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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12, 17, 20-33, 35, 37-41, and 61, the applicant argued, “…allegedly determining an EDT (energy detection threshold) based on a number of CBGs in a transport block to be retransmitted is not equivalent to ‘determining an energy…retransmission,’…the number of CBGs in a transport block is fundamentally different from a number of retransmissions…Li determines the EDT based on the number of CBGs involved in a transmission or retransmission, rather than determining an ED threshold based on a number n of retransmission attempts…Li applies a lower EDT as the number of CBGs increases…” on pages 8-10.
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument.
In ¶¶39 and 50-52; figures 3 and 5 Li clearly teaches determining an energy detection (ED) threshold for a transmission, the ED threshold being based on whether the transmission is a retransmission and a number n of the retransmission, wherein the ED threshold being higher for an nth retransmission than for an (n-1)th retransmission (¶¶39 and 50-52; figures 3 and 5: ED threshold is determined for LBT before a transmission, the number of CBGs decreasing and the EDT increasing with each retransmission).
The applicant’s arguments accurately points out the inverse relation between EDT and CBG as illustrated in figure 3 of Li. However, it is not completely accurate to say “when the number of CBGs in a transport block increases, a lower EDT is used”. While this statement maintains the inverse relation between EDT and CBG, it implies that the number of CBGs increases and lower EDTs are used over time, or as the number of retransmissions increases. The corollary is a more accurate statement: as the number of retransmissions increases, the number of CBGs decreases and a higher EDT is used. This is exactly what Li teaches. For each retransmission, the CBG based EDT uses one fewer CBG (see at least ¶52 and figure 5) while ¶39 and figure 3 show that as the number of CBGs decrease, the EDT increases. As such, the EDT increases with each retransmission. Therefore, Li teaches the argued claim limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 17, 20-25, 35, 37-41, and 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng et al. US 2023/0076058 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Sheng”) in view Li et al. US 2023/0051144 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Li”).
As to claim 1, Sheng teaches a method of wireless communication of a user equipment (UE), comprising:
determining an energy detection (ED) threshold for a transmission (¶¶48-52 and 58-59; figures 2-4: determine energy detection threshold based on service type and/or priority and/or maximum ED threshold);
determining whether an energy on a channel is less than the determined ED threshold (¶¶51 and 53; figures 3-4: compare detected energy to the ED threshold to determine whether detected energy is less than the determined ED threshold); and
transmitting to a base station on the channel when the energy is determined to be less than the ED threshold (¶¶51 and 53: obtain and access the channel).
Although Sheng teaches “A method…for a transmission; determining whether…the ED threshold,” Sheng does not explicitly disclose “the ED threshold…(n-1)th retransmission”.
However, Li teaches determining an energy detection (ED) threshold for a transmission, the ED threshold being based on whether the transmission is a retransmission and a number n of the retransmission, wherein the ED threshold being higher for an nth retransmission than for an (n-1)th retransmission (¶¶39 and 50-52; figures 3 and 5: ED threshold is determined for LBT before a transmission, the number of CBGs decreasing and the EDT increasing with each retransmission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Sheng by including “the ED threshold…(n-1)th retransmission” as taught by Li because it provides Sheng’s method with the enhanced capability of improving flexibility and efficiency in contention based unlicensed band access (Li, ¶¶15, 39, and 50-52; figures 3 and 5).
As to claim 2, Sheng in view of Li teaches the method of claim 1. Sheng further teaches wherein the ED threshold is further determined based on whether the transmission is ultra-reliable low latency communication (URLLC), enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB), or massive machine type communication (mMTC) (¶¶49, 59, and 76-79; figures 10-12).
As to claim 4, Sheng in view of Li teaches the method of claim 1. Sheng further teaches wherein the ED threshold is further determined based on a channel access priority class (CAPC) (¶¶64-66).
As to claim 17, Sheng in view of Li teaches the method of claim 1. Sheng further teaches wherein the ED threshold is further determined based on at least one of a priority level associated with a package within the transmission, latency requirements or quality of service (QoS) requirements of the transmission (¶¶33-39, 44-46, 49, 52, and 92).
As to claim 20, Sheng in view of Li teaches the method of claim 1. Sheng further teaches wherein the ED threshold is determined further based on at least one of hard-code, downlink control information (DCI), or a radio resource control (RRC) configuration (¶¶51 and 55-56).
As to claim 21, claim 21 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
As to claim 22, claim 22 is rejected the same way as claim 2.
As to claim 23, Sheng in view of Li teaches the apparatus of claim 22. Sheng further teaches wherein the ED threshold is higher for URLLC than for eMBB or mMTC (¶¶49, 59, and 76-79; figures 10-12).
As to claim 24, claim 24 is rejected the same way as claim 4.
As to claim 25, Sheng in view of Li teaches the apparatus of claim 24. Sheng further teaches wherein the ED threshold is different for each CAPC within a plurality of CAPCs (¶¶64-66).
As to claim 35, Sheng in view of Li teaches the apparatus of claim 21.
Li further teaches wherein the ED threshold is higher when the transmission is a retransmission than when the transmission is an initial transmission (¶¶39 and 50-52; figures 3 and 5: ED threshold is determined for LBT before a transmission, the number of CBGs decreasing and the EDT increasing with each retransmission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Sheng in view of Li by including “wherein the ED…of the transmission” as further taught by Li because it provides Sheng in view of Li’s method with the enhanced capability of improving flexibility and efficiency in contention based unlicensed band access (Li, ¶¶15, 39, and 50-52; figures 3 and 5).
As to claim 37, claim 37 is rejected the same way as claim 17.
As to claim 38, Sheng in view of Li teaches the apparatus of claim 37. Sheng further teaches wherein the ED threshold is higher when the latency requirements require a faster latency than when the latency requirements require a slower latency (¶¶33-39, 44-46, 49, 52, and 92).
As to claim 39, Sheng in view of Li teaches the apparatus of claim 37. Sheng further teaches wherein the ED threshold is higher when QoS requirements are higher than when QoS requirements are lower (¶¶33-39, 44-46, 49, 52, and 92).
As to claim 40, claim 40 is rejected the same way as claim 20.
As to claim 41, claim 41 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
As to claim 61, claim 61 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
Claim(s) 6-9, 12, 26-29, and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng in view of Li as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Park et al. US 2018/0242364 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Park”). NOTE: Park was cited by the applicant in the IDS received 9 December 2022.
As to claim 6, Sheng in view of Li teaches the method of claim 1.
Although Sheng in view of Li teaches “The method of claim 1,” Sheng in view of Li does not explicitly disclose “the ED threshold is determined based on a type of the channel”.
However, Park teaches the ED threshold is determined based on a type of the channel (¶¶266-268).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Sheng in view of Li by including “the ED threshold is determined based on a type of the channel” as taught by Park because it provides Sheng in view of Li’s method with the enhanced capability of configuring channels with a higher priority a higher ED threshold (Park, ¶¶266-268).
As to claim 7, Sheng in view of Li, and further in view of Park teaches the method of claim 6.
Park further teaches ED threshold is different when the channel is a control channel than when the channel is a data channel (¶¶266-268).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Sheng in view of Li, and further in view of Park by including “ED threshold is different when the channel is a control channel than when the channel is a data channel” as further taught by Park for the same rationale as set forth in claim 6 (Park, ¶¶266-268).
As to claim 8, Sheng in view of Li, and further in view of Park teaches the method of claim 6.
Park further teaches the ED threshold is a first ED threshold P1 when the channel is a physical random access channel (PRACH), a second ED threshold P2 when the channel is for sounding reference signals (SRS), a third ED threshold P3 when the channel is a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), and a fourth ED threshold P4 when the channel is a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (¶¶266-268).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Sheng in view of Li, and further in view of Park by including “the ED threshold…(PUSCH)” as further taught by Park for the same rationale as set forth in claim 6 (Park, ¶¶266-268).
As to claim 9, Sheng in view of Li, and further in view of Park teaches the method of claim 6.
Park further teaches the ED threshold is determined based on at least one of a priority of the channel or a priority of an uplink (UL) grant received through the channel (¶¶266-268).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Sheng in view of Li, and further in view of Park by including “the ED threshold is determined based on at least one of a priority of the channel or a priority of an uplink (UL) grant received through the channel” as further taught by Park for the same rationale as set forth in claim 6 (Park, ¶¶266-268).
As to claim 12, Sheng in view of Li teaches the method of claim 1.
Although Sheng in view of Li teaches “The method of claim 1,” Sheng in view of Li does not explicitly disclose “the ED…the base station”.
However, Park teaches the ED threshold is further determined based on an actual transmission power at which the UE is configured to transmit the transmission, the actual transmission power being based on a transmission power control (TPC) command received from the base station (¶¶74-75, 162-163, and 177).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Sheng in view of Li by including “the ED…the base station” as taught by Park because it provides Sheng in view of Li’s method with the enhanced capability of reusing eNB signaling for ED threshold indication (Park, ¶¶74-75, 162-163, and 177).
As to claim 26, claim 26 is rejected the same way as claim 6.
As to claim 27, claim 27 is rejected the same way as claim 7.
As to claim 28, claim 28 is rejected the same way as claim 8.
As to claim 29, claim 29 is rejected the same way as claim 9.
As to claim 32, claim 32 is rejected the same way as claim 12.
As to claim 33, Sheng in view of Li, and further in view of Park teaches the apparatus of claim 32.
Park further teaches the ED threshold is proportional to the actual transmission power based on the TPC command (¶¶74-75, 162-163, and 177).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Sheng in view of Li, and further in view of Park by including “the ED threshold is proportional to the actual transmission power based on the TPC command” as further taught by Park for the same rationale as set forth in claim 12 (Park, ¶¶74-75, 162-163, and 177).
Claim(s) 10 and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng in view of Li as applied to claims 1, 6, 21, and 26 above, and further in view of El Hamss et al. US 2023/0072340 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “El Hamss”).
As to claim 10, Sheng in view of Li teaches the method of claim 1.
Although Sheng in view of Li teaches “The method of claim 1,” Sheng in view of Li does not explicitly disclose “wherein the ED…longer COT”.
However, El Hamss teaches wherein the ED threshold is determined further based on a channel occupancy time (COT) for the transmission, wherein the ED threshold is higher for a shorter COT than for a longer COT (¶¶127, 175, and 177: ED threshold based on COT).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Sheng in view of Li by including “wherein the ED…longer COT” as taught by El Hamss because it provides Sheng in view of Li’s method with the enhanced capability of improving the efficiency of channel detection according to current channel conditions (El Hamss, ¶¶5, 127, 163-167, 175, 177, and 186).
As to claim 30, claim 30 is rejected the same way as claim 10.
As to claim 31, Sheng in view of Li, and further in view of El Hamss teaches the apparatus of claim 30. Sheng further teaches COTs of the transmission are divided into a plurality of levels, and the ED threshold is based on the COT level, with a higher ED threshold for a COT level with short COTs than a COT level with longer COTs (¶¶44-53 and 64-66).
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 JUSTIN T VAN ROIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/JUSTIN T VAN ROIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights