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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed on 8/20/2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1, 9 and 18 have been amended and Claims 1-25 are currently pending.
In light of Applicant’s amendment, the 112 1st paragraph rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 08/20/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Noh fail to teach the amended feature of maintaining the contention window value during the first time window according to a first rule and increasing the contention window during the second time window according to a second rule when the proportion (Num(ACK)/N) of the first target reference data in the N pieces of the first reference data does not exceed the first threshold or the proportion (Num(NACK)+Num(DTX)/N) of the second target reference data in the N pieces of first reference data exceeds the second threshold”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
“Maintaining” encompasses increasing and resetting under Applicant’s own definition. Applicant acts as lexicographer at specification [0019], which describes maintaining the contention window value “by using the first rule” as being carried out by increasing the contention window based on a current contention window value when the proportion of first target reference data does not exceed a first threshold or the proportion of second target reference data exceeds a second threshold; or by adjusting the contention window value to a minimum contention window value when the proportion of first target reference data exceeds the first threshold or the proportion of second target reference data does to exceed the second threshold. Accordingly, maintaining … the contention window value” does not require the value to be held constant; it encompasses increasing the value and resetting it to a minimum.
Paragraph 0160 of Noh disclose the argued operation. Noh’s Method A-3 evaluates the HARQ-ACK feedback values for a reference window and applies the identical two-branch operation set forth in Applicant’s [0019],
[0160] Method A-3: If among the HARQ-ACK feedback values for the reference window, NACK or DTX is determined as at least Z % (0<Z<100), the CWS is increased, and if not, the CWS may be reset to a minimum value. As an example, Z may be 50 or 80. Herein, the NACK or the DTX of at least Z % means that either the NACK or the DTX is added, i.e., a sum of NACK, DTX and NACK/DTX, to become at least Z %. That is, NACK/DTX and DTX may be treated equally with NACK. Accordingly, if a ratio (hereinafter, referred to as Y %) of NACK or DTX in the HARQ-ACK feedback is equal to or more than a reference value, the CWS is increased, and when the ratio of NACK or DTX is less than the reference value, the CWS may be reset to the minimum value. The reference value may be 0<reference value<1, or 0%<reference value<100% according to a unit. Equally, if among the HARQ-ACK feedback values for the reference window, the ACK is determined as a value less than P % (X=100−Z), the CWS is increased, and if not, the CWS may be reset to a minimum value. As an example, P may be 20 or 50.
Noh performs its evaluation with respect to a reference window of HARQ-ACK feedback values ([0160]), and the evaluation is repeated for successive reference windows as further HARQ-ACK feedback is received ([0158]-[0160]. A first reference window and a subsequent reference window read on the claimed first time window and second time window. The claims recite no duration, boundary, ordering or spacing for either window, and no relationship between the windows, and no relationship between the windows and the “first reference time”. Because Noh’s outcome depends on the measured ratio, and that ratio varies between successive reference windows, Noh applied one branch on one window and the other branch in another window whether the ratio crosses the reference value – which is the claimed operation of applying a first rule during a first time window and a second rule during a second time window.
For the reasons stated above, Examiner believes that Noh still disclose all the limitations of Claims 1, 9 and 15.
Claim Objections
Claims, 1, 9, 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 9 and 18 recite limitation “(Num(NACK)+Num(DTX)/N)”.
It seems to be ((Num(NACK) + Num(DTX))/N) instead according to the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-25 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, it recites two steps having identical trigger conditions, distinguished only by the window in which each is performed:
“maintaining…during the first time window according to a first rule when … exceeds the second threshold” and “increasing…during the second time window according to a second rule when … exceeds the second threshold” steps – in both, Num(ACK)/N does not exceed the first threshold or (Num(NACK) + Num(DTX))/N exceeds the second threshold.
First, neither window is defined or located in time. The claim provides no antecedent basis for “the first time window” or “the second time window”, no duration or boundary for either, no ordering between them, and no relationship between the “first reference time” within which the N pieces of first reference data are sent. Because the windows are wholly undefined, they cannot serve to distinguish the two steps. One of ordinary skill would not know when the device is operating “during the first time window”, and therefore would not know which of the two steps the claim requires upon detection of the single recited condition.
Second, the recited proportions are computed over “the N pieces of first reference data” sent “within the first reference time.” The claim does not recite measuring feedback separately for each time window, nor sending further reference data during the second time window. A single condition, evaluated over a single data set, is thus recited as commanding two different outcomes in two undefined windows, without any recited mechanism for determining the outcome in either.
Third, the indefiniteness is compounded by Applicant’s own lexicography. Specification [0019] defines maintaining the contention window value “by using the first rule” as being performed by increasing the contention window value based on a current contention window value when the proportion of first target reference data does not exceed a first threshold or the proportion of second target reference data exceeds a second threshold; or by adjusting the contention window value to a minimum contention window value when the proportion of first target reference data exceeds the first threshold or the proportion of second target reference data does not exceed the second threshold - the identical action and identical condition recited in claim 1’s separate “increasing” step. It therefore cannot be determined whether the “increasing … according to a second rule” step requires anything beyond what the “maintaining … according to the first rule” step already requires, or how a “second rule” differs from a “first rule”.
Clarification is required. If Applicant intends the second rule to be applied to a distinct set of responses received after the first time window, as described at [0018], the claim should be amended to recite that distinction expressly.
Claims 1 also lacks antecedent basis for “the contention window value,”, “the first threshold”, and “the second threshold.”
Claim 1 introduces “a first reference time” in the determining steps, but thereafter recites “the first time window” and “the second time window”. It is unclear whether the first time window” is the same as the first reference time,” a subset of it, or a separate and distinct period; and it is likewise unclear when the “second time window” occurs relative to either. Because the claimed N piece of first reference data are sent “within the first reference time,” while the maintaining and increasing steps occur “during” the first and second time windows respectively, the temporal relationship among these three periods is essential to the operation of the claim and is not defined.
Claim 1 further recites maintaining the contention window value “according to a first rule” and increasing it “according to a second rule”, but neither term is defined in the claims, and the claims imposes no limitation on what either rules requires beyond the maintaining and increasing actions already recited it. It is therefore unclear what structure, step, or condition the terms “first rule” and “second rule” add, and unclear what distinguishes the “second rule” form the “first rule”. If the terms are intended to carry meaning beyond the recited actions, that meaning must appear in the claims.
Claim 2 further recites limitation “a first time window” in line 4. It’s not clear whether it refer to “the first time window” recited in Claim 1. Claims 3, 5-8, 10, 13-16, and 19, 22-25 are rejected for the same reason.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected for the same reason stated for Claim 1.
Claims 2-8, 10-17 and 19-25 are dependent claims of Claims 1, 9 and 18, thus are rejected for the same deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-18, 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Noh et al (US 2017/0079013).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 18, Noh teaches a contention window maintenance method, comprising:
determining, by a communications device, a first reference time, where the communications device has sent N pieces of first reference data within the first reference time, N being an integer greater than zero ([0133], “the DL transmission may be performed through a set of one or more consecutive subframes (DL transmission burst) after the LBT”, it’s noted that the set of one or more consecutive subframes correspond to the first reference time);
determining, by the communications device, first target reference data and second target reference data of the sent N pieces of first reference data, the first target reference data comprising first reference data for which the communications device receives a number of success response ACKs, and the second target reference data comprising first reference data for which the communication device receives a number of NACKs or DTXs ([0137], “Set of HARQ-ACK feedback values (HARQ-ACK feedback set): It means HARQ-ACK feedback value(s) used for updating/adjusting the CWS. The HARQ-ACK feedback set corresponds to HARQ-ACK feedback value(s) that is decoded and usable at a time when the CWS is decided. The HARQ-ACK feedback set includes HARQ-ACK feedback value(s) for one or more DL (channel) transmission (e.g., PDSCH) on the unlicensed band (e.g., LTE-U cell). The HARQ-ACK feedback set may include HARQ-ACK feedback value(s) for the DL (channel) transmission (e.g., PDSCH), for example, a plurality of HARQ-ACK feedback values fed back from a plurality of user equipments. The HARQ-ACK feedback value may represent receiving response information for the transport block or PDSCH, and represent ACK, NACK, DTX, and NACK/DTX” [0138], “Reference window: It means a time interval at which the DL transmission (e.g., PDSCH) corresponding to the HARQ/ACK feedback set is performed in the unlicensed band (e.g., LTE-U cell). The reference window may be defined by the unit of SF. The reference window will be described/proposed below in more detail”).
maintaining, by the communications device, the contention window value during the first time window according to a first rule when a proportion (Num(ACK)/N) of the first target reference data in the N pieces of the first reference data does not exceed the first threshold or a proportion (Num(NACK)+Num(DTX)/N) of the second target reference data in the N pieces of first reference data exceeds the second threshold ([0145], “if among the HARQ-ACK feedback values for the reference window, the NACK is determined at least Z % (0<Z<100), the CWS is increased; also see [0160], “NACK/DTX and DTX may be treated equally with NACK””, It’s noted that basically DTX is treated as NACK for the calculation purpose; further noted that the above two scenarios always occur at the same time, when NACK> Z% and ACK < P% wherein P% (X=100-Z)”; also see [0160], “the NACK or the DTX of the at least Z% means that either the NACK or the DTX is added, i.e., a sum of NACK, DTX and NACK/DTX, to become at least Z%”): and
increasing, by the communications device, the contention window value during the second time window according to a second rule when the proportion (Num(ACK)/N) of the first target reference data in the N pieces of the first reference data does not exceed the first threshold or the proportion (Num(NACK)+Num(DTX)/N) of the second target reference data in the N pieces of first reference data exceeds the second threshold ([0145], “if among the HARQ-ACK feedback values for the reference window, the NACK is determined at least Z % (0<Z<100), the CWS is increased; also see [0160], “NACK/DTX and DTX may be treated equally with NACK””, It’s noted that basically DTX is treated as NACK for the calculation purpose; further noted that the above two scenarios always occur at the same time, when NACK> Z% and ACK < P% wherein P% (X=100-Z)”; also see [0160], “the NACK or the DTX of the at least Z% means that either the NACK or the DTX is added, i.e., a sum of NACK, DTX and NACK/DTX, to become at least Z%”; Fig. 16A and 17A disclose two reference windows).
Regarding claim 3, 11 and 20, Noh further teaches that the communications apparatus increases the contention window value when the proportion of the ACKs in the responses that are of the N pieces of first reference data and that are received by the communications apparatus in the first time window is less than or equal to 10% (Noh, [0160], “Equally, if among the HARQ-ACK feedback values for the reference window, the ACK is determined as a value less than P % (X=100−Z), the CWS is increased, and if not, the CWS may be reset to a minimum value”, it’s noted that P can be set to any number between 0 to 100 which include 10; It’s further noted that the reference window correspond to the first time window).
Regarding claim 4, 12 and 21, Noh further teaches that the communications apparatus adjusts the contention window value to the minimum contention window value when the proportion of the ACKs in the responses that are of the N pieces of first reference data and that are received by the communications apparatus is greater than 10% (Noh, [0160], “Equally, if among the HARQ-ACK feedback values for the reference window, the ACK is determined as a value less than P % (X=100−Z), the CWS is increased, and if not, the CWS may be reset to a minimum value”, it’s noted that P can be set to any number between 0 to 100 which include 10).
Regarding claim 5, 13, 22, Noh further teaches that the communications apparatus increases the contention window value when the proportion of ACKs in the responses that are of the N pieces of first reference data and that are received by the communications apparatus after the first time window is less than or equal to 10% (Noh, [0160], “Equally, if among the HARQ-ACK feedback values for the reference window, the ACK is determined as a value less than P % (X=100−Z), the CWS is increased, and if not, the CWS may be reset to a minimum value”; Wang, [0073], discloses first time window).
Regarding claim 6, 14, 23, Noh further teaches that the communications apparatus adjusts the contention window value to a minimum contention window value when the proportion of ACKs in the responses that are of the N pieces of first reference data and that are received by the communications apparatus after the first time window is greater than 10% (Noh, [0160], “Equally, if among the HARQ-ACK feedback values for the reference window, the ACK is determined as a value less than P % (X=100−Z), the CWS is increased, and if not, the CWS may be reset to a minimum value” , Wang, [0073], discloses first time window).
Regarding claims 7, 15, 24, Noh further teaches a start moment of the first time window follows the first reference time ([0138], “Reference window: It means a time interval at which the DL transmission (e.g., PDSCH) corresponding to the HARQ/ACK feedback set is performed in the unlicensed band (e.g., LTE-U cell)”).
Regarding claims 8, 16, 25, Noh further teaches that a size of the first time window is preset ([0151], “The reference window may be (1) a single subframe, (2) multi (for example, two) subframes, or (3) all subframes where the HARQ-ACK feedback is usable, in the last DL transmission burst)”).
Regarding claim 17, Noh further teaches that the communications apparatus is a network device, a terminal device, a chip or a chip system (Noh, Fig. 18, communication devices).
Claims 2, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh, in view of Li et al (US 2020/0100284).
Regarding claim 2, Noh teaches all of the limitations as applied to the parent claim, however,
Noh doesn’t explicitly teach that the communications apparatus does
not adjust the contention window value when the proportion of the ACKs in the responses that are of
the N pieces of first reference data and that are received by the communications apparatus in the first
time window is equal to 0 and the proportion of the NACKs in the responses that are of the N pieces of
first reference data and that are received by the communications apparatus in the first time window is
equal to 0.
Li teaches the above limitations ([0321], "if the fraction of received TBs with DTX among the
TBs in the set of HARQ-ACK feedback resources for current CW adjust decision exceeds a certain
threshold n (0<=n<1) the CW size can be remained", it's noted that "when the proportion of the ACKs in
the responses that are of the N pieces of first reference data and that are received by the
communications apparatus in the first time window is equal to 0 and the proportion of the NACKs in the
responses that are of the N pieces of first reference data and that are received by the communications
apparatus in the first time window is equal to 0" correspond to the response only comprise DTX. When
the responses only comprise DTX, the fraction of received TBs with DTX among the TBs in the set of
HARQ-ACK feedback resources for current CW would be 1 which is greater than the threshold n, since
(0<=n<1). Thus, the CW size would remain unchanged).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of Li in the system disclosed by Noh for the benefit of simplicity and predictability. If the CWS doesn't change with predominantly DTX feedback, the system avoids the complexity of constantly recalculating and adapting the window size based on potentially noisy or inconsistent data. DTX feedback might not always reliably indicate a collision - could be due to interference, a receiver being out of range, or other factors.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMING LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3859. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/SIMING LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights