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 .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “if a first condition is met” and “if a second condition is met”. For clarity purposes, the examiner suggests reciting as “when a first condition is met” and “when a second condition is met”, respectively. Similar objection applies to claims 8 and 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bhamri et al. (US 2023/0403055 A1, hereinafter “Bhamri”).
As to claim 1:
Bhamri discloses an information transmission method (see Figs. 6-7; Abstract; [0068]; [0072]), comprising:
when a plurality of consecutive transmissions, corresponding to different beam information, are multiplexed on a time domain resource (“One method includes receiving information configuring a single channel occupancy time for multi-beam transmission in an unlicensed channel”; Abstract; Figs. 6-7; [0037]; [0061]; [0068]; [0072]), performing, by a terminal, one or more operations after performing one transmission corresponding to beam information (see Figs. 6; [0068]; [0072]), wherein the one or more operations comprise:
if a first condition is met, performing, by the terminal, a subsequent transmission after beam switching without performing Listen Before Talk (LBT) (“According to the third embodiment, a COT may be initiated by a device upon a successful omni-direction LBT, with a short LBT or no LBT required for further omni-directional or directional transmissions within the same COT, provided that the initial transmission after the omni-directional CCA is an omni-directional transmission for at least a predetermined duration. FIG. 6 shows an example where no LBT is required prior to directional transmissions 2, 3, and 4”; [0068] “The COT 604 includes a first transmission 606 (TX1) (e.g., omni-directional transmission), a second transmission 608 (TX2) on a first beam, a third transmission 610 (TX3) on a second beam, a fourth transmission 612 (TX4) on the first beam, and a gap 614”; [0072]), wherein the first condition comprises that the terminal obtains a channel occupancy time by applying omnidirectional LBT for a transmission corresponding to previous beam information (“a COT may be initiated by a device upon a successful omni-direction LBT, with a short LBT or no LBT required for further omni-directional or directional transmissions within the same COT, provided that the initial transmission after the omni-directional CCA is an omni-directional transmission for at least a predetermined duration. FIG. 6 shows an example where no LBT is required prior to directional transmissions 2, 3, and 4”; [0068]; see also Fig. 7; [0074]; [0085]); or
if a second condition is met, performing, by the terminal after beam switching, one-shot LBT for new transmissions and performing the subsequent transmission based on a listening result, wherein the second condition comprises that the terminal obtains the channel occupancy time by applying directional LBT for the transmission corresponding to the previous beam information (For examination purposes, this limitation has not been examined by the examiner as it is optional/alternative (i.e., “or”)).
As to claim 3:
For examination purposes, the limitation of “wherein the second condition further comprises a beam switching time is greater than or equal to a second threshold; or a listen beam direction used by the terminal when obtaining the channel occupancy time during the transmission corresponding to the previous beam information does not comprise a listening beam direction corresponding to a beam currently being transmitted” further limits the optional/alternative limitation of claim 1 that has not been selected by the examiner, rendering this limitation optional/alternative as well.
As to claim 5:
For examination purposes, the limitation of “wherein after the beam switching and before the performing, by the terminal, the one-shot LBT for new transmissions, the information transmission method further comprising: adjusting, by a communication device, an LBT bandwidth of the shared spectrum based on a first bandwidth, wherein the first bandwidth comprises at least one of the following: a bandwidth of a current active BandWidth Part (BWP); a bandwidth of an initial BWP; or a bandwidth of a target resource scheduled or configured by a network, wherein the target resource scheduled or configured by the network comprises any one of the following: at least one physical uplink shared channel resource for a configured grant; at least one physical uplink transmission resource for a dynamic grant; at least one physical downlink shared channel resource for semi-persistent scheduling; at least one physical random access channel resource; or at least one sounding reference signal resource” further limits the optional/alternative limitation of claim 1 that has not been selected by the examiner, rendering this limitation optional/alternative as well.
As to claim 6:
For examination purposes, the limitation of “wherein the adjusting, by a communication device, an LBT bandwidth of the shared spectrum based on a first bandwidth comprises: adjusting the LBT bandwidth of the shared spectrum to a minimum bandwidth that covers the first bandwidth” further limits the optional/alternative limitation of claims 1 and 5 that have not been selected by the examiner, rendering this limitation optional/alternative as well.
As to claim 7:
For examination purposes, the limitation of “wherein the minimum bandwidth that covers the first bandwidth comprises any one of the following: the first bandwidth; an integer multiple of the first bandwidth; a unit bandwidth that covers the first bandwidth; or an integer multiple of the unit bandwidth that covers the first bandwidth” further limits the optional/alternative limitation of claims 1, 5 and 6 that have not been selected by the examiner, rendering this limitation optional/alternative as well.
As to claim 8:
Bhamri discloses a terminal (device/remote unit 102; see Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a memory storing computer-readable instructions (“instructions stored in the memory 204”; [0039]); and
a processor coupled to the memory (“The processor 202 is communicatively coupled to the memory 204”; [0039]) and configured to execute the computer-readable instructions (“the processor 202 executes instructions stored in the memory 204 to perform the methods and routines described herein”; [0039]), wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising (“the processor 202 executes instructions stored in the memory 204 to perform the methods and routines described herein”; [0039]):
when a plurality of consecutive transmissions, corresponding to different beam information, are multiplexed on a time domain resource (“One method includes receiving information configuring a single channel occupancy time for multi-beam transmission in an unlicensed channel”; Abstract; Figs. 6-7; [0037]; [0061]; [0068]; [0072]), performing, by the terminal, one or more operations after performing one transmission corresponding to beam information (see Figs. 6; [0068]; [0072]), wherein the one or more operations comprise:
if a first condition is met, performing, by the terminal, a subsequent transmission after beam switching without performing Listen Before Talk (LBT) (“According to the third embodiment, a COT may be initiated by a device upon a successful omni-direction LBT, with a short LBT or no LBT required for further omni-directional or directional transmissions within the same COT, provided that the initial transmission after the omni-directional CCA is an omni-directional transmission for at least a predetermined duration. FIG. 6 shows an example where no LBT is required prior to directional transmissions 2, 3, and 4”; [0068] “The COT 604 includes a first transmission 606 (TX1) (e.g., omni-directional transmission), a second transmission 608 (TX2) on a first beam, a third transmission 610 (TX3) on a second beam, a fourth transmission 612 (TX4) on the first beam, and a gap 614”; [0072]), wherein the first condition comprises that the terminal obtains a channel occupancy time by applying omnidirectional LBT for a transmission corresponding to previous beam information (“a COT may be initiated by a device upon a successful omni-direction LBT, with a short LBT or no LBT required for further omni-directional or directional transmissions within the same COT, provided that the initial transmission after the omni-directional CCA is an omni-directional transmission for at least a predetermined duration. FIG. 6 shows an example where no LBT is required prior to directional transmissions 2, 3, and 4”; [0068]; see also Fig. 7; [0074]; [0085]); or
if a second condition is met, performing, by the terminal after beam switching, one-shot LBT for new transmissions and performing the subsequent transmission based on a listening result, wherein the second condition comprises that the terminal obtains the channel occupancy time by applying directional LBT for the transmission corresponding to the previous beam information (For examination purposes, this limitation has not been examined by the examiner as it is optional/alternative (i.e., “or”)).
As to claim 10:
For examination purposes, the limitation of “wherein the second condition further comprises a beam switching time is greater than or equal to a second threshold; or a listen beam direction used by the terminal when obtaining the channel occupancy time during the transmission corresponding to the previous beam information does not comprise a listening beam direction corresponding to a beam currently being transmitted” further limits the optional/alternative limitation of claim 8 that has not been selected by the examiner, rendering this limitation optional/alternative as well.
As to claim 15:
Bhamri discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (“The memory 204, in one embodiment, is a computer readable storage medium”; [0040]), storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising (“the processor 202 executes instructions stored in the memory 204 to perform the methods and routines described herein”; [0039]):
when a plurality of consecutive transmissions, corresponding to different beam information, are multiplexed on a time domain resource (“One method includes receiving information configuring a single channel occupancy time for multi-beam transmission in an unlicensed channel”; Abstract; Figs. 6-7; [0037]; [0061]; [0068]; [0072]), performing, by a terminal, one or more operations after performing one transmission corresponding to beam information (see Figs. 6; [0068]; [0072]), wherein the one or more operations comprise:
if a first condition is met, performing, by the terminal, a subsequent transmission after beam switching without performing Listen Before Talk (LBT) (“According to the third embodiment, a COT may be initiated by a device upon a successful omni-direction LBT, with a short LBT or no LBT required for further omni-directional or directional transmissions within the same COT, provided that the initial transmission after the omni-directional CCA is an omni-directional transmission for at least a predetermined duration. FIG. 6 shows an example where no LBT is required prior to directional transmissions 2, 3, and 4”; [0068] “The COT 604 includes a first transmission 606 (TX1) (e.g., omni-directional transmission), a second transmission 608 (TX2) on a first beam, a third transmission 610 (TX3) on a second beam, a fourth transmission 612 (TX4) on the first beam, and a gap 614”; [0072]), wherein the first condition comprises that the terminal obtains a channel occupancy time by applying omnidirectional LBT for a transmission corresponding to previous beam information (“a COT may be initiated by a device upon a successful omni-direction LBT, with a short LBT or no LBT required for further omni-directional or directional transmissions within the same COT, provided that the initial transmission after the omni-directional CCA is an omni-directional transmission for at least a predetermined duration. FIG. 6 shows an example where no LBT is required prior to directional transmissions 2, 3, and 4”; [0068]; see also Fig. 7; [0074]; [0085]); or
if a second condition is met, performing, by the terminal after beam switching, one-shot LBT for new transmissions and performing the subsequent transmission based on a listening result, wherein the second condition comprises that the terminal obtains the channel occupancy time by applying directional LBT for the transmission corresponding to the previous beam information (For examination purposes, this limitation has not been examined by the examiner as it is optional/alternative (i.e., “or”)).
As to claim 17:
For examination purposes, the limitation of “wherein the second condition further comprises a beam switching time is greater than or equal to a second threshold; or a listen beam direction used by the terminal when obtaining the channel occupancy time during the transmission corresponding to the previous beam information does not comprise a listening beam direction corresponding to a beam currently being transmitted” further limits the optional/alternative limitation of claim 15 that has not been selected by the examiner, rendering this limitation optional/alternative as well.
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.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhamri et al. (US 2023/0403055 A1) in view of Babaei et al. (US 2020/0053777 A1, hereinafter “Babaei”).
As to claim 2:
Bhamri discloses the invention set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first condition further comprises a beam switching time is less than or equal to a first threshold.
However, Babaei further discloses wherein the first condition further comprises a beam switching time is less than or equal to a first threshold (“In an example, single and multiple DL to UL and UL to DL switching within a shared gNB COT may be supported. Example LBT requirements to support single or multiple switching points, may include: for gap of less than 16 us: no-LBT may be used”; [0318] “In an example, gaps may be needed for beam switching. In an example, the occupied channel bandwidth may be satisfied”; [0320]; “no LBT procedure may performed by the transmitting entity… The random number N is used in the LBT procedure to determine the duration of time that the channel is sensed to be idle before the transmitting entity transmits on the channel” [0315]; [0474]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Babaei into Bhamri’s system/method as it would allow the first condition to further comprise a beam switching time less than or equal to a first threshold. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art, where a motivation would have been to use LBT procedures for fair and friendly coexistence of LAA with other operators and technologies operating in unlicensed spectrum (Babaei; [0314]). Furthermore, such combination would have also improved network coverage, transmission efficiency, system throughput and/or data rate of transmission (Babaei; [0308]).
As to claim 9:
Bhamri discloses the invention set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first condition further comprises a beam switching time is less than or equal to a first threshold.
However, Babaei further discloses wherein the first condition further comprises a beam switching time is less than or equal to a first threshold (“In an example, single and multiple DL to UL and UL to DL switching within a shared gNB COT may be supported. Example LBT requirements to support single or multiple switching points, may include: for gap of less than 16 us: no-LBT may be used”; [0318] “In an example, gaps may be needed for beam switching. In an example, the occupied channel bandwidth may be satisfied”; [0320]; “no LBT procedure may performed by the transmitting entity… The random number N is used in the LBT procedure to determine the duration of time that the channel is sensed to be idle before the transmitting entity transmits on the channel” [0315]; [0474]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Babaei into Bhamri’s system/method as it would allow the first condition to further comprise a beam switching time less than or equal to a first threshold. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art, where a motivation would have been to use LBT procedures for fair and friendly coexistence of LAA with other operators and technologies operating in unlicensed spectrum (Babaei; [0314]). Furthermore, such combination would have also improved network coverage, transmission efficiency, system throughput and/or data rate of transmission (Babaei; [0308]).
As to claim 16:
Bhamri discloses the invention set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first condition further comprises a beam switching time is less than or equal to a first threshold.
However, Babaei further discloses wherein the first condition further comprises a beam switching time is less than or equal to a first threshold (“In an example, single and multiple DL to UL and UL to DL switching within a shared gNB COT may be supported. Example LBT requirements to support single or multiple switching points, may include: for gap of less than 16 us: no-LBT may be used”; [0318] “In an example, gaps may be needed for beam switching. In an example, the occupied channel bandwidth may be satisfied”; [0320]; “no LBT procedure may performed by the transmitting entity… The random number N is used in the LBT procedure to determine the duration of time that the channel is sensed to be idle before the transmitting entity transmits on the channel” [0315]; [0474]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Babaei into Bhamri’s system/method as it would allow the first condition to further comprise a beam switching time less than or equal to a first threshold. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art, where a motivation would have been to use LBT procedures for fair and friendly coexistence of LAA with other operators and technologies operating in unlicensed spectrum (Babaei; [0314]). Furthermore, such combination would have also improved network coverage, transmission efficiency, system throughput and/or data rate of transmission (Babaei; [0308]).
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhamri et al. (US 2023/0403055 A1) in view of Sarkar et al. (US 2009/0180435 A1, hereinafter “Sarkar”).
As to claim 4:
Bhamri discloses the invention set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose performing a punctuated transmission on the transmission that overlaps the beam switching time (for examination purposes, the limitation of “discarding a transmission that overlaps the beam switching time” has not been selected by the examiner as it is optional/alternative).
However, Sarkar discloses performing a punctuated transmission on the transmission that overlaps the beam switching time (“Such periods can be automatically configured or manually configured by the user to allow a given wireless cell to be efficiently deployed while mitigating overlapping transmission periods during switchover between downlink and uplink intervals. In one example, a guard period can be assigned for a downlink portion of the transmission interval, the uplink portion of the interval and an additional guard period can be inserted between the respective uplink and downlink portions. In addition, optimal uplink to downlink ratios can be specified and configured to increase efficiency of wireless communications”; [0011]; [0025]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Sarkar into Bhamri’s system/method as it would allow performing a punctuated transmission on the transmission that overlaps the beam switching time. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art, where a motivation would have been to efficiently communicate while mitigating overlapping transmission periods during switchover between downlink and uplink intervals (Sarkar; [0011]; [0025]).
As to claim 18:
Bhamri discloses the invention set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose performing a punctuated transmission on the transmission that overlaps the beam switching time (for examination purposes, the limitation of “discarding a transmission that overlaps the beam switching time” has not been selected by the examiner as it is optional/alternative).
However, Sarkar discloses performing a punctuated transmission on the transmission that overlaps the beam switching time (“Such periods can be automatically configured or manually configured by the user to allow a given wireless cell to be efficiently deployed while mitigating overlapping transmission periods during switchover between downlink and uplink intervals. In one example, a guard period can be assigned for a downlink portion of the transmission interval, the uplink portion of the interval and an additional guard period can be inserted between the respective uplink and downlink portions. In addition, optimal uplink to downlink ratios can be specified and configured to increase efficiency of wireless communications”; [0011]; [0025]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Sarkar into Bhamri’s system/method as it would allow performing a punctuated transmission on the transmission that overlaps the beam switching time. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art, where a motivation would have been to efficiently communicate while mitigating overlapping transmission periods during switchover between downlink and uplink intervals (Sarkar; [0011]; [0025]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhamri et al. (US 2023/0403055 A1) in view of Babaei et al. (US 2020/0053777 A1) and further in view of Sarkar et al. (US 2009/0180435 A1, hereinafter “Sarkar”).
As to claim 11:
The combined system/method of Bhamri and Babaei discloses the invention set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose performing a punctuated transmission on the transmission that overlaps the beam switching time (for examination purposes, the limitation of “discarding a transmission that overlaps the beam switching time” has not been selected by the examiner as it is optional/alternative).
However, Sarkar discloses performing a punctuated transmission on the transmission that overlaps the beam switching time (“Such periods can be automatically configured or manually configured by the user to allow a given wireless cell to be efficiently deployed while mitigating overlapping transmission periods during switchover between downlink and uplink intervals. In one example, a guard period can be assigned for a downlink portion of the transmission interval, the uplink portion of the interval and an additional guard period can be inserted between the respective uplink and downlink portions. In addition, optimal uplink to downlink ratios can be specified and configured to increase efficiency of wireless communications”; [0011]; [0025]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Sarkar into the combined system/method of Bhamri and Babaei as it would allow performing a punctuated transmission on the transmission that overlaps the beam switching time. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art, where a motivation would have been to efficiently communicate while mitigating overlapping transmission periods during switchover between downlink and uplink intervals (Sarkar; [0011]; [0025]).
Claims 12-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhamri et al. (US 2023/0403055 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0092763 A1, hereinafter “Li”).
As to claim 12:
Bhamri discloses the invention set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprises: adjusting an LBT bandwidth of the shared spectrum based on a first bandwidth, wherein the first bandwidth comprises a bandwidth of a current active BandWidth Part (BWP) (for examination purposes, the remaining limitations of claim 12 have not been selected by the examiner as they are optional/alternative).
However, Li discloses adjusting an LBT bandwidth of the shared spectrum based on a first bandwidth (“wherein the LBT bandwidth can refer to the LBT bandwidth that overlaps with the current active uplink BWP for the UE”; [0116] see also variations of LBT bandwidth being used; [0113]-[0117]), wherein the first bandwidth comprises a bandwidth of a current active BandWidth Part (BWP) (“wherein the LBT bandwidth can refer to the LBT bandwidth that overlaps with the current active uplink BWP for the UE”; [0116]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Li into Bhamri’s system/method as it would allow the operations to further comprise: adjusting an LBT bandwidth of the shared spectrum based on a first bandwidth, wherein the first bandwidth comprises a bandwidth of a current active BandWidth Part (BWP). Such combination would have been obvious as the refences are from analogous art, where a motivation would have been to reduce power consumption for a user equipment (Li; [0075]).
As to claim 13:
The combined system/method of Bhamri and Li discloses the invention set forth above. Li further discloses wherein the adjusting an LBT bandwidth of the shared spectrum based on a first bandwidth comprises (“wherein the LBT bandwidth can refer to the LBT bandwidth that overlaps with the current active uplink BWP for the UE”; [0116] see also variations of LBT bandwidth being used; [0113]-[0117]): adjusting the LBT bandwidth of the shared spectrum to a minimum bandwidth that covers the first bandwidth (“wherein the LBT bandwidth can refer to the LBT bandwidth that overlaps with the current active uplink BWP for the UE”; [0116]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Li into the combined system/method as it would allow the adjusting an LBT bandwidth of the shared spectrum based on a first bandwidth to comprise: adjusting the LBT bandwidth of the shared spectrum to a minimum bandwidth that covers the first bandwidth. Such combination would have been obvious as the refences are from analogous art, where a motivation would have been to reduce power consumption for a user equipment (Li; [0075]).
As to claim 14:
The combined system/method of Bhamri and Li discloses the invention set forth above. Li further discloses wherein a minimum bandwidth that covers the first bandwidth comprises the first bandwidth (“wherein the LBT bandwidth can refer to the LBT bandwidth that overlaps with the current active uplink BWP for the UE”; [0116] for examination purposes, the remaining limitations have not been selected by the examiner as they are optional/alternative).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Li into the combined system/method as it would allow the minimum bandwidth that covers the first bandwidth to comprise the first bandwidth. Such combination would have been obvious as the refences are from analogous art, where a motivation would have been to reduce power consumption for a user equipment (Li; [0075]).
As to claim 19:
Bhamri discloses the invention set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprises: adjusting an LBT bandwidth of the shared spectrum based on a first bandwidth, wherein the first bandwidth comprises a bandwidth of a current active BandWidth Part (BWP) (for examination purposes, the remaining limitations of claim 12 have not been selected by the examiner as they are optional/alternative).
However, Li discloses adjusting an LBT bandwidth of the shared spectrum based on a first bandwidth (“wherein the LBT bandwidth can refer to the LBT bandwidth that overlaps with the current active uplink BWP for the UE”; [0116] see also variations of LBT bandwidth being used; [0113]-[0117]), wherein the first bandwidth comprises a bandwidth of a current active BandWidth Part (BWP) (“wherein the LBT bandwidth can refer to the LBT bandwidth that overlaps with the current active uplink BWP for the UE”; [0116]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Li into Bhamri’s system/method as it would allow the operations to further comprise: adjusting an LBT bandwidth of the shared spectrum based on a first bandwidth, wherein the first bandwidth comprises a bandwidth of a current active BandWidth Part (BWP). Such combination would have been obvious as the refences are from analogous art, where a motivation would have been to reduce power consumption for a user equipment (Li; [0075]).
As to claim 20:
The combined system/method of Bhamri and Li discloses the invention set forth above. Li further discloses wherein the adjusting an LBT bandwidth of the shared spectrum based on a first bandwidth comprises (“wherein the LBT bandwidth can refer to the LBT bandwidth that overlaps with the current active uplink BWP for the UE”; [0116] see also variations of LBT bandwidth being used; [0113]-[0117]): adjusting the LBT bandwidth of the shared spectrum to a minimum bandwidth that covers the first bandwidth (“wherein the LBT bandwidth can refer to the LBT bandwidth that overlaps with the current active uplink BWP for the UE”; [0116]), wherein a minimum bandwidth that covers the first bandwidth comprises the first bandwidth (“wherein the LBT bandwidth can refer to the LBT bandwidth that overlaps with the current active uplink BWP for the UE”; [0116] for examination purposes, the remaining limitations have not been selected by the examiner as they are optional/alternative).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Li into the combined system/method as it would allow the adjusting an LBT bandwidth of the shared spectrum based on a first bandwidth to comprise: adjusting the LBT bandwidth of the shared spectrum to a minimum bandwidth that covers the first bandwidth, wherein a minimum bandwidth that covers the first bandwidth comprises the first bandwidth. Such combination would have been obvious as the refences are from analogous art, where a motivation would have been to reduce power consumption for a user equipment (Li; [0075]).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIELA VIDAL CARPIO whose telephone number is (571)272-1250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM to 5:00PM.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/MARIELA VIDAL CARPIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights