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 .
The instant office action is in response to communication filed on 02/27/2023.
Claims 1-15 are pending of which claims 1 and 15 are independent.
The IDS(s) submitted on 02/27/2023, 02/15/2024 and 05/06/2024 has been considered. Pertinent prior art has been identified and applied.
The earliest priority of the application is 09/02/2020.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant’s paragraph 31, first line recites Fig. 2 but has to be Fig. 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “…a carrier sensing processing unit…” and “…a transmission processing unit…” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al ( JP2017168902A, hereinafter referred to as Suzuki – retrieved from IDS submitted on 2/15/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses a wireless communication method in a wireless communication system (i.e. Fig. 1 and paragraph 22 describes a system of 2 different Base Stations where each Base Station belongs to two different BSS (Basic Set Service) as described in paragraphs 3, 4 and 35) comprising: a carrier sense processing (Per paragraph 4 carrier sensing is measuring interference in a particular frequency band using RSSI (Received Signal Strength Indicator) ) in which it is determined whether a carrier sense band (i.e. per paragraph 22 carrier sense band is the bandwidth adjacent to the occupied bandwidth. The adjacent bandwidth is the carrier sense band and is the bandwidth used by the second BS/BSS possibly interfering in the operation of the first BS/BSS in its own bandwidth referred to as occupied band width) is in a busy state or an idle state based on a reception state of a reception signal in the carrier sense band before transmitting a transmission signal using a transmission channel (i.e. the transmission channel is the occupied bandwidth that the first BS/BSS uses for transmission and per paragraph 22 after conducting a sensing in the occupied bandwidth for interference using RSSI in step S1 of Fig. 1 if the result is indicative of no interference as indicated in S3 of Fig. 1 then the adjacent bandwidth used by neighboring second BS/BSS is monitored and measured for interference using RSSI in steps S4 and S5 of Fig. 1. If the result in the carrier sensing bandwidth which is the adjacent bandwidth indicates an RSSI value that exceeds a threshold then the transmission channel/ occupied bandwidth will be unavailable/busy per S6 of Fig. 1. Further if the transmission channel/occupied bandwidth is not interfered with any signal measured via RSSI is less than the threshold and in the adjacent bandwidth. If there is no signal detected or the measured signal via RSSI is less than the threshold the per S7 of Fig. 1 then the transmission channel/occupied bandwidth is free or idle or available ) ; and transmission processing in which a transmission signal is transmitted by using the transmission channel when it is determined that the carrier sense band is in the idle state (Fig. 1 steps S6 and S7 indicating transmission occurs in the transmission channel/occupied bandwidth when the carrier sensing bandwidth/adjacent bandwidth has no signal detected or the detected signal is below the threshold) ; wherein the carrier sense band is set so as to include not only a transmission channel band which is a frequency band of the transmission channel but also an adjacent carrier sense band adjacent to the transmission channel band. (Per paragraph 22 and Fig. 1 steps S1 to S7 in general but in particular steps S3 and S5 of Fig. 1 indicate carrier sensing in both the transmission channel/occupied bandwidth and the adjacent bandwidth. Paragraph 22 and Fig. 1 capture the entire scope of independent claim 1 but however entire disclosure of Suzuki is relevant such as Fig. 5 in relation to paragraphs 29-31.)
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki discloses a wireless communication device (i.e. Fig. 6 per paragraph 34 is the wireless communication device ) in a wireless communication system (i.e. Fig. 1 and paragraph 22 describes a system of 2 different Base Stations where each Base Station belongs to two different BSS (Basic Set Service) as described in paragraphs 3, 4 and 35) a carrier sense processing unit configured (Fig. 6 Monitoring Control Section 12 plus Transmission Control Part 14 is the career sensing processing unit per paragraphs 34 and 36 and is to determine whether a carrier sense band is in idle or busy state ) in a busy state or an idle state based on a reception state of a reception signal in the carrier sense band (i.e. per paragraph 22 and Fig. 1 steps S1 – S7 the carrier sensing band is the combination of the transmission channel/occupied bandwidth of the apparatus to be used for transmission plus the adjacent bandwidth occupied by an interfering device and sensing is first done on the transmission/occupied bandwidth and if the RSSI indicates no signal received and if the sensing on the adjacent bandwidth shows no signal received or received signal strength is less than threshold then the transmission channel/occupied is busy and if otherwise available. Fig. 1 S6 shows conditions for unavailable/busy of occupied/transmission channel and S7 shows conditions for idle state of occupied/transmission channel) , and a transmission processing unit (i.e. Fig. 6 transmission processing unit 15) transmitting the transmission signal by using the transmission channel ( i.e. occupied channel per paragraph 22) when it is determined that the carrier sense band is in the idle state ( Fig. 1 S7 shows conditions for idle state of occupied/transmission channel and transmission processing is conducted when the transmission channel/occupied bandwidth is idle.), wherein the carrier sense processing unit (Fig. 6 Monitoring Control Section 12 plus Transmission Control Part 14 is the career sensing processing unit per paragraphs 34 and 36 and is to determine whether a carrier sense band is in idle or busy state in both the transmission/ channel/occupied bandwidth and adjacent bandwidth by conducting sensing in both bandwidths) sets the carrier sense band so as to include not only a transmission channel band that is a frequency band of
the transmission channel but also an adjacent carrier sense band adjacent to the transmission channel band. .(Per paragraph 22 and Fig. 1 steps S1 to S7 in general but in particular steps S3 and S5 of Fig. 1 indicate carrier sensing in both the transmission channel/occupied bandwidth and the adjacent bandwidth. Paragraph 22 and Fig. 1 capture the entire scope of independent claim 15 but however entire disclosure of Suzuki is relevant such as Fig. 5 in relation to paragraphs 29-31.)
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Fujii et al (US 20090088083 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki discloses the wireless communication method according to claim 1, including wherein the adjacent carrier sense band is set to as to include a frequency band in which leakage power See Figs. 2 and 3 shows transmission spectrum mask and in paragraph 7 the transmission power spectrum of the occupied channel encompassing adjacent frequency band with leakage power and in paragraph 31 it is shown that the leakage power is derived from the transmission power spectrum in that it is used to adjust the actual transmission power of the system) or transmission power density of the transmission signal is equal to or more than a predetermined value. (i.e. in Fig. 1 S3 in paragraph 22 if the transmission power measured/sensed in the transmission channel/occupied channel is greater than a predetermined value then transmission stopped)
Suzuki fails to disclose the adjacent carrier sense band is set to as to include a frequency band in which leakage power density predicted from a transmission spectrum mask used in the wireless communication system.
Fuji in the same endeavor discloses the adjacent carrier sense band is set to as to include a frequency band in which leakage power density predicted from a transmission spectrum mask used in the wireless communication system. (i.e. Fujii in paragraph 55 discloses the maximum adjacent channel leakage power of a transmission signal is defined as a transmit spectrum mask based on a frequency waveform of the transmission signal. Therefore, the transmission power density in a frequency band of a system may be obtained based on the transmit spectrum mask of the system or based on measured characteristics of a transmitting device. Fujii discloses in paragraph 58 equation 2 shows relationship adjacent leakage power density and max transmission power spectrum )
In view of the above, having Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission and then given the well- established teaching of Fujii ‘s techniques for leakage power determination, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission as taught by Fujii ‘s techniques for leakage power determination, since Fujii states in paragraph 150 that the modification results in using the same frequency band at short (distance) intervals and therefore it is possible to improve the frequency efficiency. In other words, it is possible to achieve high system capacity.
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki discloses the wireless communication method according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the adjacent carrier sense band is set so that a transmission spectrum mask used in the wireless communication system includes a frequency band higher than a transmission spectrum mask used in another wireless communication system using the same frequency band as the wireless communication system.
Fuji in the same endeavor discloses wherein the adjacent carrier sense band is set so that a transmission spectrum mask used in the wireless communication system includes a frequency band higher than a transmission spectrum mask used in another wireless communication system using the same frequency band as the wireless communication system. (See Fig. 3 System 1000 transmission frequency band is narrower/lower than adjacent band of wireless communication system 2000. Therefore the transmission spectrum mask of system 2000 includes higher/wider frequency band than the narrower/lower frequency band included in the transmission spectrum mask used in wireless communication system 1000.)
In view of the above, having Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission and then given the well- established teaching of Fujii ‘s techniques for leakage power determination, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission as taught by Fujii ‘s techniques for leakage power determination, since Fujii states in paragraph 150 that the modification results in using the same frequency band at short (distance) intervals and therefore it is possible to improve the frequency efficiency. In other words, it is possible to achieve high system capacity.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Hohne et al (US 20210329565 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki discloses the wireless communication method according to claim 1 as set forth above, but fails to disclose wherein the bandwidth of the adjacent carrier sense band is an integer multiple of a unit channel bandwidth defined in the wireless communication system or another wireless communication system using the same frequency band as the wireless communication system.
Hohne in the same endeavor discloses adjusting sub-band robustness to the outcome of listen before talk. Hohne further discloses the bandwidth of the adjacent carrier sense band (i.e. Fig. 3 shows adjacent bandwidth 320 sensed for interference and is adjacent to the transmission band is 310) is an integer multiple of a unit channel bandwidth (i.e. adjacent bandwidth channel 320 is a total 40 MHZ and is a multiple of unit channel bandwidth 20 MHZ – see paragraphs 70-72) defined in the wireless communication system (See Fig. 1 communication system using 20MHZ bandwidth as unit channel bandwidth) or another wireless communication system using the same frequency band as the wireless communication system.(i.e. New Radio/5G Communication System using 20 MHZ)
In view of the above, having Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission and then given the well- established teaching of Hohne‘s techniques of filtering adjacent sub-bands as needed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission as taught by Hohne‘s techniques of filtering adjacent sub-bands as needed, since Hohne states in paragraph 72 that the modification results in a receiver sampling the whole wideband signal (for example, 4×20 MHz) and use digital processing to filter out sub-bands as needed. and mitigates the effect of the adjacent sub-band interference 320 to the own (in this instance 20 MHz) signal 310 by boosting the transmit power for particular sub-band(s).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Hui et al (US 20150043519 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki discloses the wireless communication method according to claim 1 as set forth above, but fails to disclose wherein the wireless communication system uses a 920MHz band, the adjacent carrier sense band is set so as to have a bandwidth of an integer multiple of 200kHz on each of the right and left sides of the transmission channel band on a frequency axis.
Hui in the same endeavor discloses wherein the wireless communication system uses a 920MHz band,(i.e. See Paragraph 62 a 920 MHZ band) the adjacent carrier sense band is set so as to have a bandwidth of an integer multiple of 200kHz ( i.e. channel 200 KHZ per paragraph 62 and the bandwidth is multiple of 200 KHZ) on each of the right and left sides of the transmission channel band on a frequency axis.(See paragraphs 64-68 indicating right and left sides of the transmission channel band on a frequency axis)
In view of the above, having Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission and then given the well- established teaching of Hui’s techniques of 920 MHZ, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission as taught by Hui’s techniques of 920 MHZ, since Hui states in paragraph 62 that the modification results 920 MHZ for use with Smart Utility Networks (SUN).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9, 10 , 11, 12, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Iyer et al (US 20210235492 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki discloses the wireless communication method according to claim 1 as set forth above, but fails to disclose wherein the carrier sense band is divided into a plurality of divided carrier sense bands, the carrier sense processing includes divided carrier sense processing for determining whether each of the plurality of divided carrier sense bands is in the busy state or in the idle state on the basis of the reception state of the reception signal in each of the plurality of divided carrier sense bands.
Iyer discloses in the same endeavor channelization and BWP. Iyer further discloses wherein the carrier sense band is divided into a plurality of divided carrier sense bands (i.e. .the carrier sense band is divided into anchor sub-band and multiple subordinate sub-bands shown in Figs. 2A, 2B, 8A, and 8B show divided carrier sense bands) , the carrier sense processing includes divided carrier sense processing for determining whether each of the plurality of divided carrier sense bands is in the busy state or in the idle state on the basis of the reception state of the reception signal in each of the plurality of divided carrier sense bands. (See Fig. 9 steps 212-217 in relation to paragraphs 130-131 and in Fig. 7B subordinate channels after sensing received signal in each sub channel are either marked available or busy/not available)
In view of the above, having Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission and then given the well- established teaching of Iyer ‘s techniques of using divided carrier sense bands, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission as taught by Iyer ‘s techniques of using divided carrier sense bands, since Iyer states in paragraph 15 that the modification results in supporting flexible carrier bandwidths in new radio/5G system.
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki modified by Iyer discloses the wireless communication method according to claim 6 as set forth above, but Suzuki fails to disclose wherein the divided carrier sense processing for each of the plurality of divided carrier sense bands includes a processing of comparing a received power of the received signal in each of the plurality of divided carrier sense bands with a carrier sense threshold, the carrier sense threshold is set independently for each of the plurality of divided carrier sense bands.
Iyer discloses in the same endeavor channelization and BWP. Iyer further discloses wherein the divided carrier sense processing for each of the plurality of divided carrier sense bands includes a processing of comparing a received power of the received signal in each of the plurality of divided carrier sense bands with a carrier sense threshold, the carrier sense threshold is set independently for each of the plurality of divided carrier sense bands.(Per Iyer paragraph 209 the threshold may be different for different channels. The gNB may indicate the channel sensing option(s) and the related threshold(s) to the UE. This information may be carried on the UL grant DCI as exemplified in Table 2.)
In view of the above, having Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission and then given the well- established teaching of Iyer ‘s techniques of using divided carrier sense bands, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission as taught by Iyer ‘s techniques of using divided carrier sense bands, since Iyer states in paragraph 15 that the modification results in supporting flexible carrier bandwidths in new radio/5G system.
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki modified by Iyer discloses the wireless communication method according to claim 6 and Suzuki further discloses wherein the carrier sense band is divided into the transmission channel band and the adjacent carrier sense band. . (Per paragraph 22 and Fig. 1 steps S1 to S7 in general but in particular steps S3 and S5 of Fig. 1 indicate carrier sensing in both the transmission channel/occupied bandwidth and the adjacent bandwidth. Iyer also teaches anchor band as the transmission band and sub-ordinate band as the adjacent band)
The motivation to combine Suzuki and Iyer is set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki modified by Iyer discloses the wireless communication method according to claim 6 as set forth above, but Suzuki fails to disclose wherein a bandwidth of each of the plurality of divided carrier sense bands is narrower than a bandwidth of the transmission channel band, the plurality of divided carrier sense bands do not overlap each other and are continuous on a frequency axis.
Iyer discloses in the same endeavor wherein a bandwidth of each of the plurality of divided carrier sense bands is narrower than a bandwidth of the transmission channel band, the plurality of divided carrier sense bands do not overlap each other and are continuous on a frequency axis.(See Figs. 2A, 3A, 4A, 4B, 5A and 5B showing the plurality of divided carrier sense bands do not overlap each other and are continuous on a frequency axis. Further in Fig. 4B it is shown wherein a bandwidth of each of the plurality of divided carrier sense bands is narrower than a bandwidth of the transmission channel band available for transmission.)
In view of the above, having Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission and then given the well- established teaching of Iyer ‘s techniques of using divided carrier sense bands, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission as taught by Iyer ‘s techniques of using divided carrier sense bands, since Iyer states in paragraph 15 that the modification results in supporting flexible carrier bandwidths in new radio/5G system.
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki modified by Iyer discloses the wireless communication method according to claim 6 as set forth above, but Suzuki fails to disclose the plurality of divided carrier sense bands are sequentially shifted on a frequency axis so that adjacent divided carrier sense bands partially overlap each other.
Iyer in the same endeavor discloses the plurality of divided carrier sense bands are sequentially shifted on a frequency axis so that adjacent divided carrier sense bands partially overlap each other. (Per paragraph 220 there is overlap between PUSCH1 and PUSCH2 as shown in Fig. 48C and Fig. 48D)
In view of the above, having Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission and then given the well- established teaching of Iyer ‘s techniques of using divided carrier sense bands, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission as taught by Iyer ‘s techniques of using divided carrier sense bands, since Iyer states in paragraph 15 that the modification results in supporting flexible carrier bandwidths in new radio/5G system.
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki modified by Iyer discloses the wireless communication method according to claim 6 as set forth above, but Suzuki fails to disclose wherein the bandwidth of the adjacent carrier sense band is an integer multiple of a unit channel bandwidth defined in the wireless communication system or another wireless communication system using the same frequency band as the wireless communication system, the adjacent carrier sense band is divided into divided carrier sense bands for each unit channel bandwidth.
Iyer in the same endeavor discloses wherein the bandwidth of the adjacent carrier sense band is an integer multiple of a unit channel bandwidth defined in the wireless communication system (See Fig. 2A defining 20MHZ channel bandwidth as a unit channel bandwidth and in Fig. 2B the adjacent carrier sense band is 60MHz which is three times the unit channel bandwidth 20 MHZ )for another wireless communication system using the same frequency band as the wireless communication system.(See Fig. 2B paragraph 20 the communication system is New Radio (NR)), the adjacent carrier sense band is divided into divided carrier sense bands for each unit channel bandwidth. ( Fig. 2B the adjacent carrier sense band is 60MHz which is three times the unit channel bandwidth 20 MHZ . See paragraphs 120-121 )
In view of the above, having Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission and then given the well- established teaching of Iyer ‘s techniques of using divided carrier sense bands, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission as taught by Iyer ‘s techniques of using divided carrier sense bands, since Iyer states in paragraph 15 that the modification results in supporting flexible carrier bandwidths in new radio/5G system.
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki modified by Iyer discloses the wireless communication method according to claim 6 as set forth above, but Suzuki fails to disclose wherein the carrier sense processing includes processing for determining that the carrier sense band is in the idle state when it is determined that all of the plurality of divided carrier sense bands are in the idle state.
Iyer in the same endeavor discloses wherein the carrier sense processing includes processing for determining that the carrier sense band is in the idle state when it is determined that all of the plurality of divided carrier sense bands are in the idle state.(See Fig. 10 step 221 where the carrier sense band is a wide band and consists plurality of divided carrier sense bands being anchor band and multiple subordinates bands and in Fig. 10 step 222 sensing using CAT4 WBLT over the multiple bands and if the sensing is successful in step 223 then all of the channels are idle and available for access as a composite channel in step 224. See also Fig. 9 steps 211, 212, 213, 214 disclosing the same as what is disclosed in Fig. 11)
In view of the above, having Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission and then given the well- established teaching of Iyer ‘s techniques of using divided carrier sense bands, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission as taught by Iyer ‘s techniques of using divided carrier sense bands, since Iyer states in paragraph 15 that the modification results in supporting flexible carrier bandwidths in new radio/5G system.
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki modified by Iyer discloses the wireless communication method according to claim 6 as set forth above, but Suzuki fails to disclose wherein the carrier sense processing includes processing for determining that the carrier sense band is in the idle state when it is determined that a specific divided carrier sense band out of the plurality of divided carrier sense bands is in the idle state and it is determined that a fixed rate or more of divided carrier sense bands other than the specific divided carrier sense band is in the idle state.
Iyer in the same endeavor discloses wherein the carrier sense processing includes processing for determining that the carrier sense band is in the idle state when it is determined that a specific divided carrier sense band out of the plurality of divided carrier sense bands is in the idle state (Fig. 11 step 235 indicates a single or a particular subordinate channel is sensed to be idle if the single channel Listen Before talk (SLBT) is successful) )and it is determined that a fixed rate or more of divided carrier sense bands other than the specific divided carrier sense band is in the idle state.(Fig. 11 step 235 and 237 other than the specific divided carrier sense more subordinate channels as a group are selected and sensed with LBT and determined to be idle/available)
In view of the above, having Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission and then given the well- established teaching of Iyer ‘s techniques of using divided carrier sense bands, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission as taught by Iyer ‘s techniques of using divided carrier sense bands, since Iyer states in paragraph 15 that the modification results in supporting flexible carrier bandwidths in new radio/5G system.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Iyer and further in view of Gu et al (US 20190059104 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki modified by Iyer discloses the wireless communication method according to claim 7 as set forth above, but fails to disclose wherein the carrier sense threshold value for each of the plurality of divided carrier sense bands as set so as to be higher as the transmission power of the transmission signal assumed in each of the plurality of divided carrier sense bands becomes smaller. Gu in the same endeavor disclose channel sensing and further discloses wherein the carrier sense threshold value for each of the plurality of divided carrier sense bands as set so as to be higher as the transmission power of the transmission signal assumed in each of the plurality of divided carrier sense bands becomes smaller.(Gu teaches in a given divided carrier sense band the carrier sense threshold level is related to the transmission power of the transmission signal power in the divided carrier senses band as detailed in paragraphs 10, 11 && 117, 121 in reference to Figs. 2 and 3. In particular in paragraph 10 it indicates the channel sensing threshold is higher than the transmission signal power in the divided carrier senses band and is unadvisable if the threshold happens to be too high as it will allow power leakage in neighboring adjacent bands. See also paragraphs 34, 78, and 124-128.)
In view of the above, having Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission modified by Iyer ‘s techniques of using divided carrier sense bands and then given the well- established teaching of Gu’s techniques for adapting channel sensing threshold, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to further modify Suzuki ’s carrier sensing procedure for transmission modified by Iyer ‘s techniques of using divided carrier sense bands as taught by Gu’s techniques for adapting channel sensing threshold, since Gu states in paragraphs 42-44 that the modification results in realizing flexible channel access while maintaining balance of channel access opportunity among multiple RATs and thereby increasing efficiency.
Examiner’s Note: Garcia Rodriguez et al (US 20230261771 A1) discloses all aspects and limitations of independent claims 1 and 15 in Fig. 7 and should be considered by Applicant when amending the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HABTE MERED whose telephone number is (571)272-6046. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12-10 PM 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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/HABTE MERED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474