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 Amendment
The following is a final office action in response to applicant’s reply, filed on 07/29/2026, to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 04/29/2026.
Claims 61 and 79 are amended. Claims 61-80 are pending and addressed below.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome claim objections, previously set forth in the non-final office action. Applicant’s amendment to the claims has not meaningfully changed the claims to overcome prior art teaching.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim 79 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee; Anthony et al US 20220022252 A1, hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 79, Lee teaches, an apparatus, for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to:
receive, from a base station, an instruction to perform channel sensing within a period (Lee Fig. 9B, 10; [218] “In some embodiments, an indication of the predefined period of time or value of a timer may be received from a base station.”, teaches receiving LBT (=channel sensing) parameters from the base station, therefore, instructing to perform LBT according to these parameters);
perform channel sensing in sensing slots within the period (“Sensing slots” is interpretated as a sensing duration with a period of time to perform sensing, in line with the Spec [26]. Lee [323] “The medium sensing operation may include CCA, which utilizes at least ED to determine the presence or absence of other signals on a channel in order to determine if a channel is occupied or clear. … ED may include sensing RF energy across an intended transmission band for a period of time and comparing the sensed RF energy to a predefined or configured threshold.”, implying a sensing slot for sensing, CCA (Clear Channel Assessment), ED (Energy Detection); Lee Fig. 9B, 10; [218] “In some embodiments, determining that the count has met the threshold may include determining that the count has met the threshold within a predefined period of time”, teaches performing LBT withing a time period);
count a first number of failed sensing slots within the period (Lee Fig. 9B, 10; [218] “In some embodiments, determining that the count has met the threshold may include determining that the count has met the threshold within a predefined period of time”, teaches counting within the period); and
transmit a first indicator associated with the first number of failed sensing slots (Lee Fig. 9B, 10; [218] “In some embodiments, the UE may transmit, to a network (e.g., a network entity such as base station 102), a report based on determining that the count has met the threshold.”, teaches sending a report (=indication) of counted failed instances).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 61, 63, 73 and 75 are rejected rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei; Alireza et al US 20170231005 A1, hereinafter Babaei, in view of Liu; Huichun et al US 20230077269 A1, hereinafter Liu;
Regarding claim 61, Babaei teaches, an apparatus, for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to:
count a first number of failed channel access procedures (Babaei [226] teaches, counting failed LBT (Listen-Before-Talk = channel access) to a value (=first number)); and
Babaei does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches, transmit, to a base station, a first indicator associated with the first number of failed channel access procedures and associated with a reason for the failed channel access procedures, wherein the reason is an uplink channel access failure or hidden node interference (Liu [47] “In some implementations, a UE may be configured to provide a connection establishment failure (CEF) report with LBT information, such as a LBT Failure Indication. … The failure information may include a RACH failure cause value for a LBT failure, an indication of UL LBT failure or DL LBT failure, a number of consistent LBT failure(s), …”, teaches transmitting number of LBT (Listen Before Talk = channel access) failures, and reason for LBT failure indicating UL LBT failure (=uplink channel access failure). Satisfies “or” criteria of the claim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Babaei to include the features as taught by Liu above in order to provide enhanced data collection for new radio (NR)-unlicensed (U) (Liu [0001]).
Regarding claim 73, Babaei teaches, an apparatus, for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to:
receive, from a user equipment (UE), assistant information … (Babaei [226]-[227] teaches, eNB receiving from UE a LBT failure (=failed channel access procedures) counter value and qualitative feedback based on the counter value); and schedule an uplink transmission for the UE based at least in part on the assistant information (Babaei [233]-[234] teaches, eNB performs uplink scheduling based on the failure indication received from the UE).
Babaei does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches, assistant information that includes an indicator associated with a number of failed channel access procedures and a reason for the failed channel access procedures, including an uplink channel access failure or hidden node interference (Liu [47] “In some implementations, a UE may be configured to provide a connection establishment failure (CEF) report with LBT information, such as a LBT Failure Indication. … The failure information may include a RACH failure cause value for a LBT failure, an indication of UL LBT failure or DL LBT failure, a number of consistent LBT failure(s), …”, teaches transmitting number of LBT (Listen Before Talk = channel access) failures, and reason for LBT failure indicating UL LBT failure (=uplink channel access failure). Satisfies “or” criteria of the claim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Babaei to include the features as taught by Liu above in order to provide enhanced data collection for new radio (NR)-unlicensed (U) (Liu [0001]).
Regarding claims 63 and 75, Babaei, in view of Liu, teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 61 and 73.
Babaei further teaches, wherein the first indicator indicates the first number of failed channel access procedures (see Babaei [226]-[227] teaching indicating number of LBT failure).
Claims 62, 71 and 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei, in view of Liu, as applied to claim 61 and 73 above, in view of Babaei; Alireza US 20210204318 A1, hereinafter Alireza.
Regarding claims 62 and 74, Babaei, in view of Liu, teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 61 and 73.
Babaei and Liu do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Alireza teaches, wherein the first indicator is one bit for indicating whether the first number of failed channel access procedures reaches a maximum value (Alireza [299] “…the wireless device may trigger/determine consistent LBT failure for the cell based on the LBT counter for the cell (e.g., for the active bandwidth part of the cell) reaching a threshold (e.g., maximum count of LBT failure instances) configured for the cell (e.g., for active bandwidth part of the cell). The wireless device may transmit an LBT failure MAC CE…The LBT failure MAC CE may comprise a plurality of bits. The plurality of bits may comprise a first bit and a second plurality of bits…A first value (e.g., one) of a bit (e.g., the first bit or the second plurality of bits) in the plurality of bits may indicate that consistent LBT failure is triggered for a serving cell corresponding to the bit.”, teaches a one-bit based indication when failure counter reaches maximum count).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Babaei and Liu to include the features as taught by Alireza above in order to provide a technique to achieve recovery from consistent uplink listen-before-talk (LBT) failure (Alireza [0005]).
Regarding claim 71, Babaei, in view of Liu, teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claim 61.
Babaei and Liu do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Alireza teaches, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to reset a counter in response to a successful channel access procedure (Alireza [203] “the wireless device may reset the uplink LBT counter… based on transmitting an uplink channel or uplink signal on the cell/BWP in response to successful uplink LBT.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Babaei and Liu to include the features as taught by Alireza above in order to provide a technique to achieve recovery from consistent uplink listen-before-talk (LBT) failure (Alireza [0005]).
Claim 80 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Babaei; Alireza US 20210204318 A1, hereinafter Alireza.
Regarding claim 80, Lee teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claim 79.
Lee does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Alireza teaches, wherein the first indicator is: one bit for indicating whether the first number of failed sensing slots is larger than or equal to a maximum value (Alireza [299] “…the wireless device may trigger/determine consistent LBT failure for the cell based on the LBT counter for the cell (e.g., for the active bandwidth part of the cell) reaching a threshold (e.g., maximum count of LBT failure instances) configured for the cell (e.g., for active bandwidth part of the cell). The wireless device may transmit an LBT failure MAC CE…The LBT failure MAC CE may comprise a plurality of bits. The plurality of bits may comprise a first bit and a second plurality of bits…A first value (e.g., one) of a bit (e.g., the first bit or the second plurality of bits) in the plurality of bits may indicate that consistent LBT failure is triggered for a serving cell corresponding to the bit.”, teaches a one-bit based indication when failure counter reaches maximum count. Satisfies “or” criteria of the claim); or one bit for indicating whether a proportion of the first number of failed sensing slots to a total number of the sensing slots within the period is larger than or equal to a maximum value.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Babaei to include the features as taught by Alireza above in order to provide a technique to achieve recovery from consistent uplink listen-before-talk (LBT) failure (Alireza [0005]).
Claims 64 and 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei, in view of Liu, as applied to claims 61 and 73 above, and further in view of Tooher; J. Patrick et al US 20180103458 A1, hereinafter Tooher.
Regarding claims 64 and 76, Babaei, in view of Liu, teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 61 and 73.
Babaei and Liu do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Tooher teaches, wherein the first indicator is transmitted in periodic channel state information reporting (Tooher [233] teaches, reporting channel access failure (during CCA (Clear Channel Assessment) process) as part of periodic CSI (Channel State Information) report).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Babaei and Liu to include the features as taught by Tooher above in order to minimize interference and/or provide for fair access among the users of the unlicensed spectrum (Tooher [0003]).
Claims 65 and 77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei, in view of Liu, as applied to claims 61 and 73 above, and further in view of Tooher; J. Patrick et al US 20180103458 A1, hereinafter Tooher, and further in view of AHN; Joonkui et al US 20180270757 A1, hereinafter Ahn.
Regarding claims 65 and 77, Babaei, in view of Liu, teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 61 and 73.
Babaei and Liu do not expressly teach, wherein the first indicator is transmitted in channel state information reporting triggered by a base station.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tooher teaches, wherein the first indicator is transmitted in channel state information reporting (Tooher [233] teaches, reporting channel access failure (during CCA (Clear Channel Assessment) process) as part of aperiodic CSI (Channel State Information) report).
Babaei, Liu and Tooher do not expressly teach, CSI report is triggered by base station.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ahn teaches, CSI report is triggered by base station (Ahn [104]-[105] teaches, aperiodic CSI report is triggered by base station).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Babaei, Liu and Tooher to include the features as taught by Ahn above in order to provide a method for discontinuous reception (DRX) in an unlicensed band (Ahn [0007]).
Claims 66-67 and 69-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei, in view of Liu, as applied to claims 61 and 73, and further in view of CHEN; HUNG-CHEN et al US 20200221495 A1, hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 66, Babaei, in view of Liu, teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claim 61.
Babaei and Liu do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches, wherein the first number of failed channel access procedures is associated with different types of failed channel access procedures counted by a single counter (see Chen [53] “… MAC operations (e.g., RACH procedure, SR procedure), and there may be a common LBT failure counter for all MAC operations.”, teaching LBT failure is associated with different procedures).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Babaei and Liu to include the features as taught by Chen above in order for an improved and efficient mechanism for a UE to handle LBT failure that may take place in the physical layer (Chen [0003]).
Regarding claim 67, Babaei, in view of Liu, teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claim 61.
Babaei and Liu do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches, wherein the first number of failed channel access procedures is associated with failed channel access procedures for different types of uplink channels counted by a single counter (see Chen [53] “The MAC entity may increase the LBT failure counter by 1 when receiving an LBT failure indication.… MAC operations (e.g., RACH procedure, SR procedure), and there may be a common LBT failure counter for all MAC operations.”, implying different types of UL channels such as PRACH associated with RACH procedure, PUCCH associated with SR procedure (see Chen [50] “when the MAC entity indicates/instructs the lower layer to transmit a random access preamble, the MAC entity may start or restart the LBT success timer in the first symbol of the selected valid PRACH resource…PUCCH resource for the SR”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Babaei and Liu to include the features as taught by Chen above in order for an improved and efficient mechanism for a UE to handle LBT failure that may take place in the physical layer (Chen [0003]).
Regarding claim 69, Babaei, in view of Liu, teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claim 61.
Babaei and Liu do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches, wherein the first number of failed channel access procedures is associated with a first type of failed channel access procedures, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to: count a second number of a second type of failed channel access procedures; and transmit a second indicator associated with the second number of the second type of failed channel access procedures (This claim is about different counters for different types of channel access procedures. Chen [53] “… The MAC entity may increase the LBT failure counter by 1 when receiving an LBT failure indication…MAC operations (e.g., RACH procedure, SR procedure) ... In one implementation, there may be different LBT failure counters for different MAC operations.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Babaei and Liu to include the features as taught by Chen above in order for an improved and efficient mechanism for a UE to handle LBT failure that may take place in the physical layer (Chen [0003]).
Regarding claim 70, Babaei, in view of Liu, teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claim 61.
Babaei and Liu do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches, wherein the first number of failed channel access procedures is associated with failed channel access procedures for a first type of uplink channels, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to: count a second number of failed channel access procedures for a second type of uplink channels; and transmit a second indicator associated with the second number of failed channel access procedures for the second type of uplink channels (This claim is about different counters for different types of uplink channel’s channel access procedures. Chen [53] “… The MAC entity may increase the LBT failure counter by 1 when receiving an LBT failure indication…MAC operations (e.g., RACH procedure, SR procedure) ... In one implementation, there may be different LBT failure counters for different MAC operations.”, different types of UL channels such as PRACH associated with RACH procedure, PUCCH associated with SR procedure is implied (see Chen [50] “when the MAC entity indicates/instructs the lower layer to transmit a random access preamble, the MAC entity may start or restart the LBT success timer in the first symbol of the selected valid PRACH resource…PUCCH resource for the SR”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Babaei and Liu to include the features as taught by Chen above in order for an improved and efficient mechanism for a UE to handle LBT failure that may take place in the physical layer (Chen [0003]).
Claim 68 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei, in view of Liu, as applied to claims 61 and 73, and further in view of MYUNG; Sechang et al US 20230066772 A1, priority 2021-01-15 (see Myung [0001]), hereinafter MYUNG.
Regarding claim 68, Babaei, in view of Liu, teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claim 61.
Babaei and Liu do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, MYUNG teaches, wherein the first number of failed channel access procedures is associated with failed channel access procedures for different uplink transmit beams counted by a single counter (MYUNG [365], [382]-[383] suggests, single counter for failure of O-LBT (Omnidirectional-LBT) for UL transmission beams, as opposed to multiple counters for D-LBT (Directional-LBT)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Babaei and Liu to include the features as taught by MYUNG above in order to provide a method of configuring a listen-before-talk (LBT) beam for performing directional-LBT for a user equipment (Myung [0002]).
Claim 72 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei, in view of Liu, as applied to claims 61, and further in view of LEE; Sunyoung et al US 20210112592 A1, hereinafter Lee-2.
Regarding claim 72, Babaei, in view of Liu, teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claim 61.
Babaei and Liu do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Lee-2 teaches, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to reset a counter after transmitting the first indicator that indicates that the first number of failed channel access procedures reaches a maximum value (Lee [125] “when the UE starts counting the number of LBT failure, or after the counter reaches to the maximum value, or the UE indicates to the eNB that the number of LBT failure reaches to maximum value regarding the pre-allocated UL resource, … the UE resets the counter”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Babaei and Liu to include the features as taught by Lee-2 above in order to provide a method for handling pre-configured UL resources based on LBT procedure in wireless communication system (Lee-2 [0001]).
Claim 78 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei, in view of Liu, as applied to claims 61 and 73, and further in view of TSAI; HSIN-HSI et al US 20210144762 A1, hereinafter TSAI.
Regarding claim 78, Babaei, in view of Liu, teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claim 74.
Babaei and Liu do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, TSAI teaches, wherein the indicator is received in a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgment (ACK) codebook (TSAI [0112] “In one implementation, a first LBT failure MAC CE may be transmitted on a first UL-SCH resource via a first HARQ process.”, HARQ process in the art comprises HARQ-ACK codebook).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Babaei and Liu to include the features as taught by TSAI above in order to provide a method for Listen Before Talk (LBT) detection and recovery (TSAI [0002]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/29/2026 with respect to claim 79 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in Remarks page 7 “Lee discloses a UE that may increment an LBT failure counter based on a determined or detected LBT failure and may transmit a report to the network based on determining that the count has met a threshold within a predefined period of time (Lee at paragraph [0218]). Lee's disclosure is directed to counting LBT failure events or instances and reporting when a threshold is reached. Lee does not disclose counting failed sensing slots as the basic units defined in the Specification, nor does Lee disclose transmitting an indicator associated with the number of such failed sensing slots.
The concepts are distinct. An LBT failure is the result of a channel access procedure that may encompass multiple sensing slots, defer periods, and backoff. Counting failed sensing slots provides a different, more granular metric of channel conditions within the sensing period. Lee contains no disclosure of this metric or of transmitting an indicator associated with it.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is arguing that Lee does not teach a sensing slot. Sensing slot, under BRI and in line with Spec para [26], is a time duration/period/span of a sensing instance over which UE senses the channel (see Lee [323]). A failure in the sensing slot is counted as a single failure. Lee teaches, UE continues sensing at more instances (i.e., in more sensing slots) over a time period, and when an accumulated number of failed sensing slots reaches a threshold, UE reports to the network that pre-defined threshold of sensing failures (= sensing slot failures) is reached. Therefore, Lee teaches the invention of the claim.
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/29/2026 with respect to claim 61 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant further argues in Remarks page 8-9 “Liu is relied upon by the Examiner to supply a "reason," but Liu only provides a directional indication (UL LBT failure vs. DL LBT failure) or a RACH failure cause value and still does not discuss hidden node interference as a reported reason or the specific scheduling-assistance purpose recited and explained in the claims and Specification.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument. Claim recites that reason of failure is “an uplink channel access failure OR hidden node interference”. Liu teaches an uplink channel access failure. Because of the “OR” criteria, Liu does not require to teach “hidden node interference“ option. Therefore, Liu teaches the limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nogami, US 20170289869 A1 - USER EQUIPMENTS, BASE STATIONS AND METHODS (para [133], [139], [151] teaches sensing slot duration, in line with the Spec).
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 MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0232. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST; Friday variable.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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.
/MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights