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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/5/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 - 4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of VARGAS et al. (US 20200374858).
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 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 the limitation "for the unlicensed frequency band”, and claim 4 recites “in the unlicensed frequency band”. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claims.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn et al. (US 12267169) in view of VARGAS et al. (US 20200374858).
Regarding claim 1, Hahn teaches a transceiver, Fig. 2, 220 may be referred to as a small base station, a relay node, that transmits and receives a radio signal to and from upper node (Fig. 2, 210, Base Station) via a first cell and transmits and receives a radio signal to and from a lower node(Fig. 2, 233, 234) via a second cell (Fig. 2); and a processor that applies a configuration for the unlicensed frequency band when forming the second cell in the unlicensed frequency band (col. 10 line12, the relay 220 may support … unlicensed band communication technologies, and Fig. 7, 702, and col. 15 line 13, transmit the SCI, sidelink control information including resource allocation information of data, to the receiving terminal(s)).
However, Hahn does not expressly teach comprising at least one of channel access parameter, transmission configuration parameter, and frequency band management parameter. VARGAS teaches [0057] in the RAN 100 may utilize licensed spectrum, unlicensed spectrum, or shared spectrum. VARGAS further teaches [0174] the resource information included in the SCI may include time-frequency resources based on sidelink parameters (e.g., SCS and BWP) of the FR1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with VARGAS in order to enable vehicles to obtain information related to the weather, nearby accidents, road conditions, activities of nearby vehicles and pedestrians, objects nearby the vehicle, and other pertinent information that may be utilized to improve the vehicle driving experience, increase vehicle safety, and support autonomous vehicles ([0005], VARGAS).
Regarding claim 2, Hahn teaches wherein the processor applies the configuration for the unlicensed frequency band in units of the radio communication node or a defined frequency band (Fig. 8-9, (9) SCI including resource allocation information of data).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn et al. (US 12267169) in view of Eriksson et al. (US 12166664) and VARGAS et al. (US 20200374858).
Regarding claim 4, Hahn teaches, as in claim 1, a transceiver that transmits and receives a radio signal to and from an upper node via a first cell and transmits and receives a radio signal to and from a lower node via a second cell; and a control unit that applies a configuration as that of the first cell even when the second cell is formed in the unlicensed frequency band (Fig. 2, Fig. 7, 702, and col. 15 line 13, transmit the SCI, sidelink control information, to the receiving terminal(s)).
Hahn does not expressly teach to apply a same configuration. Eriksson teaches Fig. 5, Fig. 10, col. 4, line 32, to satisfy the end to end QoS requirements of bearers, Eriksson further discloses, Col. 31, line 29, two BH RLC channels having same QoS requirements, one that is configured to be routed via IAB3 another via IAB1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with Eriksson in order to enable flexible and very dense deployment of cells without the need for densifying the transport network (col. 1 line 41, Eriksson).
However, neither Hahn nor Eriksson expressly teaches comprising at least one of channel access parameter, transmission configuration parameter, and frequency band management parameter. VARGAS teaches [0174] the resource information included in the SCI may include time-frequency resources based on sidelink parameters (e.g., SCS and BWP) of the FR1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with VARGAS in order to enable vehicles to obtain information related to the weather, nearby accidents, road conditions, activities of nearby vehicles and pedestrians, objects nearby the vehicle, and other pertinent information that may be utilized to improve the vehicle driving experience, increase vehicle safety, and support autonomous vehicles ([0005], VARGAS).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn et al. (US 12267169) modified by VARGAS et al. (US 20200374858), and further in view of LUNTTILA et al. (US 20230055366).
Regarding claim 3, neither Hahn nor VARGAS teaches wherein the processor applies the configuration for the unlicensed frequency band when a second subcarrier spacing wider than a first subcarrier spacing is used in the second cell. LUNTTILA teaches [0112] suboptimal in the unlicensed mmWave scenarios, where due to the high carrier frequency and large subcarrier spacing the PUCCH coverage is significantly restricted. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with LUNTTILA in order to have communication system design improvements supporting UE services and UEs sensitivities to reliability and latency ([0036], LUNTTILA).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNSOOK CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-1822. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 5712723940. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EUNSOOK CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467