DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the pending claims, 1, 4-5, 7, 10, 13-15, 24-31, received 08 December 2025 Accordingly, the detailed action of claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10, 13-15, 24-31 is as follows:
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection presented in the previous office action has been withdrawn responsive to applicant’s amendments (Remarks pg 8-9)
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 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 the limitation "the delay time" in limitation 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 25, 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (WO 2017036297 A1, hereafter referred to as Liu) in view of Ryu et al (US 20210274543 A1, hereafter referred to as Ryu) in view of Li et al (US 20210219268 A1, hereafter referred to Li) in view of Alanen et al (US 20160234756 A1, hereafter referred to as Alanen).
Regarding claim 5, Liu teaches a resource determination method, comprising:
acquiring, by a first communication node, indication information configured by a second communication node (Liu [11:422-426 and 7:282-285] teaches receiving contention sharing configuration information sent by a base station communication site); and
competing, by the first communication node, for a pre-configured resource according to the indication information (Liu [7:282-286] discloses performing uplink transmission using resources obtained through competition),
wherein the indication information comprises: a competition restriction (Liu [3:88-93] discloses the contention configuration information includes a competition method adopted and restrictions).
However, while Liu teaches contention restriction information used to compete for transmission opportunities (Liu [12:466-475]), as set forth above, Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the indication information comprises: a competition priority wherein, in response to the first communication node being configured with a low competition priority, the competition is delayed during the competition for a channel, and the delay time is specified by the second communication node, or whether to delay competition, wherein after acquiring the indication information, the first communication node delays for a certain period of time before competing for a channel according to the indication information, and the delay time is specified by the second communication node.
Ryu, in an analogous art, teaches herein the indication information comprises: a competition priority (Ryu [0114] teaches a priority threshold or indication [0007, 0044] that notifies a the UE to determine whether to access and transmit on resources or to ignore scheduled resources because higher priority traffic is scheduled using the resources), wherein in response to the first communication node being configured with a low competition priority (Ryu [0198] discloses the UE determining a second priority less than the priority threshold received in the indication from the base station [0195-0197]), the transmission for the scheduled grant is not performed on the resources).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Liu in view of Ryu in order to configure the contention configuration information, as taught by Liu, to include a competition priority wherein, in response to the first communication node being configured with a low competition priority transmission is not performed, as taught by Ryu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to increase the reliability for higher priority transmissions and the probability of successful higher priority transmissions (Ryu [0046 and 0103]).
Moreover, KSR rationale B, simple substitution of one known element (competition/contention restriction information as taught by Liu) for another known element (priority information, as taught by Ryu) in order to yield predictable results (identification of transmission opportunities based on received information) supports the conclusion of obviousness.
However, Liu-Ryu does not explicitly teach wherein in response to the first communication node being configured with a low competition priority, the competition is delayed during the competition for a channel, and the delay time is specified by the second communication node, or whether to delay competition, wherein after acquiring the indication information, the first communication node delays for a certain period of time before competing for a channel according to the indication information, and the delay time is specified by the second communication node.
Li, in an analogous art, teaches wherein in response to the first communication node being configured with a low competition priority (Li [0182] discloses a parameter priority, indicated from higher layer, wherein the parameter priority is associated with a UE’s priority), the competition is delayed during the competition for a channel (Li [0182] teaches upon a determination [of a lower priority], indicated from the higher layer, to back-off and a wait time interval), or whether to delay competition, wherein after acquiring the indication information, the first communication node delays for a certain period of time before competing for a channel according to the indication information (Li [0182] teaches upon a determination [of a lower priority], indicated from the higher layer, to back-off and a wait time interval).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Liu-Ryu in view of Li in order to configure, responsive to the communication node being configured with a low competition priority, as taught by Liu-Ryu, delaying the competition during the competition for a channel, as taught by Li.
One of ordinary skill in the art, would have been motivated in order reduce resource usage via retransmission or interference issues by avoiding potential collisions (Li [0128]).
However, Liu-Ryu-Li does not explicitly teach and the delay time is specified by the second communication node.
Alanen, in an analogous art, teaches and the delay time is specified by the second communication node (Alanen [Abstract] teaches receiving a delay value indicating a duration to wait for beginning to contend for access) such that Alanen teaches the competition is delayed during the competition for a channel (Alanen [0009] teaches waiting for a duration when the device has data to transmit, before contending for access [0010]), and the delay time is specified by the second communication node (Alanen [0007]), wherein after acquiring the indication information, the node delays for a certain period of time (Alanen [0009]) before competing for a channel according (Alanen [0010]), and the delay time is specified by the second communication node (Alanen [0007]).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Liu-Ryu-Li in view of Alanen in order to configure a delay time to be specified by the second communication node, as taught by Alanen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to adjust network (over)load and avoid unnecessary collision (Alanen [0116]) circumventing inefficiencies directed to collisions, increase power consumption (Alanen [0115]).
Regarding claims 25 and 27, they do no teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 5.
Therefore, claims 25 and 27 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 5.
Claims 13-15, 29, 31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (WO 2017036297 A1, hereafter referred to as Liu) in view of Hooli et al (US 20150296357 A1, hereafter referred to as Hooli) in view of Osawa et al (US 20210243773 A1, hereafter referred to as Osawa).
Regarding claim 13, Liu teaches a resource determination method, comprising:
dividing resources by a second communication node (Liu [12:488-492] teaches determining a contention sharing domain and associated information. Furthermore, Liu [17:683-695] teaches indicating the granularity of the resources, including dividing resources, to the UE); and
sending, by the second communication node, a resource indication and a level corresponding to each part of the resources to an adjacent node (Liu [16:650-658 and 5:172-174] discloses negotiation involving sending resource information, load and number of terminals to other bases station communication sites), wherein the adjacent node is a node of the same type as the second communication node (Liu [5:172-174 and 16:650-658] discloses the negotiation with another base station communication site).
However, Liu does not explicitly teach sending, by an interface message, information corresponding to each part of the resource to an adjacent node to enable the adjacent node to divide resources of the adjacent node according to the resource indication and the level corresponding to each part of the resources.
Hooli, in an analogous art, teaches sending (Hooli [Abstract, 0047] discloses signaling information), by the second communication node via an interface message (Hooli [0047] discloses signaling of information by an eNodeB wherein the signaling takes place on the X2 interface), a resource indication (Hooli [0048, 0059 and 0047] discloses the signaling contains information of radio resources reserved) and a level corresponding to each part of the resources (Hooli [0025] teaches the signaling includes information on a reduction of power, power spectral density [0052], signaled RNTP per PRB [0046, 0060] and interference levels [0045]) to an adjacent node (Hooli [0049] teaches the signaling sent to neighboring cells) to enable the adjacent node to divide resources of the adjacent node according to the resource indication and the level corresponding to each part of the resources (Hooli [0045, 0052] discloses signaling information, including PRBs with high interference [0045, 0060], whereby other eNodeB(s) take this information into account and change or limit (divide) its scheduling or power control behavior according to the signaling), wherein the adjacent node is a node of the same type as the second communication node (Hooli [0045] teaches an eNodeB informing neighboring eNodeBs).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Liu in view of Hooli in order to configure the resource indication, as taught by Liu, include a level corresponding to each part of the resource to an adjacent node to enable the adjacent node to circumvent frequency bands with high interference or intense competition based on the received resource indication and corresponding level sent by interface message, as taught by Hooli.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to enable coverage and capacity improvement for critical data by means of interference reduction (Hooli [0047]) thereby improving the reliability and availability of uplink and downlink transmissions during mission critical communications (Hooli [0073]).
However, Liu-Hooli does not explicitly teach wherein the level comprises competition priority.
Osawa, in an analogous art, teaches dividing resources by a second communication node (Osawa [0098-0099 and 0073] teaches configuring a plurality of radio resources for D2D communication, by a communication device, wherein the resources include at least resource #0 and resource #1);
sending, by the second communication node, a resource indication and a level corresponding to each part of the resources to an adjacent node (Osawa [0110] receiving information indicating a plurality of radio resources available for communication and the information indicating a priority level assigned to the plurality of radio resources from the communication device); wherein the level comprises competition priority (Osawa [0110-0111, 0093, 0095] discloses the information indicates priority levels assigned to plurality of radio resources).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Liu-Hooli in view of Osawa in order to configure
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to permit scheduling corresponding to differing communication requirements to be performed without requiring increase overhead and transmit data within a supported bandwidth for reception by a device (Osawa [0007-0010]).
Regarding claim 14, Liu-Hooli-Osawa teaches the limitations of claim 13, as rejected above.
Additionally, Liu-Hooli-Osawa teaches the method wherein: the resource indication comprises a starting position and a bandwidth of each part of the resources, or the resource indication comprises a starting position and an ending position of each part of the resources, or the resource indication comprises a starting position, a bandwidth, and an ending position of each part of the resources (Liu [9:358-362] discloses the configuration information indicates time frequency and domain frequency range and configuration parameters [3:88-93]); or the resource indication is represented by a character string, each character in the character string corresponding to a level of a resource part; or the resource indication indicates resources for each moment part within a first time.
Regarding claim 15, Liu-Hooli-Osawa teaches the limitations of claim 13, as rejected above.
Additionally, Liu teaches the method wherein the level comprises competition type, competition priority, service information, resource type, circumvention type, and reserved resource (Liu [9:363-368 and 3:88-93] discloses the information indicates the contention method (competition type) adopted).
Regarding claims 29 and 31, they do no teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 13.
Therefore, claims 29 and 31 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 24, 26, 28 and 30 allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 5, 7, 10, 25, 27, 28, and 30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHEAN TOKUTA whose telephone number is (571)272-5145. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 630-430.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 5712727952. 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.
SHEAN TOKUTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2446
/SHEAN TOKUTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446