following subframe. [0092], further discloses the UE, however, may perform an unsuccessful LBT procedure during the subframes 412 and 414 and the uplink transmission may fail during those subframes. The UE may perform another LBT procedure during the subframe 416, which may be successful, and the uplink transmission may proceed during that subframe (i.e. transmitting using the second opportunistic resource))
receiving or transmitting using the second opportunistic resource. ([0078], discloses The UE may perform another LBT procedure during the subframe 416, which may be successful, and the uplink transmission may proceed during that subframe (i.e. transmitting using the second opportunistic resource))
Yerramalli’944 does not explicitly teach determining an ending time of the first period reserved for first transmission opportunities and/or an ending time of a maximum period of time based on a received signaling, wherein the received signaling comprises a group or cell common control signaling.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Yerramalli’582 teaches in Figure 3 and [0173], In some examples, a base station may perform a LBT procedure 305 (e.g., a CCA procedure or ECCA procedure) at a time t0, prior to a transmission opportunity 310. The LBT procedure 305 may be performed to contend for access to the shared radio frequency spectrum band during the transmission opportunity 310. The transmission opportunity 310 may be associated with a maximum channel occupancy time (MCOT) 315 (i.e. maximum period of time). When the base station wins contention for access to the shared radio frequency spectrum band for the transmission opportunity 310, the base station may transmit to one or more UEs during a number of TTIs transmission time intervals (TTIs) (e.g., during a number of downlink (DL) subframes). The base station may also schedule uplink transmissions from one or more UEs during a number of TTIs (e.g., during a number of uplink (UL) subframes). [0020] and [0176], and a UE receiving in a common physical downlink control channel (CPDCCH) (i.e. group or cell common control signaling), a first indication of a remaining channel occupancy time (RCOT) (i.e. determining ending time of first period reserved for first transmission opportunities) for which a network access device has access to a shared radio frequency spectrum band, and a second indication of a pause time during which the network access device will not transmit over the shared radio frequency spectrum band.
Yerramalli ‘044 also does not explicitly teach wherein the second opportunistic resource is a second opportunity for the first data transmission outside of the first period reserved for first transmission opportunities and within or outside of the maximum period of time; and
However, Yerramalli’582 teaches in [0184], discloses a UE receiving the information indicative of the at least one type of LBT procedure to perform for the uplink transmission may use the information to determine that an uplink transmission of the UE has a duration (i.e. second opportunity) that exceeds the MCOT 415 (i.e. outside the first period and maximum period of time). The UE may also determine that, because the uplink transmission has a duration that exceeds the MCOT 415, the LBT procedure 430 may be a shorter type of LBT procedure (e.g., a 25 LBT procedure), but a longer type of LBT procedure (e.g., a category 4 (CAT 4) LBT procedure) needs to be performed before continuing the uplink transmission past the end of the MCOT 415)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yerramalli’944 to include the above limitations as suggested by Yerramalli’582, allowing for enhanced data transmission capacity as indicated in [0005] of Yerramalli’582.
Regarding Claim 2, Yerramalli’944/Yerramalli’582 teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein Yerramalli’944 further teaches the first period reserved for first transmission opportunities is acquired by the cellular base station of a cellular communication system. ([0047], discloses, a base station may be configured to identify, configure, and provide an uplink grant to a UE that carriers or otherwise conveys an indication of a multi-TxOP grant where the UE provides uplink transmissions in other TxOPs (e.g., in TxOP(s) other than the subframe, TxOP, etc., in which the UE receives the uplink grant))
Regarding Claim 3, Yerramalli’944/Yerramalli’582 teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein Yerramalli’944 further teaches wherein a difference in time between the first and the second opportunity for the first data transmission is at least as long as a slot. ([0078], discloses For example, when an LBT procedure in one subframe of a TxOP fails, the UE 205 may attempt another LBT procedure in the next subframe (i.e. second opportunistic resource) of the TxOP. If the second LBT procedure fails, the UE 205 may attempt a third LBT procedure in the following subframe. Examiner notes that [0087] of the instant disclosure recites “the difference in time may also refer to a difference in time between a beginning of the first opportunity and a beginning of the second opportunity”. As such, the second subframe occurring after the first subframe is analogous to the difference in time between the first and the second opportunity is at least as long as a slot)
Regarding Claim 4, Yerramalli’944/Yerramalli’582 teaches The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
Yerramalli’582 teaches further teaches determining an ending time of a maximum period of time, wherein the ending time of the maximum period of time is equal to, or larger than, the ending time of the first period reserved for first transmission opportunities. ([0022], discloses receiving, in a CPDCCH, a first indication of a RCOT (i.e. ending time of a first period) for which a network access device has access to a shared radio frequency spectrum band… determining, based at least in part on the RCOT, whether a size of an uplink transmission of the UE allows the UE to transmit the uplink transmission within a maximum channel occupancy time (MCOT) (i.e. within is indicative of maximum period of time has ending time larger than the ending time of the first period) for which the network access device has access to the shared radio frequency spectrum band. Examiner maintains same motivation to combine as indicated in Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 5, Yerramalli’944/Yerramalli’582 teaches The method according to claim 4, further comprising: Yerramalli’582 further teaches transmitting the first data transmission using the second opportunity for the first data transmission upon determining that the frequency channel is not occupied. ([0184], discloses In some examples, a UE receiving the information indicative of the at least one type of LBT procedure to perform for the uplink transmission may use the information to determine that an uplink transmission of the UE has a duration that exceeds the MCOT 415. The UE may also determine that, because the uplink transmission has a duration that exceeds the MCOT 415, the LBT procedure 430 may be a shorter type of LBT procedure (e.g., a 25 LBT procedure), but a longer type of LBT procedure (e.g., a category 4 (CAT 4) LBT procedure) needs to be performed before continuing the uplink transmission past the end of the MCOT 415. Examiner notes that LBT procedure must be successful to perform transmission (i.e. not occupied)) Examiner maintains same motivation to combine as indicated in Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 6, Yerramalli’944/Yerramalli’582 teaches The method according to claim 4, further comprising: Yerramalli’582 teaches further teaches determining whether the maximum period of time would be exceeded; and selecting, based on the determination that the maximum period of time has exceeded, a type of listen-before-talk procedure to be performed before the second opportunity for the first data transmission. ([0022], discloses receiving, in a CPDCCH, a first indication of a RCOT (i.e. ending time of a first period) for which a network access device has access to a shared radio frequency spectrum band… determining, based at least in part on the RCOT, whether a size of an uplink transmission of the UE allows the UE to transmit the uplink transmission within a maximum channel occupancy time (MCOT) (i.e. determine whether max period of time would be exceeded) for which the network access device has access to the shared radio frequency spectrum band. [0184], further discloses The UE may also determine that, because the uplink transmission has a duration that exceeds the MCOT 415, the LBT procedure 430 may be a shorter type of LBT procedure (e.g., a 25 LBT procedure), but a longer type of LBT procedure (e.g., a category 4 (CAT 4) LBT procedure) needs to be performed before continuing the uplink transmission past the end of the MCOT 415) Examiner maintains same motivation to combine as indicated in Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 7, Yerramalli’944/Yerramalli’582 teaches The method according to claim 6, further comprising: Yerramalli’582 teaches further teaches further comprising: upon determining that the maximum period of time has been exceeded, performing a first type listen-before-talk procedure on the frequency channel before the second opportunity for the first data transmission. ([0184], further discloses The UE may also determine that, because the uplink transmission has a duration that exceeds the MCOT 415, the LBT procedure 430 may be a shorter type of LBT procedure (e.g., a 25 LBT procedure), but a longer type of LBT procedure (e.g., a category 4 (CAT 4) LBT procedure) (i.e. first type LBT procedure when max period of time exceeded) needs to be performed before continuing the uplink transmission past the end of the MCOT 415) Examiner maintains same motivation to combine as indicated in Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 8, Yerramalli’944/Yerramalli’582 teaches The method according to claim 6, further comprising: Yerramalli’582 teaches further teaches upon determining that the maximum period of time would not be exceeded, performing a second type listen-before-talk procedure on the frequency channel before the second opportunity for the first data transmission. ([0177], discloses The UE may also determine that, because the uplink transmission has a duration that is within the MCOT 315, the LBT procedure 330 may be a shorter LBT procedure (e.g., a 25 microsecond (μs) LBT procedure) (i.e. second type LBT procedure performed when max period of time not exceeded))
Regarding Claim 14, Yerramalli’944/Yerramalli’582 teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the first data transmission is an uplink data transmission ([0071], discloses At 220, the UE 205 may transmit (and base station 210 may receive) a first uplink transmission during a first TxOP (i.e. a first period). and the second transmission is a downlink transmission. (Examiner notes that Claim 1 includes optional claim language (i.e. a second opportunistic resource for the first data transmission or a second data transmission). By examining the claim under “a second opportunistic resource for the first data transmission” based on the combination of Yerramalli’944/Yerramalli’582, the entirety of the claim limitation is taught, as second transmission is not required to perform the claim process. As such, claim language associated with or further narrows “second transmission” without requiring the claim element has no patentable weight)
Claims 16-18 are rejected for having the same limitations as claims 2-4, respectively, except the claims are in apparatus format.
Claim 20 is rejected for having the same limitations as claim 14, except the claim is in system format.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerramalli’944/Yerramalli’582) in view of US 2017/0290059 A1 to Karaki et al. (hereinafter “Karaki”)
Regarding Claim 9, Yerramalli’944/Yerramalli’582 teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein
Yerramalli’944/Yerramalli’582 does not explicitly teach the second opportunistic resource is an opportunity for the second transmission, and the method further comprises: upon detecting that the frequency channel is occupied at the beginning of the first opportunity for the first data transmission, determining the opportunity for the second transmission.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Karaki discloses in [0088], In a particular embodiment, if the UL burst portion starting from subframe n of a TXOP is cancelled due to failed LBT at wireless device 710 (i.e. detecting the frequency channel is occupied at the beginning of the first opportunity), a first controller 1150A may indicate to other controllers 1150B associated with adjacent carriers that the adjacent carriers may resume their LBT processes without waiting for the entire planned TXOP duration, for example, resume LBT from subframe n+1. (i.e. determining opportunity for second transmission).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yerramalli’944/Yerramalli’582 to include the above limitations as suggested by Karaki, such that failing at subframe n does not mean that all of the UL portion of the TXOP is cancelled if the wireless device 710 has further grants for transmission as indicated in [0088] of Karaki.
Regarding Claim 10, Yerramalli’944/Yerramalli’582/Karaki teaches The method according to claim 9, wherein Karaki further teaches the opportunity for the second transmission is within, or at least partially overlapping with, the first opportunity for the first data transmission. ([0088], In a particular embodiment, if the UL burst portion starting from subframe n of a TXOP is cancelled due to failed LBT at wireless device 710, a first controller 1150A may indicate to other controllers 1150B associated with adjacent carriers that the adjacent carriers may resume their LBT processes without waiting for the entire planned TXOP duration (i.e. within or at least partially overlapping the first opportunity). Examiner maintains same motivation to combine as indicated in Claim 9 above.
Regarding Claim 11, Yerramalli’944/Yerramalli’582/Karaki teaches The method according to claim 9, wherein Karaki further teaches the opportunity for the second transmission is within a second period reserved for first transmission opportunities, wherein the second period reserved for first transmission opportunities is subsequent to the first period reserved for first transmission opportunities. ([0088], In a particular embodiment, if the UL burst portion starting from subframe n (i.e. first period) of a TXOP is cancelled due to failed LBT at wireless device 710, a first controller 1150A may indicate to other controllers 1150B associated with adjacent carriers that the adjacent carriers may resume their LBT processes without waiting for the entire planned TXOP duration (Examiner notes that the next frame, n+1 within the TXOP for uplink transmission that is granted to the first controller is analogous to second period, which is subsequent to subframe n (i.e. first period)). Examiner maintains same motivation to combine as indicated in Claim 9 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0053222 A1 to Bhorkar et al., directed to cross-TxOP scheduling in which one or more UL grants on a DL subframe can schedule UL subframes in another TxOP that is outside the TxOP for the UL grants
US 2019/0021105 A1 to Hamidi-Sepehr et al., directed to scheduling multiple UL subframes within a TxOP or multiple TxOP for UL transmission, where a TxOP can include both DL and UL subframes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENKEY VAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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.
/JENKEY VAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights