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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks
This Office action is considered fully responsive to the amendments filed 01/14/2026.
a) Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 5, 9 have been amended, and claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 were previously presented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in substance that
The office action fails to disclose feature 1” transmitting one or more of the plurality of beams based on one of the following conditions: when the wireless device performs the channel access operation successfully on one or more of the plurality of beams to be transmitted” (Pages 6-7, Remarks).
In response to A) the examiner respectfully disagrees. Oteri explicitly discloses at [0279] states “ the transmit/receive unit may be configured to transmit the data on a plurality of beams on condition that each one of the plurality of beams is free.” [0183] lines 6-9 describes that the UE can perform LBT operation (sensing mechanism) independently for the beams (e.g., each beam). In this case, a carrier sensing mechanism may be carried out before (e.g., just before) the beams use in the transmission. [0259] illustrates that if the LBT operation confirms the channel is idle (free) for each beam in the plurality of beams, then the UE can send the data using those beams, where the channel access operation means the process by the UE/BS to determine whether the communication channel is available (clear/free) for transmission, as described in[0329]. Therefore, the office action still teaches the limitations as currently claimed.
The office action fails to disclose feature 2 as states” when the wireless device performs the channel access operation successfully on one or more of the plurality of beams to be transmitted in advance before a start of the transmission of one or more of the plurality of beams, if another channel access operation is performed successfully in a period immediately before the start of the transmission of one or more of the plurality of beams” (Pages 6-7, Remarks).
In response to B) we don't give this limitation patentable weight due to the use of "or" which means the limitation is written in the alternative.
Applicant argues that the remaining dependent claims are allowable at least due to their dependency from an allowable independent claim. (Page 7, Remarks).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, for at least the same reasons given in the response above, and as detailed in the Claim Rejections section below.
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.
Claims 1- 2, 4-6, 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Oteri al. (US-20210058967-A1), as PCT field on Feb. 7, 2019 and published on Feb. 25, 2021.
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Oteri teaches a wireless communication method (Figs. 1A-1D and Fig. 6 are described a method in wireless communication system), comprising: performing, by a wireless device, a channel access operation on each listen before talk (LBT) beam related to a transmission beam from a plurality of beams to be transmitted by the wireless device (Claim 36, lines 10-19, [0122], the UE, wireless device, performs channel access (via listen before talk (LBT)) for each sensing beam associated with transmission beam, which enable an independent process for multiple beams that assigned for transmission, [0128] and claim 26 discuss the process for directional LBT for beam based transmission); and transmitting one or more of the plurality of beams based on one of the following conditions: when the wireless device performs the channel access operation successfully on one or more of the plurality of beams to be transmitted ([0279] states “ the transmit/receive unit may be configured to transmit the data on a plurality of beams on condition that each one of the plurality of beams is free.” [0183] lines 6-9 describes that the UE can perform LBT operation (sensing mechanism) independently for the beams (e.g., each beam). In this case, a carrier sensing mechanism may be carried out before (e.g., just before) the beams use in the transmission. [0259] illustrates that if the LBT operation confirms the channel is idle (free) for each beam in the plurality of beams, then the UE can send the data using those beams, where the channel access operation means the process by the UE/BS to determine whether the communication channel is available (clear/free) for transmission, as described in[0329]); or
Or when the wireless device performs the channel access operation successfully on one or more of the plurality of beams to be transmitted in advance before a start of the transmission of one or more of the plurality of beams, if another channel access operation is performed successfully in a period immediately before the start of the transmission of one or more of the plurality of beams. (we don't give this limitation patentable weight due to the use of "or" which means the limitation is written in the alternative.)
Regarding claim 2 (original), Oteri teaches the method of claim 1.
Oteri further teaches wherein the plurality of beams are transmitted at a same time (Fig. 16, [0122], [0180], lines 1-2, [0259]-[0260], the multiple beams can be transmitted at the same time after provided that each beam has successfully passed the LBT process and the channel is determined free).
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Oteri teaches a wireless device for wireless communication, (Figs. 1A-1D and Fig. 6 are described a method in wireless communication system, including a wireless devices), comprising: at least one processor configured to implement a method, wherein the processor is configured to cause the wireless device to: ([0051]-[0052] and Fig. 1B describe the system of WTRW may include a processor 118, a transceiver 120, a transmit/receive element 122 which cause the processor to perform the method functions): perform a channel access operation on each listen before talk (LBT) beam related to a transmission beam from a plurality of beams to be transmitted by the wireless device; (Claim 36, lines 10-19, [0122], the UE, wireless device, performs channel access (via listen before talk (LBT)) for each sensing beam associated with transmission beam, which enable an independent process for multiple beams that assigned for transmission, [0128] and claim 26 discuss the process for directional LBT for beam based transmission); and transmitting one or more of the plurality of beams based on one of the following conditions: when the channel access operation was successful on one or more of the plurality of beams to be transmitted ([0279] states “ the transmit/receive unit may be configured to transmit the data on a plurality of beams on condition that each one of the plurality of beams is free.” [0183] lines 6-9 describes that the UE can perform LBT operation (sensing mechanism) independently for the beams (e.g., each beam). In this case, a carrier sensing mechanism may be carried out before (e.g., just before) the beams use in the transmission. [0259] illustrates that if the LBT operation confirms the channel is idle (free) for each beam in the plurality of beams, then the UE can send the data using those beams, where the channel access operation means the process by the UE/BS to determine whether the communication channel is available (clear/free) for transmission, as described in[0329]);
Or when the channel access operation was successful on one or more of the plurality of beams to be transmitted in advance before a start of the transmission of one or more of the plurality of beams, if another channel access operation is performed successfully in a period immediately before the start of the transmission of one or more of the plurality of beams. (we don't give that limitation patentable weight due to the use of "or" which means the limitation is written in the alternative).
Regarding claim 6 (original), Oteri teaches the wireless device of claim 5.
Oteri teaches wherein the plurality of beams are transmitted at a same time (Fig. 16, [0122], [0180], lines 1-2, [0259]-[0260], the multiple beams can be transmitted at the same time after provided that each beam has successfully passed the LBT process and the channel is determined free).
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), Oteri teaches a non-transitory computer readable program storage medium having code stored thereon, the code, when executed by a processor, causing the processor to implement a method (Fig. 1B, [0345] and [0363], lines 5-8, describe a non-transitory computer-readable medium program storage medium that contains code), comprising: performing, by a wireless device, a channel access operation on each listen before talk (LBT) beam related to a transmission from a plurality of beams to be transmitted by the wireless device (Claim 36, lines 10-19, [0122], the UE, wireless device, performs channel access (via listen before talk (LBT)) for each sensing beam associated with transmission beam, which enable an independent process for multiple beams that assigned for transmission, [0128] and claim 26 discuss the process for directional LBT for beam based transmission); and transmitting one or more of the plurality of beams based on one of the following conditions: when the wireless device performs the channel access operation successfully on one or more of the plurality of beams to be transmitted ([0279] states “ the transmit/receive unit may be configured to transmit the data on a plurality of beams on condition that each one of the plurality of beams is free.” [0183] lines 6-9 describes that the UE can perform LBT operation (sensing mechanism) independently for the beams (e.g., each beam). In this case, a carrier sensing mechanism may be carried out before (e.g., just before) the beams use in the transmission. [0259] illustrates that if the LBT operation confirms the channel is idle (free) for each beam in the plurality of beams, then the UE can send the data using those beams, where the channel access operation means the process by the UE/BS to determine whether the communication channel is available (clear/free) for transmission, as described in[0329]); or
Or when the wireless device performs the channel access operation successfully on one or more of the plurality of beams to be transmitted in advance before a start of the transmission of one or more of the plurality of beams, if another channel access operation is performed successfully in a period immediately before the start of the transmission of one or more of the plurality of beams. (we don't give this limitation patentable weight due to the use of "or" which means the limitation is written in the alternative.)
Regarding claim 10 (original), Oteri teaches the non-transitory computer readable program storage medium of claim 9.
Oteri teaches wherein the plurality of beams are transmitted at a same time (Fig. 16, [0122], [0180], lines 1-2, [0259]-[0260], the multiple beams can be transmitted at the same time after provided that each beam has successfully passed the LBT process and the channel is determined free).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oteri al. (US-20210058967-A1) in view of Si et al. (US-20180115996-A1).
Regarding to claim 4 (original), Oteri teaches the method of claim 1.
Oteri fails to teach wherein a random back-off counter is determined independently for each beam.
However, Si teaches wherein a random back-off counter is determined independently for each beam ([0113]-[0114], the transmitter generates and maintains a backoff counter Nm for every sensing direction or group of direction Dm . This backoff counter is direction-specific/group-of-direction-specific or (equivalently, receiver or group-of-receiver specific). The counter Nm is initialized as a random integer uniformly generated between 0 and the contention window size CWm , which can be direction-specific. This approach to ensure the
Back-off counter is independently determined for each beam or direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oteri to incorporate the teachings of Si (in analogous art) by including a random back-off counter is determined independently for each beam. Independent back-off counters allow beams to operate in parallel, reducing delays and improving the efficiency of multi-beam transmissions( Si, [0125], lines 8-12).
Regarding to claim 8 (original), Oteri teaches the wireless device of claim 5.
Oteri fails to teach wherein a random back-off counter is determined independently for each beam.
However, Si teaches wherein a random back-off counter is determined independently for each beam ([0113]-[0114], the transmitter generates and maintains a backoff counter Nm for every sensing direction or group of direction Dm . This backoff counter is direction-specific/group-of-direction-specific or (equivalently, receiver or group-of-receiver specific). The counter Nm is initialized as a random integer uniformly generated between 0 and the contention window size CWm , which can be direction-specific. This approach to ensure the
Back-off counter is independently determined for each beam or direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oteri to incorporate the teachings of Si (in analogous art) by including a random back-off counter is determined independently for each beam. Independent back-off counters allow beams to operate in parallel, reducing delays and improving the efficiency of multi-beam transmissions( Si, [0125], lines 8-12).
Regarding to claim 12 (original), Oteri teaches the non-transitory computer readable program storage medium of claim 9.
Oteri fails to teach wherein a random back-off counter is determined independently for each beam.
However, Si teaches wherein a random back-off counter is determined independently for each beam ([0113]-[0114], the transmitter generates and maintains a backoff counter Nm for every sensing direction or group of direction Dm . This backoff counter is direction-specific/group-of-direction-specific or (equivalently, receiver or group-of-receiver specific). The counter Nm is initialized as a random integer uniformly generated between 0 and the contention window size CWm , which can be direction-specific. This approach to ensure the
Back-off counter is independently determined for each beam or direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oteri to incorporate the teachings of Si (in analogous art) by including a random back-off counter is determined independently for each beam. Independent back-off counters allow beams to operate in parallel, reducing delays and improving the efficiency of multi-beam transmissions( Si, [0125], lines 8-12).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Tooher et al. (US-20210153245-A1), Goyal et al. (US-20200314906-A1), LI et al. (US-20190200389-A1), Nam et al. (US-11324042-B2), Kannan et al. (US-11140558-B2), Xian et al. (WO-2021108817-A2) teach methods for channel access technique in wireless communication systems.
Conclusion
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 SANAA S AL SAMAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at (571) 272-3988. 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.
/SANAA AL SAMAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2463