DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on: 08/12/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 08/12/2025.
Claims 21-27, 30, and 33-39 are pending for Examination.
Claims 21 and 33 have been amended.
Claims 1-20, 28-29, 31-32, and 40 have been cancelled to date.
Drawings Objection
In the previous Office Action, FIG. 3B was objected to for depicting subject matter that contradicted Applicant’s corresponding written description. This objection is withdrawn herewith, as Applicant has appropriately corrected/replaced its Drawing(s) to cure this deficiency.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112
In the previous Office Action, claim 21 was rejected under §112(b), based on a claim language antecedent basis issue. This rejection of claim 21 is withdrawn herewith, as Applicant has appropriately amended claim 21 to cure the deficiencies identified in the prior Office Action.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 .
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on: 05/19/2025 is determined to be compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, this IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 21 and 33, these claims were amended to include all of the limitations previously presented in cancelled dependent claims 28 and 29. Applicant asserts that the prior art combination of Li, Wang, and Kim do not teach/suggest the amended claim features “wherein the first configuration information includes a time offset for the first channel access period, the first channel access period is periodically repeated, a location of the first channel access period is determined by the time offset, and the time offset is a number of symbols between a start time of a radio frame and a start time of the first periodicity of the first channel access period,” (previously recited in claim 28) and “ the number of symbols is smaller than a number of symbols corresponding to a periodicity value of the first channel access period, and the number of symbols is determined based on a smallest subcarrier spacing among subcarrier spacings configured to a carrier,” (previously recited in claim 29). Applicant’s Remarks at pp. 11-12.
In the instant Office Action, Wang is substantially relied upon to teach/suggest the first portion of the amended claim limitation, recited above. In this regard, Wang describes that COT information can include information on the Duration D, a remaining D relative to a starting point, Period P of a COT interval, a MCOT, a timing offset of the COT interval relative to a starting time, etc. (paras. [0046], [0049]-[0050], [0053]-[0054], and [0138]). Wang also teaches that its time offset can be configured in the unit of an OFDM symbol or a slot at the start of a FFP, i.e., as depicted in Fig. 7.
For example, Wang reads on the claimed feature of a “first configuration information [that] includes a time offset for the first channel access period,” by describing a base station that can transmit different COT configuration information with a different time offset relative to a reference time to a UE, at paras. [0049]-[0050] and [0143]-[0146]; and 24 of Fig. 1. Wang also describes that the channel access period P/P’ can be periodically repeated, and that a location of the first channel access period P/P’ can be determined by a time offset/gap, relative to the reference time, at paras. [0046] and [0050]; and Fig. 7. This subject matter reads on the claim features where “the first channel access period is periodically repeated,” and that “a location of the first channel access period is determined by the time offset.”
Wang further describes that the sharing periods P/P’, i.e., a FFP, for a shared UL/DL COT can be re/configured by a time offset/gap in the unit of a slot or an OFDM symbol(s), at paras. [0098] and [0138], such that the time offset/gap can be represented as a number of symbols, i.e., to be <16us, between a start of a gNB FFP and a start time of a UL COT, i.e., a first channel access period, within the shared COT, as depicted in Fig. 7. This teaching of Wang fairly reads on the claim feature where: “the time offset is a number of symbols between a start time of a radio frame and a start time of the first periodicity of the first channel access period.”
Moreover, it would be obvious to modify Li’s COT determination based on a first COT initiated by a UE and a second COT initiated by the base station, with the time offset designations and COT sharing solution, taught by Wang, to improve COT resource sharing by utilizing an offset/gap for DL/UL COT switching.
Applicant argues the fundamental principal of differences between a COT interval and its claimed channel access period, essentially alleging Wang only teaches the former and does not teach the latter. Applicant’s Remarks at pp. 13-14. However, as depicted in Fig. 1 of Wang (reproduced below), Wang clearly describes both a channel access period “P” and a COT interval 18/D, which can be seen to repeat periodically over multiple periods P.
PNG
media_image1.png
466
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The channel access periods P contain COT intervals D, which Wang describes as recurring with a time offset therebetween relative to a reference time, at paras. [0046] and [0050]. Another reasonable interpretation of a time offset between COT intervals, is that of a time gap. In this regard, Wang also teaches a gNB-shared COT having both a DL COT interval and an UL COT interval, with a designated gap/offset interposed therebetween, which is visually depicted in Fig. 7.
As such Applicant’s argument that “Wang does not teach or suggest [the] hierarchal relationship between a channel access period and a COT,” is unconvincing. Wang clearly teaches/suggests a repeating channel access period “P” with a COT interval D contained therein (See Fig. 1), as well as a time offset/gap interposed between the periodic COT intervals, as explained above.
Applicant then argues that there is no motivation to combine Wang with Li. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 14. In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, the Examiner has provided proper motivation for combining Wang with Li, as explained above. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments to the contrary are unconvincing.
With respect to the Kim reference, Applicant argues that Kim does not fairly teach/suggest the claimed feature of: “the number of symbols is smaller than a number of symbols corresponding to a periodicity value of the first channel access period, and the number of symbols is determined based on a smallest subcarrier spacing among subcarrier spacings configured to a carrier,” asserting further that “Kim relates to an entirely different technical field,” “…which is unrelated to the COT determination for uplink signal transmission of the present application.” Applicant’s Remarks at pp. 14-15.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s contention, and notes that Kim in fact fairly teaches/suggests the contested claim features, for which it is relied upon to teach. Notably, and similar to the claimed subject matter at issue, Kim also describes unlicensed band, carrier sensing, clear channel assessment, and LBT channel access procedures, where a BS/UE(s) can perform DL/UL transmissions over a shared COT, (paras. [0098]-[0099] and [0102]-[0103]; and Figs. 10-11). Thus, the subject matter of Kim does not relate to “an entirely different field,” as Applicant suggests. Id. at p. 15. The “fields” are very much related.
Kim further discusses that a number of symbols P1/P2 corresponding to an offset, i.e., for a switching boundary Pswitch, can be smaller than its corresponding FFP, i.e., 20ms at para. [0151], and that the number of P1/P2 can be designated to be proportional to the smallest SCS (numerology) for a reference cell, i.e., 15kHz (paras. [0042], [0132]-[0136], [0141] and [0165]; and Table 1 and Fig. 14). This subject matter fairly reads on the contested claim limitation: “the number of symbols [of an offset] being smaller than a number of symbols corresponding to a periodicity value of a first channel access period” where “the number of symbols is determined based on a smallest subcarrier spacing among subcarrier spacings configured to a carrier.”
Moreover, it would be obvious to modify Li and Wang’s COT determination to include an offset time designated in terms of symbols, which is proportional to a smallest numerology, as taught by Kim, to better allocate a COT related switching event offset in proportion to a smallest SCS available.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine these references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, what is claimed is merely a number of symbols of an offset being smaller than a number of symbols corresponding to a periodicity value of a first channel access period, such as an COT interval period P, which can be reasonably interpreted to mean that a typically very small offset switch value is smaller than a typically much larger fixed frame period (FFP) associated with a COT interval, in terms of a comparative number of symbols. Further, also claimed is the feature that the small number of offset symbols is based on a smallest SCS for a carrier, further suggesting the desired smallness of the interposed offset. It would be obvious to combine the similar teachings of Kim with Li and Wang, for the reasons already described above.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, unclaimed, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., the single carrier context of the present invention (Applicant’s Remarks at p. 16) vs. cross-carrier teaching in Kim) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments asserted for each of independent claims 21 and 33 are deemed not to be persuasive
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant only argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive.
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.
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 21-27, 30, and 33-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 11,737,135 B2, Li et al., (hereinafter “Li”), in view of US PG Pub 2022/0150917 A1, Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”), in further view of US PG Pub 2022/0322118 A1, Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”).
With respect to claim 21, Li teaches:
An operation method of a terminal in a communication system (UEs 111-116 and BS’ 101-103 of communications system 100 of Fig. 1), the operation method comprising:
receiving, from a base station, first configuration information including information of a first channel access period in which a first channel occupancy time (COT) initiated by the terminal is located and second configuration information of a second channel access period in which a second COT initiated by the base station is located (col. 1, ln. 44 to col. 2, ln. 34, col. 15, ln. 10 to col. 16, ln. 30; and col. 17, lines 5-50; and Figs. 9-12 —a UE can receive a DCI or some other higher-layer signaling (RRC) with configuration information/parameters for a COT that can be initiated by a UE for periodic UL transmissions and configuration information for a COT initiated by a gNB for periodic DL transmissions —a first channel access period can be equated to a FFP period for UE UL transmission and a second channel access period can be equated to a FFP period for gNB DL transmission, i.e., part of frame based equipment (FBE) access operation);
initiating the first COT in a first periodicity of the first channel access period indicated by the first configuration information (col. 13, lines 10-25, and col. 17, lines 20-56 —a UE can utilize CAT-4 LBT to obtain the COT initiated by the UE, i.e., the first COT —further, a UE-associated FFP can also be applied where the UE is the device initiating its corresponding COT, as opposed to a gNB initiated COT);
determining one COT according to a predefined rule among the first COT indicated by the terminal and the second COT indicated by the base station in a second periodicity of the second channel access period indicated by the second configuration information in a situation where both the first COT and the second COT are initiated (col. 15, lines 14-58 and col. 17, ln. 33 to col. 18, ln. 9; and Fig. 13 —a COT can be shared between the gNB and a UE according to a received configuration/LBT CAT type (i.e., a predefined rule), where there is an associated gNB FFP and an associated UE FFP —the Examiner notes that when COT is configured to be shared in the DL for the gNB and the UL for the UE, a situation exist where both the first COT and second COT are initiated within the shared COT); and
transmitting, to the base station, an uplink signal based on the one COT (col. 21, lines 38-44, and col. 26, lines 58-67; and block 2010 of Fig. 20 —a UE can transmit a CG PUSCH to a gNB over a designated portion of a corresponding shared COT).
However, Li does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first configuration information includes a time offset for the first channel access period, the first channel access period is periodically repeated, a location of the first channel access period is determined by the time offset, and the time offset is a number of symbols between a start time of a radio frame and a start time of the first periodicity of the first channel access period.
Wang does teach:
configuration information that includes a time offset for a first channel access period that is periodically repeated, where a location of the first channel access period is determined by the time offset, and the time offset is a number of symbols between a start time of a radio frame and a start time of a first periodicity of the first channel access period (paras. [0046], [0050], and [0138]; and Fig. 8 —the COT information can include information on the Duration D, a remaining D relative to a starting point, Period P of a COT interval, a MCOT, a timing offset of the COT interval relative to a starting time, etc. —the time offset can be configured in the unit of an OFDM symbol or slot at the start of a FFP, i.e., as depicted in Figs. 7 and 8).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li’s COT determination based on a first COT initiated by a UE and a second COT initiated by the base station, with the time offset designation, as taught by Wang.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve coordination for sharing COT resources utilizing and offset for DL/UL switching, as recognized by Wang (paras. [0046], [0050], and [0138]; and Figs. 7-8).
Li and Wang do not teach:
wherein the number of symbols is smaller than a number of symbols corresponding to a periodicity value of the first channel access period, and the number of symbols is determined based on smallest subcarrier spacing among subcarrier spacings configured to a carrier.
Kim does teach:
a number of symbols of an offset is smaller than a number of symbols corresponding to a periodicity value of a first access period, where the number of symbols is determined based on smallest subcarrier spacing among subcarrier spacings configured to a carrier (paras. [0042], [0132]-[0136], and [0165]; and Table 1 and Fig. 14 —the number of symbols P1/P2 corresponding to an offset, i.e., for a switching boundary, can be smaller than its corresponding FFP —the number of P1/P2 can be designated to be proportional to the smallest SCS (numerology) for a reference cell, i.e., 15kHz).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li’s COT determination to include an offset time designated in terms of symbols, which is proportional to a smallest numerology, as taught by Kim.
The motivation for doing so would have been to better allocate a switching event offset time P in proportion to a smallest SCS available, as recognized by Kim (paras. [0042], [0132]-[0136], and [0165]; and Fig. 14).
With respect to claim 22, Li in view of Wang and Kim teaches:
The operation method according to claim 21,
wherein a period in which the uplink signal is transmitted is included in the first COT initiated by the terminal, and the uplink signal is transmitted based on the first COT (Li: col. 13, lines 10-25, and col. 17, lines 20-56 —a UE can utilize CAT-4 LBT to obtain the COT initiated by the UE, i.e., the first COT —further, a UE-associated FFP can also be applied where the UE is the device initiating a corresponding COT, as opposed to a gNB-initiated COT).
With respect to claim 23, Li in view of Wang and Kim teaches the method according to claim 22.
However, Li and Kim do not explicitly teach:
wherein the uplink signal is included in the second COT initiated by the base station, and the first COT overlaps the second COT.
Wang does teach:
an uplink signal included in a second COT initiated by a base station, and a first COT overlapping the second COT (paras. [0004], [0068]-[0070], and [0093]-[0094]; COT info 20 and diff COT info 24 of Fig. 1, blocks 410 and 420 of Fig. 4, and gNB initiated COT w/sharing of Fig. 7 —an UL transmission can be scheduled to occur within a gNB-initiated COT, where the COT also comprises a DL transmission, i.e., the COT is shared between DL/UL —corresponding UE UL and BS DL COT intervals overlap in time, such that COT sharing coordination, i.e., switching, is required).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li and Kim’s single COT determination based on a first COT initiated by a UE and a second COT initiated by the base station, with the shared COT for DL/UL transmission, as taught by Wang.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve resource usage/coordination by more effectively sharing COT resources for DL/UL transmissions based on prioritization, as recognized by Wang (paras. [0004], [0068]-[0070], and [0093]-[0094]; and Figs. 1 and 4).
With respect to claim 24, Li in view of Wang and Kim teaches:
The operation method according to claim 22,
wherein the uplink signal is a configured grant (CG) physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), and the uplink signal is allocated in a period after a start time of the first COT (Li: col. 16, lines 60-67, col. 17, lines 33-65, and col. 22, lines 5-15 —the UL transmission may be a CG-PUSCH that can be transmitted after LBT of the first COT initiated by the UE).
With respect to claim 25, Li in view of Wang and Kim teaches:
The operation method according to claim 22,
wherein the period in which the uplink signal is transmitted within the first COT includes an idle period of the second channel access period to which the second COT belongs (Li: col. 16, lines 26-30, and col. 26, lines 40-62; and Fig. 20 —the UE can transmit its UL signal, i.e., a Tx PUSCH, at least in-part, during a period of the BS-initiated COT that is idle or otherwise associated with a DL gap, such that the UL signal can avoid collision).
With respect to claim 26, Li in view of Wang and Kim teaches:
The operation method according to claim 21,
wherein the predefined rule includes receiving downlink control information (DCI) indicating the one COT from the base station (Li: col. 1, ln. 62 to col. 2, ln. 13, and col. 15, lines 5-52 —a UE can receive DCI from the BS indicating CAT LBT type/designation according to a predefined rule, wherein the shared COT structure/configuration can be indicated —the shared COT structure can be obtained by the UE via a group common (GC) PDCCH and/or via slot format indication (SFI) to identify COT slots designated as: DL, UL, or flexible —Applicant’s disclosure similarly describes obtaining information required for LBT operation (e.g., LBT category) through a predefined rule, at p.29, lines 16-18, and a UE determining COT structure of FFP period(s) according to configuration information on LBT operation and a predefined rule, at p. 34, lines 6-10).
With respect to claim 27, Li in view of Wang and Kim teaches:
The operation method according to claim 21,
wherein the first configuration information includes information indicating a periodicity value of the first channel access period, the second configuration information includes information indicating a periodicity value of the second channel access period (Li: col. 9, lines 23-51, col. 15, lines 10-52, and col. 17, lines 33-50; and Figs. 11 and 13 —a FFP associated with the gNB and the FFP associated with the UE can be configured via corresponding DCI/UCI signaling —these FFPs can be the same or different), and
the periodicity value of the first channel access period is an integer factor or an integer multiple of the periodicity value of the second channel access period (Li: col. 23, lines 55-67, and col 25, lines 19-22 —the FFP of the UE can be 10ms, and the FFP of the gNB can be a multiple thereof (i.e., a multiple of 10ms) depending on implementation, or vice-versa).
With respect to claim 30, Li in view of Wang and Kim teaches:
The operation method according to claim 21,
wherein the first configuration information and the second configuration information are included in a radio resource control (RRC) message transmitted to the terminal (Li: col. 10, ln. 55 to col. 11, ln. 21, col. 13, ln. 60 to col. 14, ln. 9, and col. 20, lines 20-27 —COT configuration information for a UE can be included in a higher layer RRC signaling from the network).
With respect to claim 33, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 21, except claim 33 is written from the perspective a base station (BS’ 101-103 of communications system 100 of Fig. 1), as opposed to a terminal device. As such, claim 33 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Li in view of Wang and Kim, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 21.
With respect to claim 34, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 22, except claim 34 is written from the perspective a base station. As such, claim 34 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Li in view of Wang and Kim, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 22.
With respect to claim 35, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 23, except claim 35 is written from the perspective a base station. As such, claim 35 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Li in view of Wang and Kim, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 23.
With respect to claim 36, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 24, except claim 36 is written from the perspective a base station. As such, claim 36 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Li in view of Wang and Kim, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 24.
With respect to claim 37, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 25, except claim 37 is written from the perspective a base station. As such, claim 37 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Li in view of Wang and Kim, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 25.
With respect to claim 38, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 26, except claim 38 is written from the perspective a base station. As such, claim 38 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Li in view of Wang and Kim, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 26.
With respect to claim 39, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 27, except claim 39 is written from the perspective a base station. As such, claim 39 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Li in view of Wang and Kim, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 27.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm 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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)272-3155. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2461
/HUY D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights