DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments, filed 01/15/26, with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claims 3, 5-10, 13-23, 26, 28-33, 36-47, 49 and 51 are canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4, 11-12, 24-25, 27, 34-35, 48 and 50 are pending.
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 of this title, 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 1-2, 4, 11-12, 24-25, 27, 34-35, 48 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (U.S. 20210251002) in view of Damnjanovic et al. (U.S. 20210259016).
For claim 1, Sun et al. disclose a method performed by a wireless device, the method comprising:
receiving signaling from a base station indicative of whether or not the wireless device is to use Listen Before Talk, LBT, for transmissions (at least Fig. 7 and [0092]. The device may correspond to a UE 115 or 400 and may receive the criteria (No-LBT access criteria) via an RRC configuration from a BS 105 or 500.);
determining whether or not to use LBT for transmissions, based on the received signaling and satisfaction of the following condition:
the parameters satisfy criteria (the NO-LBT access criteria) for accessing the medium without employing an LBT procedure. (at least Fig. 3, 7, [0064] and [0092]-[0097]. The device may determine whether the parameters of step satisfy criteria (the NO-LBT access criteria) for accessing the medium without employing an LBT procedure.); and
transmitting based on the determination whether or not to use LBT for transmissions (at least [0103]-[0104]. The device may determine whether to transmit signals without using LBT based on the parameters 703 and the criteria 705 as described in the examples above. The device may determine that a no-LBT transmission is allowed if all criteria 705 are satisfied.) However, Sun et al. do not disclose the directivity of the transmissions from the transmitter is larger than a threshold,
In the same field of endeavor, Damnjanovic et al. disclose the directivity of the transmissions from the transmitter is larger than a threshold (at least [0028]-[0029] and [0058]. The device may compare the energy level detected in the channel to a threshold value. If the energy level exceeds the threshold, the device may determine that the channel is occupied, refrain from transmitting a signal. The BS 205a is along the LOS path 204b where the BS 205b transmits a transmission to the UE 215b. As such, if the BS 205a performs an LBT while the BS 205b is actively transmitting to the UE 215b using the transmission beam 202b, the BS 205a may detect a channel energy exceeding a certain LBT threshold, and thus the BS 205a may determine that the LBT fails and refrain from accessing the channel.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Sun et al. as taught by Damnjanovic et al. for purpose of refraining from accessing the channel.
For claim 2, the combination of Sun et al. and Damnjanovic et al. disclose the method of claim 1. Sun et al. disclose the received signaling from the base station comprises an indication whether or not to use LBT (at least Fig. 7 and [0092]. The device may correspond to a UE 115 or 400 and may receive the criteria (No-LBT access criteria) via an RRC configuration from a BS 105 or 500.)
For claim 4, the combination of Sun et al. and Damnjanovic et al. disclose the method of claim 1. Sun et al. disclose receiving the signaling from the base station comprising one or more of: receiving signaling from the base station based on a Radio Resource Control, RRC, configuration; receiving signaling from the base station via a Medium Access Control-Control Element, MAC-CE; receiving signaling from the base station via a Downlink Control Information, DCI; receiving signaling from the base station via System Information Broadcasting, SIB; receiving signaling from the base station based on RRC configuration; and receiving signaling from the base station in DCI for each transmission (at least Fig. 7 and [0092]. The device may correspond to a UE 115 or 400 and may receive the criteria (No-LBT access criteria) via an RRC configuration from a BS 105 or 500.)
For claim 11, the combination of Sun et al. and Damnjanovic et al. disclose the method of claim 1. Sun et al. disclose wherein a Modulation and Coding Scheme, MCS, is jointly chosen together with a LBT mode (at least [0072]-[0081]. The modem subsystem 512 may be configured to modulate and/or encode data according to a MCS, e.g., a LDPC coding scheme, a turbo coding scheme, a convolutional coding scheme, a digital beamforming scheme, etc. The RF unit 514 may be configured to process (e.g., perform analog to digital conversion or digital to analog conversion, etc.) modulated/encoded data (e.g., PDSCH signal, PDCCH signal, DL data, scheduling grants, RRC configurations, rules for applying no LBT mode) from the modem subsystem 512 (on outbound transmissions) or of transmissions originating from another source such as a UE 115 and/or UE 400.)
For claim 12, the combination of Sun et al. and Damnjanovic et al. disclose the method of claim 1. Sun et al. disclose determining whether or not to use LBT for transmissions further comprises: taking into account the latency requirement of data to be sent (at least [0005]. Aspects of the present disclosure can provide a more efficient use of network resources with reduced latency by providing access to a shared spectrum without performing an LBT.)
For claims 24-25, 27 and 34-35, the claims have features similar to claims 1-2, 4, 11-12. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claims 1-2, 4, 11-12.
For claims 48 and 50, the claims have features similar to claim 1. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DO et al. (U.S. 20190239094) disclose if the sensed power P is greater than the power threshold PT.sub.2 or the sensed power in the omni direction at the receiver, P.sub.Rx, is greater than a power threshold P.sub.TRx,2, the transmitter backs off (block 824) and does not transmit the data according to the LBT procedure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAI PHUONG whose telephone number is 571-272-7896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached on 571-270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-7687.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DAI PHUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights