Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to an amendment received August 5, 2025.
This application has been reassigned to a new examiner, please see the end of the document for contact information.
Claims 5, 12, and 14-18 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 8, and 19 are currently amended.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13, and 19-25 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
The arguments received August 5, 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC §103 rejection is hereby withdrawn. However, a new grounds of rejection has been provided below.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP §2111.04(II) recites:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
Claims 1 and 8 are directed towards method claims which recite at least one contingent step.
Claim 1 recites “for semi-persistent configured data transmission, configuring one or more Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes based on a radio resource control signaling, and activating one of the one or more Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes through a downlink control information signaling.” This limitation puts the condition precedent of “semi-persistent configured data transmission” for performing the steps “configuring…” and “activating”. Claim 1 doesn’t indicate that the condition is required nor does it provide any alternative condition. As result, the BRI of claim 1 includes a condition where the transmission is not “semi-persistent configured” and the “configuring…” and “activating…” steps are not required.
Claim 8 recites “for semi-persistent configured data transmission, determining one or more configured Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes based on a radio resource control signaling, and determining one of the one or more Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes activated by a downlink control information signaling as the configured Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode.” Similar to claim 1, the method steps of “determining one or more configured Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes…” and “determining one of the one or more Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes activated by…” are conditional on the transmission being “semi-persistent configured”. As result, the BRI of claim 8 includes situations where the transmission is not semi-persistent configured, and does not require the listed determining steps to be performed.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, and 13 are dependent from claims 1 and 8 and through that dependency have the same claim interpretation.
Claim 4 further recites “for semi-persistent configured data transmission, sending the configuration information of the Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode based on a radio resource control signaling.” As result, the sending step is conditional on the transmission being semi-persistent configured and the BRI of claim 4 includes embodiments where the transmission is not semi-persistent and the sending step is not required.
Claim 11 has a similar issue and is being interpreted under the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 6 further recites “for dynamically scheduled data transmission, configuring one or more Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes based on a radio resource control signaling, and indicating one of the one or more Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes through a dynamic scheduling instruction.” As result, the configuring and indicating steps are conditioned on the transmission being “dynamically scheduled”. The BRI of claim 6 includes embodiments where the transmission is not dynamically schedule and both the configuring and indicating steps would not be required.
Claim 13 has a similar issue and is being interpreted under the same rationale as claim 6.
The prior art rejection has been updated to address the limitations identified above for the purpose of compact prosecution, but the limitations identified will not be given patentable weight as to allowability purposes. Applicant is encouraged to amend the claims to avoid contingent limitations in method/process claims.
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 1-4, 6-11, 13, and 19-25 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein sending the configuration information of the Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode comprises: for semi-persistent configured data transmission, configuring one or more Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes based on a radio resource control signaling, and activating one of the one or more Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes through a downlink control information signaling.” It is unclear from these limitations the relationship between the LBT channel occupancy modes of lines 9 and 11 and the LBT channel occupancy mode of line 2. It isn’t clear whether the mode that doesn’t perform the CCA is one of the plurality of modes or whether there are separate modes being configured. Additionally claim 1 recites “sending configuration information of the Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode” actually configures one or more modes based on the further amendments. The tense of the mode is turning plural without explaining of the modes are separately configured or if all the modes are part of the mode that doesn’t perform CCA. Claim 1 also includes how the activation of the LBT modes relates to sending the configuration of the mode. They appear to be separate communications and transmission, but the claim requires the “second the configuration information” to further comprise activating the modes through DCI. As result, the claimed relationship between the LBT modes of lines 9 and 11 and the LBT mode of line 2 and the sending of the configuration of that mode is unclear based upon how the claim is currently listed.
Claims 19 and 21 contain the same limitations as claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 8 recites “determining one or more configured Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes based on a radio resource control signaling, and determining one of the one or more Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes activated by a downlink control information signaling as the configured Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode”, while claim 8 additionally recites “determining a configured Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode based on the configuration information, wherein the configured Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode comprises not performing clear channel assessment before sending data. It is unclear from the scope of claim 8 how the method can configure a plurality of LBT modes and activate one of those, while also only configure a particular one, that one requires no CCA. These limitations are unclear how they relate to each other and renders the claim scope unclear.
Claims 19 and 22 contain the same limitations as claim 8 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 4 is dependent from claim 1 and recites “for semi-persistent configured data transmission, sending the configuration information of the Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode based on a radio resource control signaling.” It is unclear how this limitation further limits “configuring one or more Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes based on a radio resource control signaling”. It seems to add a separate RRC signaling for just a single LBT mode, however claim 1 has been amended to require RRC signaling to configuring a plurality of LBT modes. As result, it is unclear how claim 4 further limits claim 1 as amended because they are both further limiting the same limitation in ways that doesn’t seem to work together.
Claims 11 and 25 contain a similar issue as claim 4 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 7 recites “the Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode comprises performing clear channel assessment before sending data”. It is unclear from this limitation that this is overwriting the requirement that the LBT mode does not send the CCA or whether it’s modifying a separate LBT mode that is being configured. Dependent claims must include all limitations of the claim upon which it depends so it would be improper to remove the “not performing the CCA before sending data” requirement of claim 1”.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13, and 23-25 are dependent claims and are rejected under the same rationale as the claim from which they dependent.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13, and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalhan et al. (US 2017/0086214, hereinafter “Kalhan”) in view of Babaei (US 2020/0229227, hereinafter “Babaei”).
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 21, Kalhan teaches a channel access method, comprising:
configuring a Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode, wherein the Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode comprises not performing clear channel assessment before sending data (¶¶58-59, wherein the eNB decides the UEs should operate in a non-sensing mode); and
sending configuration information of the Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode (¶59, wherein the eNB instructs the UEs to perform non-sensing mode for LBT).
Kalhan does not explicitly indicate wherein sending the configuration information of the Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode comprises: for semi-persistent configured data transmission, configuring one or more Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes based on a radio resource control signaling, and activating one of the one or more Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes through a downlink control information signaling.
Babaei teaches operating a semi-persistent configured data transmission (see ¶¶201-202, 226-229, wherein the UE and base stations setup RRC connections other persistent connections), where the base station configures one or more Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes based on a radio resource control signaling, and activating one of the one or more Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes through a downlink control information signaling (¶411, ¶¶536-539 and ¶552, wherein the base station provides preconfigured configurations through RRC and can activate separate configurations using DCI activation, and the configuration parameters include LBT parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to use Babaei’s suggestion of RRC configuration to improve Kalhan’s system, the combination would allow the base station in Kalhan’s system to use RRC to pre-configure communication and LBT parameters and then utilized DCI to active one of the configured parameters. One would be motivated to do so to allow the base station pre-configured control over the communication parameters of the UEs.
Regarding claims 8, 20, and 22, Kalhan teaches a channel access method, comprising:
receiving configuration information of a Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode (¶¶58-59, wherein the eNB decides the UEs should operate in a non-sensing mode); and
determining a configured Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode based on the configuration information, wherein the configured Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode comprises not performing clear channel assessment before sending data (¶59, wherein the eNB instructs the UEs to perform non-sensing mode for LBT).
Kalhan does not explicitly indicate wherein determining the configured Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode comprises: for semi-persistent configured data transmission, determining one or more configured Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes based on a radio resource control signaling, and determining one of the one or more Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes activated by a downlink control information signaling as the configured Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode.
Babaei teaches operating a semi-persistent configured data transmission (see ¶¶201-202, 226-229, wherein the UE and base stations setup RRC connections other persistent connections), where the base station configures one or more Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes based on a radio resource control signaling, and activating one of the one or more Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes through a downlink control information signaling (¶411, ¶¶536-539 and ¶552, wherein the base station provides preconfigured configurations through RRC and can activate separate configurations using DCI activation, and the configuration parameters include LBT parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to use Babaei’s suggestion of RRC configuration to improve Kalhan’s system, the combination would allow the base station in Kalhan’s system to use RRC to pre-configure communication and LBT parameters and then utilized DCI to active one of the configured parameters. One would be motivated to do so to allow the base station pre-configured control over the communication parameters of the UEs.
Regarding claims 2 and 23, Kalhan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein configuring the Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode comprises: in response to determining, based on a network deployment, that an interference level caused by sending data by a terminal is less than a detection threshold, not performing clear channel assessment before sending data (see ¶¶24 and 26, wherein UEs can measure interference and if the measurements are below a threshold the network can turn off the LBT CCA).
Regarding claims 3 and 24, Kalhan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein configuring the Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode comprises: configuring the Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode for a terminal based on a recommended Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode reported by the terminal; wherein the recommended Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode comprises not performing clear channel assessment before sending data (see ¶¶46-50, wherein the UE performs measurements of the network and based upon reporting by the UE the base station decides whether to configure a non-sensing LBT mode).
Regarding claims 4 and 25, Kalhan, as improved by Babaei, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein sending the configuration information of the Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode comprises: for semi-persistent configured data transmission, sending the configuration information of the Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode based on a radio resource control signaling (see Babaei, ¶¶536-539 and ¶552, wherein the UE provides pre-configured communication parameters, including LBT parameters to the UE through RRC).
The references are combined using the same rationale as provided in the rejection to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Kalhan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein sending the configuration information of the Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode comprises: for dynamically scheduled data transmission, configuring one or more Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes based on a radio resource control signaling, and indicating one of the one or more Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes through a dynamic scheduling instruction (this is a contingent limitation because the method step is conditioned on the data transmission being dynamically scheduled. However the BRI of contingent limitations include when the condition is not met and the step is not performed. As result, this limitation is unpatentable over the rational provided in claim 1 and having the scope of claim 6 given no patentable weight. See §2111.04(II).)
Regarding claim 7, Kalhan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode comprises performing clear channel assessment before sending data (see ¶68, wherein the UE can be configured to perform in either sensing or non-sensing operations based upon interference measurements).
Regarding claim 9, Kalhan teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising: reporting a recommended Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode, wherein the recommended Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode comprises not performing clear channel assessment before sending data (see ¶¶46-50, wherein the UE performs measurements of the network and based upon reporting by the UE the base station decides whether to configure a non-sensing LBT mode).
Regarding claim 10, Kalhan teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the recommended Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode is determined based on at least one of an interference measurement result or an interference degree of historical data transmission (see ¶¶46-50, wherein the UE performs measurements of the network and reports those measurements to the base station).
Regarding claim 11, Kalhan teaches the method of claim 8, wherein determining the configured Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode comprises: for semi-persistent configured data transmission, determining the configured Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode based on a radio resource control signaling (see Babaei, ¶¶536-539 and ¶552, wherein the UE provides pre-configured communication parameters, including LBT parameters to the UE through RRC).
The references are combined using the same rationale as provided in the rejection to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Kalhan teaches the method of claim 8, wherein determining the configured Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode comprises: for dynamically scheduled data transmission, determining one or more configured Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes based on a radio resource control signaling, and determining one of the one or more Listen Before Talk channel occupancy modes indicated by a dynamic scheduling instruction as the configured Listen Before Talk channel occupancy mode (this is a contingent limitation because the method step is conditioned on the data transmission being dynamically scheduled. However the BRI of contingent limitations include when the condition is not met and the step is not performed. As result, this limitation is unpatentable over the rational provided in claim 1 and having the scope of claim 6 given no patentable weight. See §2111.04(II).).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T BATES whose telephone number is (571)272-3980. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
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.
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights