DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: A period is missing at the end of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,448 in view of Liu et al. (US Pub. 2019/0281636) in view of Dinan (US Pub. 2017/0359808).
Claim 1 of Instant Application
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,167,448
A wireless transmitter/receiver unit (WTRU) comprising a transmitter, a receiver, a processor and memory, and configured to:
1. An apparatus, comprising a processor, a memory, and communication circuitry, the apparatus being connected to a network via the communication circuitry, the apparatus further comprising computer-executable instructions stored in the memory of the apparatus which, when executed by the processor of the apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform operations comprising:
perform a first type of uplink (UL) channel access procedure for a random access channel (RACH) procedure;
perform a first type of uplink (UL) channel access procedure for a Random Access Channel (RACH) procedure;
send, to a network, a first UL transmission for the RACH procedure;
send a first UL transmission for the RACH procedure;
receive, from the network, a random access response (RAR)
receive a random access response (RAR)
comprising an RAR UL grant, wherein the RAR UL grant comprises a plurality of bits indicating one of a plurality of types of UL channel access procedures, and wherein the plurality of types of UL channel access procedures include the first type of UL channel access procedure;
comprising network assistance information including channel access information;
determine, based on the plurality of bits, the one of the plurality of types of UL channel access procedures for the RACH procedure;
determine, based on the channel access information, a second type of UL channel access procedure for the RACH procedure;
perform the one of the plurality of types of UL channel access procedures; and send a second UL transmission for the RACH procedure.
perform the second type of UL channel access procedure; and send a second UL transmission for the RACH procedure.
Regarding claims 2-21, U.S. Patent No. 12,167,448 teaches most of the limitations as shown in the table above. U.S. Patent No. 12,167,448, however, does not teach a random access response (RAR) comprising an RAR UL grant, wherein the RAR UL grant comprises a bit indicating one of a plurality of types of UL channel access procedures, and wherein the plurality of types of UL channel access procedures include the first type of UL channel access procedure. Liu teaches a random access response (RAR) comprising an RAR UL grant (see RAR 1008 in Figure 10), wherein the RAR UL grant comprises a bit indicating one of a plurality of types of UL channel access procedures, and wherein the plurality of types of UL channel access procedures include the first type of UL channel access procedure (“The random access response includes a random access response grant (uplink grant). The random access response grant for the LAA cell may include at least some part or entire part of the following field (number of bits where the field is mapped). … ‘LBT type’ (1 bit)” in [0192], [0193] and [0200]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify U.S. Patent No. 12,167,448 to have a random access response (RAR) comprising an RAR UL grant, wherein the RAR UL grant comprises a bit indicating one of a plurality of types of UL channel access procedures, and wherein the plurality of types of UL channel access procedures include the first type of UL channel access procedure as taught by Liu in order to indicate the type of the uplink LBT procedure [0204]. U.S. Patent No. 12,167,448 in view of Liu, however, does not teach LBT type using a plurality of bits indicating one of a plurality of types of UL channel access procedures. Dinan teaches LBT type using a plurality of bits indicating one of a plurality of types of UL channel access procedures (“a two-bit field may indicate LBT type” in [0163]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify U.S. Patent No. 12,167,448 in view of Liu to have LBT type using a plurality of bits indicating one of a plurality of types of UL channel access procedures as taught by Dinan in order to indicate No-LBT, LBT type 1 and/or LBT type 2 [0163].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US Pub. 2019/0281636) in view of Dinan (US Pub. 2017/0359808).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Liu teaches a wireless transmitter/receiver unit (WTRU) comprising a transmitter, a receiver, a processor and memory, and configured to: perform a first type of uplink (UL) channel access procedure for a random access channel (RACH) procedure (see LBT 1004 in Figure 10); send, to a network, a first UL transmission for the RACH procedure (see frame 1005 in Figure 10); receive, from the network, a random access response (RAR) comprising an RAR UL grant (see RAR 1008 in Figure 10), wherein the RAR UL grant comprises a bit indicating one of a plurality of types of UL channel access procedures, and wherein the plurality of types of UL channel access procedures include the first type of UL channel access procedure (“The random access response includes a random access response grant (uplink grant). The random access response grant for the LAA cell may include at least some part or entire part of the following field (number of bits where the field is mapped). … ‘LBT type’ (1 bit)” in [0192], [0193] and [0200]); determine, based on the bit, the one of the plurality of types of UL channel access procedures for the RACH procedure (“determine, based on LBT configuration information (LBT type, channel access priority class) included in the random access response grant, whether a type-1 uplink LBT procedure or a type-2 uplink LBT procedure is to be performed” in [0210]); perform the one of the plurality of types of UL channel access procedures (“performs an LBT procedure in an LBT period 802” in [0210]); and send a second UL transmission for the RACH procedure (see PUSCH 803 in Figure 8). Liu, however, does not teach LBT type using a plurality of bits indicating one of a plurality of types of UL channel access procedures. Dinan teaches LBT type using a plurality of bits indicating one of a plurality of types of UL channel access procedures (“a two-bit field may indicate LBT type” in [0163]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to have LBT type using a plurality of bits indicating one of a plurality of types of UL channel access procedures as taught by Dinan in order to indicate No-LBT, LBT type 1 and/or LBT type 2 [0163].
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Liu teaches the RAR UL grant comprising a field, and the field comprising a bit indicating one of a plurality of types of UL channel access procedures (“The random access response includes a random access response grant (uplink grant). The random access response grant for the LAA cell may include at least some part or entire part of the following field (number of bits where the field is mapped). … ‘LBT type’ (1 bit)” in [0192], [0193] and [0200]) and Dinan teaches LBT type using a plurality of bits indicating one of a plurality of types of UL channel access procedures (“a two-bit field may indicate LBT type” in [0163]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Dinan teaches any of the first type of UL channel access procedure and the one of the plurality of types of UL channel access procedures comprises a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure [0161].
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Dinan teaches the plurality of bits indicates the one of a plurality of types of UL channel access procedures comprises a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure [0161].
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Dinan teaches the plurality of bits indicates the one of a plurality of types of UL channel access procedures comprises a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure with random backoff (“LBT with random back-off” in [0125]).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Dinan teaches the plurality of bits indicates the one of a plurality of types of UL channel access procedures comprises a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure without random backoff (“LBT without random back-off” in [0125]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Dinan teaches the plurality of bits indicates the one of a plurality of types of UL channel access procedures comprises one of: a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure with random backoff using a default configuration; a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure without random backoff using a default configuration; a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure with random backoff using a non-default configuration; and a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure without random backoff using a non-default configuration (see “The size of the contention window may be fixed” in [0125]).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Dinan teaches the plurality of bits indicates the one of a plurality of types of UL channel access procedures comprises performing channel accessing without performing a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure (“no LBT procedure may performed” in [0125]).
Regarding claims 11 and 21, Dinan teaches the plurality of types of UL channel access procedures, comprises more than two types of UL channel access procedures different than the first type of UL channel access procedure (“No-LBT, LBT type 1 and/or LBT type 2” in [0163]).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. in view of Dinan and further in view of Kiyoshima et al. (US Pub. 2021/0204325).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Liu in view of Dinan teaches the limitations in claims 2 and 12 as shown above. Liu in view of Dinan, however, does not teach the RAR UL grant corresponds to an UL grant of a medium access control (MAC) RAR. Kiyoshima teaches the RAR UL grant corresponds to an UL grant of a medium access control (MAC) RAR (“the MAC RAR contains … the UL Grant” in [0099], see also Figure 9(b)). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu in view of Dinan to have the RAR UL grant corresponds to an UL grant of a medium access control (MAC) RAR as taught by Kiyoshima in order to use MAC payload [0098].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLEMENCE S HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/CLEMENCE S HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights