DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the amendment filed on 25 November 2025, having claims 1-20.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. Applicant’s arguments, filed on 25 November 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Oteri et al. (US 2021/0391906 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2020/0314899 A1) in view of Oteri et al. (US 2021/0391906 A1).
For claim 1, Sun discloses a method, performed by a network node (Fig 1, BS 105), for radio resource pre-reservation for communication of a first wireless device (Fig 1, UE 115) in an unlicensed channel ([0051] unlicensed or shared spectrum), the method comprising:
determining an additional spectrum resource allocable for communication associated with a successful clear channel assessment procedure initiated by the network node ([0052] the BS performs a successful LBT (listen before talk) procedure in a shared channel; [0052] after the LBT 210, the BS transmits a scheduling grant to the UE, wherein the grant indicates a reserved COT (channel occupancy time)), wherein the additional spectrum resource is different from a first resource used for ongoing communication with the first wireless device ([0053] the BS additionally transmits a scheduling grant indicating COT 204 to the UE for uplink communication; COT 204 is different from the original COT 202 that the BS and UE used for ongoing communication); and
transmitting, to the first wireless device, control signaling indicative of the additional spectrum resource ([0052-0053] after the successful LBT procedure, the BS transmits a scheduling grant to the UE, wherein the grant indicates a reserved COT (channel occupancy time)).
For claim 1, Sun does not expressly disclose providing the first wireless device the additional spectrum resource without a requirement of the wireless device initiating a clear channel assessment.
Oteri, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches providing the first wireless device the additional spectrum resource without a requirement of the wireless device initiating a clear channel assessment ([0145] a gNB transmits a DCI (control signalling) indicating an additional/subsequent COT without the WTRU (UE) performing a LBT (CCA) procedure, wherein the subsequent COT is different from an active CSI resource (current COT)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the resource allocation method of Oteri in the communication network of Sun at the time of the invention to provide additional spectrum resource(s) without an LBT/CCA procedure to optimize resources and reduce delay.
For claims 2 and 15, Sun discloses the additional spectrum resource is part of an active bandwidth part ([0049] the BS assigns a BWP to the UE; this BWP is the active BWP).
For claims 3 and 16, Sun discloses the additional spectrum resource is on a configured bandwidth part different from an active bandwidth part ([0049] the BS may assign a pair of BWPs different from the active BWP).
For claims 4 and 14, Sun discloses the control signaling indicative of the additional spectrum resource comprises information indicative of an additional channel occupancy time corresponding to an allowed usage time window of the additional spectrum resource [0052-0053] after the LBT, the BS transmits a scheduling grant to the UE, wherein the grant indicates a reserved COT (channel occupancy time); [0050] the COT is the allowed reserved time window).
For claims 5 and 17, Sun discloses the control signaling indicative of the additional spectrum resource comprises downlink control information indicative of the additional spectrum resource ([0052] the scheduling grant is indicated via downlink control information).
For claim 6, Sun does not expressly disclose performing the clear channel assessment procedure with one or more wireless devices other than the first wireless device. However, Sun discloses that the BS 105 serves plurality of UEs (UE 115a and 115b) (see Fig 1 and [0038]). Sun further discloses that the BS 105 performs the CCA/LBT procedure for at least one UE [0052]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the BS can perform the same CCA/LBT procedure for a plurality of UEs within its coverage based on the teachings of Sun at the time of the invention.
For claim 7, Sun does not expressly disclose the CCA procedure comprises transmitting a signal to the one or more wireless devices after finalizing the CCA procedure with the first wireless device. However, Sun discloses that the BS 105 serves plurality of UEs (UE 115a and 115b) (see Fig 1 and [0038]). Sun further discloses that the BS 105 sends a scheduling grant to the UE(s) after performing the CCA/LBT procedure for at least one UE [0052]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the BS can perform the same resource scheduling procedure for a plurality of UEs within its coverage based on the teachings of Sun at the time of the invention.
For claims 8 and 18, Sun discloses receiving, from the first wireless device, an indication on whether the first wireless device intends to use at least a part of the additional spectrum resource (page 6, [0052] after receiving the scheduling grant, the UE transmits an UL control signal to the BS based on the scheduling grant which would signal the BS that the UE intends to use the uplink grant).
For claims 9 and 19, Sun discloses the indication comprises one or more of: a transmission of uplink data on the additional spectrum resource (page 6, [0052] after receiving the scheduling grant, the UE transmits uplink data), and a response indicating the resource intended for use by the first wireless device (page 6, [0052] after receiving the scheduling grant, the UE transmits an UL control signal to the BS based on the scheduling grant which would signal the BS that the UE intends to use the uplink grant).
For claim 10, Sun discloses transmitting, to the first wireless device, control signalling indicative of the additional spectrum resource comprises transmitting, to the first wireless device, the control signalling indicative of the additional spectrum resource without receiving a scheduling request corresponding to the additional spectrum resource from the first wireless device ([0052-0053] the BS transmits the scheduling grant to the UE after performing the LBT/CCA procedure without receiving a scheduling request from the UE).
For claim 11, Sun discloses transmitting, to the first wireless device, control signalling indicative of the additional spectrum resource comprises transmitting, to the first wireless device, over an open shared spectrum, the control signalling indicative of the additional spectrum resource ([0051] the network node (BS) performs the resource scheduling method in a shared spectrum, wherein the UE receives a scheduling grant from the BS).
For claim 12, Sun discloses transmitting, to the first wireless device, control signalling indicative of the additional spectrum resource comprises transmitting, to the first wireless device, over a restricted non-open spectrum, the control signalling indicative of the additional spectrum resource ([0051] the network node (BS) transmits to the UE a scheduling grant for uplink communication, wherein [0044] the communication may be over a licensed (i.e., restricted) spectrum).
For claim 13, Sun discloses a method, performed by a wireless device (Fig 1, UE 115), the method comprising: receiving, from a network node (Fig 1, BS 105), control signalling indicative of an additional spectrum resource where a clear channel assessment has been successfully performed by the network node ([0052] the BS performs a successful LBT (listen before talk) procedure in a shared channel; [0052] after the LBT 210, the BS transmits a scheduling grant to the UE, wherein the grant indicates a reserved COT (channel occupancy time)),
wherein the additional spectrum resource is different from a first resource used for ongoing communication between the wireless device and the network node ([0053] the BS additionally transmits a scheduling grant indicating COT 204 to the UE for uplink communication; COT 204 is different from the original COT 202 that the BS and UE used for ongoing communication).
For claim 13, Sun does not expressly disclose providing the first wireless device the additional spectrum resource without a requirement of the wireless device initiating a clear channel assessment.
Oteri, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches providing the first wireless device the additional spectrum resource without a requirement of the wireless device initiating a clear channel assessment ([0145] a gNB transmits a DCI (control signalling) indicating an additional/subsequent COT without the WTRU (UE) performing a LBT (CCA) procedure, wherein the subsequent COT is different from an active CSI resource (current COT)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the resource allocation method of Oteri in the communication network of Sun at the time of the invention to provide additional spectrum resource(s) without an LBT/CCA procedure to optimize resources and reduce delay.
For claim 20, Sun discloses receiving, from the network node, the control signalling indicative of the additional spectrum resource comprises receiving, from the network node, over an open shared spectrum, the control signalling indicative of the additional spectrum resource ([0051] the network node (BS) performs the resource scheduling method in a shared spectrum, wherein the UE receives a scheduling grant from the BS).
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM ET.
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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights