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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application is a Continuation of PCT/CN2021/098076 (filed 06/03/2021), which claims foreign priority to applications of CHINA: 202010499976.3 (filed 06/04/2020), 202010501259.X (filed 06/04/2020), and 202010532526.X (filed
06/12/2020).
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/19/2025 has been entered.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-6 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jose et al. (US 20200154480 A1, hereinafter Jose), in view of DEOGUN et al. (US 20200351940 A1, hereinafter DEOGUN).
Regarding claim 1, Jose teaches a user equipment (UE) configured for wireless communication, the UE comprising (in general, see fig. 11 along with fig. 1 and their corresponding paragraphs):
a receiver, a transmitter; and a processor (Jose, see fig. 12, e.g. various apparatus components),
wherein:
the receiver is configured to perform a first sensing in a first subband; wherein the first sensing is associated with a first index of a plurality of indexes (Jose, see at least para. 50 of fig. 11 in view of at least para. 37 of fig. 1, e.g. “…The UE may be configured with a first BWP (e.g., BWP 1) and a second BWP (e.g., BWP 2). In an event that the consistent LBT failure is detected on the first BWP, the UE may be configured to switch to the second BWP…”),
wherein each index is associated with a type of channel sensing (Jose, see at least para. 50, e.g. “...The UE may set the channel (e.g. BWP or sub-band) where the consistent LBT failure condition is detected as unavailable for a fixed time duration. For example, the first BWP may be set as unavailable for a time duration T (e.g., a timer T)...”, note that “...The time duration may be a predetermined time duration or configured by the network node via radio resource control (RRC) signalling. The time duration may be configured when the BWP is configured. The time duration may be configured per BWP or per cell. The time duration may also be set to infinity...”, in other words, the time duration can be fixed or can be varied or configured per BWP or cell);
the processor is configured to, in responded to the first sensing indicating that a channel is busy, determine to not perform a radio transmission on the channel, start a first timer, and update a first counter by 1 (Jose, see at least para. 37 of fig. 1 in view of fig. 11, e.g. “…Before transmitting the uplink signal, the UE may need to perform an LBT detection to check if a channel is free for use. … The UE may be configured to determine whether an LBT failure is detected. In an event that the LBT failure is detected, the UE may be configured to start a timer (e.g., an LBT failure detection timer). The UE may further be configured to increase an LBT counter by 1. The initial value of the LBT counter may be set as 0…”);
wherein the channel belongs to the first subband in frequency domain (Jose, see at least para. 50 of fig. 11 in view of fig. 1, e.g. “…The UE may be configured with a first BWP (e.g., BWP 1) and a second BWP (e.g., BWP 2). In an event that the consistent LBT failure is detected on the first BWP, the UE may be configured to switch to the second BWP…”, note that fig. 1 discloses how UE detects BWP 1 consistent LBT failure with its LBT failure detection timer);
the transmitter is configured to, in response to any one of a plurality of timers expiring: reset the first counter to an initial value (Jose, see at least para. 38 of fig. 1 in view of fig. 11, e.g. “… In an event that the timer is expired, it means that the LBT failure has not occurred for a period of time. The UE may be configured to reset the LBT counter (e.g., set the LBT counter to 0)…”),
wherein the plurality of indexes are one-to-one correspondence to the plurality of timers respectively (Jose, see at least para. 50 in view of para. 49, e.g. “…The UE may be configured with a first BWP (e.g., BWP 1) and a second BWP (e.g., BWP 2). In an event that the consistent LBT failure is detected on the first BWP, the UE may be configured to switch to the second BWP…”, note that “...the UE may perform RLF recovery in an event that the consistent LBT failure is detected on the PCell and the LBT failure is detected on “N” possible BWP...”, in other words, LBT is performed on each BWP with its timers),
wherein the first timer is one of the plurality of timers that corresponds to the first index (Jose, see at least para. 50 of fig. 11 in view of fig. 1, e.g. “…The UE may be configured with a first BWP (e.g., BWP 1) and a second BWP (e.g., BWP 2). In an event that the consistent LBT failure is detected on the first BWP, the UE may be configured to switch to the second BWP…”, note that fig. 1 discloses how UE detects BWP 1 consistent LBT failure with its LBT failure detection timer);
and
the transmitter is further configured to, when the first counter reaches or exceeds a target threshold value, transmit a first signal (Jose, see at least para. 48 along with para. 52, e.g. “... The UE may further be configured to determine whether the LBT counter reaches a threshold value (e.g., a maximum number of LBT failures allowed within the window). In an event that the LBT counter reaches the threshold value, the UE may be configured to declare/determine a consistent LBT failure event...”, note that “...in an event that the consistent LBT failure event is determined for a transmission, the UE may be configured to perform other actions. The actions may comprise, for example and without limitation, at least one of ... initiating a random access procedure on the same channel, initiating a random access procedure on a different channel, triggering a radio link failure procedure, triggering a BWP switch away from the busy channel, triggering a switch of the channel that is being used actively, performing a handover to to a different cell or a different channel...”).
Jose differs from the claim, in that, it does not specifically disclose a type of channel sensing of a plurality of types of channel sensing.
DEOGUN, for example, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches a type of channel sensing of a plurality of types of channel sensing (in general, see fig. 4-5 and its paragraphs, in view of fig. 3A and its paragraphs at least 70-76; in particular, see para. 70 along with para. 34 and 74, e.g. “...the UE 120 may determine the first LBT metric for a first sub-band and the second LBT metric for a second sub-band. In this case, the UE 120 may perform Cat-4 LBT on a primary sub-band of the first sub-band and the second sub-band, and Cat-2 LBT on a secondary sub-band of the first sub-band and the second sub-band. Additionally, or alternatively, the UE 120 may perform Cat-4 LBT on both the first sub-band and the second sub-band...”, note that “...The LBT procedure may be a category type 2 LBT procedure (Cat-2 LBT) for fixed duration sensing or a category 4 LBT procedure (Cat-4 LBT) with a variable duration sensing...”, also note that “...the UE 120 may apply weights based on a percentage of time each channel for Cat-2 LBT or Cat-4 LBT is sensed to be busy...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate DEOGUN into the apparatus of Jose for reducing interference thereby improving network performance.
Regarding claim 2, Jose in view of DEOGUN teaches
the receiver is further configured to monitor a first type of signaling in the first subband, wherein the first type of signaling is used for determining the first index, and wherein the the first sensing is performed each time the first type of signaling is detected (Jose, see at least para. 50 in view of para .49, “…The UE may be configured with a first BWP (e.g., BWP 1) and a second BWP (e.g., BWP 2)…”, note that “…the UE may perform RLF recovery in an event that the consistent LBT failure is detected on the PCell and the LBT failure is detected on “N” possible BWP. “N” may comprise the number of configured BWPs with configured physical RACH (PRACH) resources…”);
the receiver is further configured to receive a first signaling, wherein the first signaling indicates at least one of: expiration values of the plurality of timers or the target threshold value associated with the first counter (Jose, see at least para. 38, “…The threshold value may be a maximum count of LBT failures (e.g., LBT failure instance max count) used for determining a consistent LBT failure. The threshold value may be a predetermined value or configured by the network node…”); and
the transmitter is further configured to transmit a second signal, wherein the second signal indicates a second index, and wherein the second index is one of the plurality of indexes (Jose, see at least para. 51, “…The unavailable BWPs on a cell may become available in an event that the cell is deactivated and activated again…”; DEOGUN, see at least see para. 122, e.g. “…the process 500 may include [BS 110] receiving a reporting message indicating a trigger of the bandwidth part switch by a UE…”, in other words, process 500 may occurs periodically).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate DEOGUN into the apparatus of Jose for reducing interference thereby improving network performance.
Regarding claim 3, Jose in view of DEOGUN teaches the processor is further configured to, on a condition that the first counter reaches or exceeds the target threshold value, trigger a sensing failure indication of the first subband; and the processor is further configured to generate the first signal in response to the trigger of the sensing failure indication of the first subband. (Jose, see at least para. 67, “…For example, processor 1212 may perform RLF recovery in an event that the consistent LBT failure is detected on the PCell and the LBT failure is detected on “N” possible BWP…”; DEOGUN, see at least see para. 122, e.g. “…the process 500 may include [BS 110] receiving a reporting message indicating a trigger of the bandwidth part switch by a UE…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate DEOGUN into the apparatus of Jose for reducing interference thereby improving network performance.
Regarding claim 4, Jose in view of DEOGUN teaches
on a condition that the sensing failure indication has been triggered for each subband configured with a physical random access channel (PRACH) in a first serving cell, the transmitter is further configured to transmit the sensing failure indication to an upper layer (Jose, see at least para. 67, e.g. “…For example, processor 1212 may perform RLF recovery in an event that the consistent LBT failure is detected on the PCell and the LBT failure is detected on “N” possible BWP. Then, processor 1212 may be configured to perform an RLF recovery procedure. Processor 1212 may be configured to perform cell selection…”); and
on a condition that the sensing failure indication has not been triggered for at least one subband configured with a PRACH in a first serving cell, the transmitter is further configured to switche from the first subband to a second subband, wherein the second subband is one subband in the first serving cell that is configured with a PRACH and has not been triggered the sensing failure indication (Jose, see at least para. 67 in view of fig. 11, e.g. “…in an event that the consistent LBT failure event is determined on a BWP, the UE may be configured to initiate a switch to a different BWP in an event that there is another BWP with configured RACH resources…).
Regarding claim 5, Jose in view of DEOGUN teaches as a response to the transmission of the sensing failure indication to the upper layer, the transmitter is further configured to transmit a radio link failure message. (DEOGUN, see at least see para. 72, e.g. “…As shown in FIG. 3A, and by reference number 320, the UE 120 may selectively trigger a recovery procedure based on the LBT metric. For example, as shown by reference number 320′, the UE 120 may communicate with the BS 110 to trigger a radio link failure (RLF)-based recovery action…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate DEOGUN into the apparatus of Jose for reducing interference thereby improving network performance.
Regarding claim 6, Jose in view of DEOGUN teaches the Q timers are all corresponding to the first counter. (Jose, see at least fig. 4, for one example, but not limited to, one counter is used for multiple timers)
Regarding claims 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively, except each of these claims is in method claim format.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 1 and 11, since applicant's amendment necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, previous Office action's rejections are moot. Accordingly, corresponding dependent claims have also been rejected in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465