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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/09/2025 has been entered. Claims 22, 30 and 31 have been amended. Claim 38 is newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 22, and 30-31; they are moot based on new ground of rejection.
.
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, 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 22-27, 30 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. (US 20200145972 A1) hereinafter Kwak, in view of Zhou et al. (US 20200195334 A1) hereinafter Zhou, n further view of Zhang et al. (US 20220417992 A1) hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 22,
Kwak teaches a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory (memory/computer-readable medium storing instructions [0082]; Figs. 6 and 8); and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory configured to cause the UE to (CPU coupled to memory, the received signal path circuitry, and the transmit signal path circuitry [0084]): receive control information for an uplink transmission associated with a first uplink transmission beam (DCI associated with uplink transmission [0019] and [0057]);
Kwak does not explicitly teach determine a second uplink transmission beam associated with a Channel Occupancy (CO) initiated by a base station (BS) based on an indicator in first downlink control information (DCI), or based on a downlink reception beam for receiving the first DCI; and transmitting the uplink transmission using the second uplink transmission beam when the uplink transmission is within a duration in time domain and location in frequency domain of the CO initiated by the BS.
Zhou teaches determine a second uplink transmission beam is associated with a Channel Occupancy (CO) initiated by a base station (BS) based on an indicator in first downlink control information (DCI), or based on a downlink reception beam for receiving the first DCI (PDCCH indication indicating beam for second channel associated with a COT [0036], [0062]-[0063] and [0077]); and transmitting the uplink transmission using the second uplink transmission beam when the uplink transmission is within a duration in time domain and location in frequency domain of the CO initiated by the BS (transmitting uplink data in COT using the second uplink channel [0052] and [0077]; element 614 of Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Zhou to the teachings of Kwak. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for using the correct beams during channel occupancy (Zhou [0006]).
Kwak and Zhou do not explicitly teach determine the uplink transmission is not within a duration in a time domain and a location in a frequency domain of a Channel Occupancy (CO) initiated by a base station (BS), switch from a first listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure to a second LBT procedure; perform the second LBT procedure; and transmit the uplink transmission using the second uplink transmission beam when the uplink transmission after performing the second LBT procedure.
Kwak and Zhou do not explicitly teach determine the uplink transmission is not within a duration in a time domain and a location in a frequency domain of a Channel Occupancy (CO) initiated by a base station (BS), and switch from a first listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure to a second LBT procedure; perform the second LBT procedure; and transmit the uplink transmission using the second uplink transmission beam when the uplink transmission after performing the second LBT procedure.
Zhang teaches determine the uplink transmission is not within a duration in a time domain and a location in a frequency domain of a Channel Occupancy (CO) initiated by a base station (BS) (determining that a first the first time frequency resource group does not belong to the first time window in the time domain [0037]), and switch from a first listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure to a second LBT procedure (switching the first channel sensing operation from cat 4 LBT to cat 2 LBT [0095]-[0098]); perform the second LBT procedure (performing cat 2 LBT upon determining that a COT beam and a first signal beam are correlated [0095]-[0098]); and transmit the uplink transmission using the second uplink transmission beam when the uplink transmission after performing the second LBT procedure (transmitting the first signal which is an uplink signal upon a successful LBT [0095]-[0098]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Zhang to the teachings of Kwak and Zhou. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would reduce signaling overhead (Zhang [0096]).
Regarding claim 23,
Kwak and Zhou and Zhang teach all the features of claim 22, as outlined above.
Kwak and Zhou do not explicitly teach wherein the first uplink transmission is indicated by second DCI or higher layer signaling.
Zhang teaches wherein the first uplink transmission is indicated by second DCI (third signaling is used to determine the beam [0026]) or higher layer signaling.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Zhang to the teachings of Kwak and Zhou. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would reduce signaling overhead (Zhang [0096]).
Regarding claim 24,
Kwak and Zhou and Zhang teach all the features of claim 22, as outlined above.
Kwak does not explicitly teach the indictor indicates the second uplink transmission beam.
Zhou teaches the indictor indicates the second uplink transmission beam (indication for a second uplink channel beam [0069]-[0077]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Zhou to the teachings of Kwak. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for using the correct beams during channel occupancy (Zhou [0006]).
Regarding claim 25,
Kwak and Zhou and Zhang teach all the features of claim 22, as outlined above.
Kwak does not explicitly teach the indictor includes a state indicating the second uplink transmission beam corresponding to a sounding reference signal (SRS) resource.
Zhou teaches the indictor includes a state indicating the second uplink transmission beam corresponding to a sounding reference signal (SRS) resource (indicator including spatial relations with correspondence between uplink channel and SRS [0036] and [0075]-[0077]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Zhou to the teachings of Kwak. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for using the correct beams during channel occupancy (Zhou [0006]).
Regarding claim 26,
Kwak and Zhou and Zhang teach all the features of claim 22, as outlined above, where Zhou teaches using the second uplink transmission beam.
Kwak further teaches performing a first category of channel access procedures before transmitting the uplink transmission (indication indicating the type of LBT for uplink transmission [0057]).
Regarding claim 27,
Kwak and Zhou and Zhang teach all the features of claim 22, as outlined above.
Kwak does not explicitly teach the second uplink transmission beam corresponds to the downlink reception beam.
Zhou teaches the second uplink transmission beam corresponds to the downlink reception beam (second uplink channel beam corresponds to a first uplink channel beam which corresponds to the indication [0036], [0062]-[0063] and [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Zhou to the teachings of Kwak. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for using the correct beams during channel occupancy (Zhou [0006]).
Claim 30 “BS apparatus” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 22 “UE apparatus” (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 38,
Kwak and Zhou and Zhang teach all the features of claim 22, as outlined above.
Kwak and Zhou do not explicitly teach wherein the first LBT procedure is an LBT Cat4 procedure and the second LBT procedure is an LBT Cat2 procedure.
Zhang teaches wherein the first LBT procedure is an LBT Cat4 procedure and the second LBT procedure is an LBT Cat2 procedure (switching the first channel sensing operation from cat 4 LBT to cat 2 LBT [0095]-[0098]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Zhang to the teachings of Kwak and Zhou. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would reduce signaling overhead (Zhang [0096]).
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak and Zhou and Kim in further view of Wang (US 20220210827 A1) hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 28,
Kwak and Zhou and Zhang teach all the features of claim 22, as outlined above.
Kwak and Zhou and Zhang do not explicitly teach the indictor includes a state indicating that the UE is not allowed to share the CO initiated by the BS.
Wang teaches the indictor includes a state indicating that the UE is not allowed to share the CO initiated by the BS (COT information indicating which UEs are allowed to share the gNB initiated COT [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Wang to the teachings of Kwak and Zhou and Zhang. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would avoid unnecessary LBT attempts (Wang [0098]).
Regarding claim 29,
Kwak and Zhou and Zhang teach all the features of claim 22, as outlined above.
Kwak and Zhou and Zhang do not explicitly teach the first uplink transmission beam and the second uplink transmission beam are identical.
Wang teaches the first uplink transmission beam and the second uplink transmission beam are identical (uplink grant including UEs which is associated with COT [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Wang to the teachings of Kwak and Zhou and Zhang. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would avoid unnecessary LBT attempts (Wang [0098]).
Claims 31-33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of He (US 20220338262 A1) hereinafter He, in further view of Ma et al. (US 20220038168) hereinafter Ma.
Regarding claim 31,
Kwak teaches a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 6 and 8) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory (memory/computer-readable medium storing instructions [0082]; Figs. 6 and 8); and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (CPU coupled to memory, the received signal path circuitry, and the transmit signal path circuitry [0084]) configured to cause the UE to: receive control information for a downlink transmission associated with a first downlink transmission beam (DCI associated with downlink transmission [0051] and [0137]); and receive the downlink transmission using a downlink reception beam corresponding to the second downlink transmission beam when the downlink transmission is within a duration in a time domain of the CO (transmission downlink during COT [0136])
Kwak does not explicitly teach that the downlink transmission is in a frequency domain of the CO; and indicate a second downlink transmission beam associated with a Channel Occupancy (CO) initiated by the UE with an indicator in configured grant uplink control information (CG-UCI).
He teaches indicating a second downlink transmission beam associated with a Channel Occupancy (CO) initiated by the UE with an indicator in configured grant uplink control information (CG-UCI) ( In related art, for CG-UL transmission, the UE sends uplink data on pre-configured UL resources, which carries UCI. The UCI indicates channel access priority, COT duration information, and maximum downlink transmission time. The base station selects the LBT type based on this information including, for example, the length of gap between uplink transmission and downlink transmission, and the duration of downlink transmission [0209]-[0211]); the downlink transmission is in a frequency domain of the CO (downlink channels associated with COT [0204]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of He to the teachings of Kwak. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow using the correct spatial settings for downlink transmission (He [0208]).
Kwak and He do not explicitly teach the indicator in the UCI includes multiple fields for multiple, different transmission beams.
Ma teaches the indicator in the UCI includes multiple fields for multiple, different transmission beams (UCI report including a bitmap corresponding to multiple beams [0141]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Ma to the teachings of Kwak and He. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve beam measurement reporting (Ma [0005]).
Regarding claim 32,
Kwak and He and Ma teach all the features of claim 31, as outlined above.
Kwak further teaches the first downlink transmission beam is indicated by downlink control information (DCI) or by higher layer signaling (DCI associated with downlink transmission [0051] and [0137]).
Regarding claim 33,
Kwak and He and Ma teach all the features of claim 31, as outlined above.
Kwak does not explicitly teach the indictor indicates the second downlink transmission beam.
He teaches the indictor indicates the second downlink transmission beam (UCI indicating downlink transmission [0209]-[0211]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of He to the teachings of Kwak. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow using the correct spatial settings for downlink transmission (He [0208]).
Regarding claim 35,
Kwak and He and Ma teach all the features of claim 31, as outlined above.
Kwak does not explicitly teach the indicator includes a state for indicating the second downlink transmission beam which corresponds to a Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) state.
He teaches the indicator includes a state for indicating the second downlink transmission beam which corresponds to a Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) state (UCI including LBT directional information corresponding to beam [0209]-[0211]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of He to the teachings of Kwak. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow using the correct spatial settings for downlink transmission (He [0208]).
Claims 34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak and He and Ma in view of Bhattad et al. (US 20210068149 A1) hereinafter Bhattad.
Regarding claim 34,
Kwak and He and Ma teach all the features of claim 31, as outlined above.
Kwak and He and Ma do not explicitly teach the indicator indicates that the BS is not allowed to share the CO initiated by the UE.
Bhattad teaches the indicator indicates that the BS is not allowed to share the CO initiated by the UE (UE indicating which parts are allowed to be used by the gNB [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Bhattad to the teachings of Kwak and He and Ma. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide UE with channel access control flexibility (Bhattad [0074]).
Regarding claim 36,
Kwak and He and Ma teach all the features of claim 31, as outlined above.
Kwak and He and Ma do not explicitly teach the indicator includes a state for indicating that the BS is not allowed to share the CO initiated by the UE.
Bhattad teaches the indicator includes a state for indicating that the BS is not allowed to share the CO initiated by the UE (UE indicating which parts are allowed to be used by the gNB [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Bhattad to the teachings of Kwak and He and Ma. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide UE with channel access control flexibility (Bhattad [0074]).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak and He and Ma in view of Xue et al. (US 20200322948 A1) hereinafter Xue.
Regarding claim 37,
Kwak and He and Ma teach all the features of claim 31, as outlined above.
Kwak and He and Ma do not explicitly teach the indicator includes an index of a row of a table, wherein the row of the table at least indicates the second downlink transmission beam.
Xue teaches the indicator includes an index of a row of a table, wherein the row of the table at least indicates the second downlink transmission beam (downlink beam list indicated via UCI [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Xue to the teachings of Kwak and He. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve performance (Xue [0080]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI whose telephone number is (703)756-4586. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5:00 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on (571)270-0422. 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.
/ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465