DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0014596), hereinafter Yang ‘596, in view of Yang et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0352573), hereinafter Yang ‘573.
Regarding claim 1, Yang ‘596 discloses a method for implementing an Uplink (UL) channel access in a User Equipment (UE) of an eLAA-based communication system, comprising:
receiving from a base station a first signaling, which indicates a listen-before-talk (LBT) priority determined by the base station for the UE (paragraphs 64, 109, 180: LBT priority class is configured by a base station to UE), wherein relations between LBT priorities and corresponding sets of UL channel access parameters are pre-stored at the UE in a table (Figure 1 step 101 and paragraphs 124-167, 136; Fourth embodiment, examples 1-8, from paragraphs 271-304; Tables 11-17 show LBT priorities 1-4 with corresponding sets of UL channel access parameters are pre-stored at the UE in a table); and
performing a LBT operation using one of corresponding sets of UL channel access parameters corresponding to the LBT priority (figure 1 step 102 and paragraph 168).
Yang ‘596 further teaches adjusting a LBT priority and its corresponding LBT parameters based on retransmission traffic type or other conditions (paragraphs 51, 70, 164, 167, 179).
Yang ‘596 does not teach adjusting, by the UE, the LBT priority based on a traffic type, and determining and perform, by the UE, a set of UL channel access parameters corresponding to the adjusted LBT priority.
However, in the same field of LBT, Yang ‘573 discloses adjusting, by the UE, the LBT priority based on a traffic type, and determining and perform, by the UE, a set of UL channel access parameters corresponding to the adjusted LBT priority (paragraph 458: when the UE has failed for a number of times in channel access in accordance with the configured LBT mechanism parameter set, UE can dynamically adjust a priority based on … a type of transmitted traffic (e.g., to raise the priority, so as to perform channel access in accordance with the LBT mechanism or LBT parameter set corresponding to a higher priority)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Yang ‘596 adjusting, by the UE, the LBT priority according to the traffic type, and determining and perform an LBT operation, by the UE, a set of UL channel access parameters corresponding to the adjusted LBT priority.
The motivation would have been to raise the priority to provide the UE with better opportunity in channel access (paragraph 458).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0014596), hereinafter Yang ‘596, in view of Yang et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0352573), hereinafter Yang ‘573, in view of Callaghan (US Pat. No. 11,240,157).
Regarding claim 2, all limitations of claim 1 are disclosed above. Yang ‘596 and Yang ‘573 do not teach transmitting a second type of traffics only after all of a first type of traffics have been transmitted, wherein a LBT priority of the first type of traffics is not less than the LBT priority, and a LBT priority of the second type of traffics is lower than the LBT priority.
However, Yang ‘596 teaches a LBT priority of the first type of traffics is not less than the LBT priority, and the LBT priority of the second type of traffics is lower than the LBT priority (paragraphs 47, 49, 57, 160).
In the same field of priority transmission, Callaghan discloses transmitting a second type of traffics only after all of a first type of traffics have been transmitted (col. 7 line 56 to col. 8 line 3: in transmitting packets to receiver 230, router 220 configured to transmit packets in buffers with higher priorities before transmitting packets with lower priorities. Packets in a given buffer are transmitted only when buffers associated with higher priorities are empty).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Yang ‘596 and Yang ‘573 transmitting a second type of traffics only after all of a first type of traffics have been transmitted, wherein a LBT priority of the first type of traffics is not less than the LBT priority, and a LBT priority of the second type of traffics is lower than the LBT priority.
The motivation would have been for prioritized traffic transmission.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0014596), hereinafter Yang ‘596, in view of Yang et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0352573), hereinafter Yang ‘573, in view of Mukherjee et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0317246).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected similarly as claim 1 above. Yang ‘596 and Yang ‘573 do not teach but Mukherjee discloses an apparatus comprising least one processor (paragraph 52); and at least one memory including computer program code (paragraph 53); the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform; and non-transitory computer readable medium (paragraph 177) comprising computer program instructions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Yang ‘596 and Yang ‘573 an apparatus comprising least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code; the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform; and non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer program instructions.
The motivation would have been for processing device including related software to perform/carry out the invention.
Regarding claim 7, all limitations of claim 5 are disclosed above. Yang ‘596 and Mukherjee do not teach but Yang ‘573 discloses acquiring an expected transmission duration; and selecting an LBT priority and a set of corresponding UL channel access parameters with one or more of the following: traffic corresponding to LBT priorities smaller than or equal to the selected LBT priority can be transmitted in the expected transmission duration, wherein the expected transmission duration indicates the subframes or time scheduled for transmission by the UE in a UL transmission burst (paragraphs 10, 11, 51, 69-74, 121, and 126: UE receives DCI with successive uplink subframes transmission grant including priority. UE then determines LBT parameters according to the priority and transmits traffic with assigned QoS in the successive subframe transmission burst).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Yang ‘596 and Mukherjee acquiring an expected transmission duration; and selecting an LBT priority and a set of corresponding UL channel access parameters with one or more of the following: traffic corresponding to LBT priorities smaller than or equal to the selected LBT priority can be transmitted in the expected transmission duration, wherein the expected transmission duration indicates the subframes or time scheduled for transmission by the UE in a UL transmission burst.
The motivation would have been to transmit according to configuration from base station.
Regarding claim 8, all limitations of claim 7 are disclosed above. Yang ‘596 and Mukherjee do not teach but Yang ‘573 discloses acquiring the transmission duration according to a UL grant in case of multi- subframe scheduling (paragraphs 10, 57, 69-74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Yang ‘596 and Mukherjee acquiring the transmission duration according to a UL grant in case of multi- subframe scheduling.
The motivation would have been to decode DCI signaling.
Regarding claim 9, all limitations of claim 5 are disclosed above. Yang ‘596 and Mukherjee do not teach but Yang ‘573 discloses the first signaling is received from the base station via Layer 1 signaling (paragraphs 31, 175, 248: physical layer DCI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Yang ‘596 and Mukherjee the first signaling is received from the base station via Layer 1 signaling.
The motivation would have been for a physical signal transmission over transmission medium.
Regarding claim 10, all limitations of claim 5 are disclosed above. Yang ‘596 further teaches determining corresponding UL channel access parameters according to the table (Figure 1 step 101 and paragraphs 124-167, 136; Fourth embodiment, examples 1-8, from paragraphs 271-304; Tables 11-17 show LBT priorities 1-4 with corresponding sets of UL channel access parameters are pre-stored at the UE in a table) and based on the first signaling (paragraphs 64, 109, 180: LBT priority class is configured by a base station to UE).
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0014596), hereinafter Yang ‘596, in view of Yang et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0352573), hereinafter Yang ‘573, in view of Mukherjee et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0317246) in view of Callaghan (US Pat. No. 11,240,157).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, all limitations of claims 3 and 5 are disclosed above. Yang ‘596, Yang ‘573, Mukherjee do not explicitly teach transmitting a second type of traffics only after all of a first type of traffics have been transmitted, wherein a LBT priority of the first type of traffics is not less than the LBT priority, and a LBT priority of the second type of traffics is lower than the LBT priority.
However, Yang ‘596 teaches a LBT priority of the first type of traffics is not less than the LBT priority, and the LBT priority of the second type of traffics is lower than the LBT priority (paragraphs 47, 49, 57, 160).
In the same field of priority transmission, Callaghan discloses transmitting a second type of traffics only after all of a first type of traffics have been transmitted (col. 7 line 56 to col. 8 line 3: in transmitting packets to receiver 230, router 220 configured to transmit packets in buffers with higher priorities before transmitting packets with lower priorities. Packets in a given buffer are transmitted only when buffers associated with higher priorities are empty).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Yang ‘596 and Yang ‘573 transmitting a second type of traffics only after all of a first type of traffics have been transmitted, wherein a LBT priority of the first type of traffics is not less than the LBT priority, and a LBT priority of the second type of traffics is lower than the LBT priority.
The motivation would have been for prioritized traffic transmission.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In page 7 of Remark, regarding independent claims, the Applicant argues that Yang ‘573 is not a prior art because its foreign priority document CN20151062263 does not have support for Yang ‘573 document. In particular, the Applicant argues that Yang ‘573’s Chinese machine translation of CN201510622363 paragraph 539 discloses the priority dynamically adjusted through the “priority of the transmitted traffic type” and not “transmitted traffic type” as disclosed in Yang ‘573. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
CN201510622363 machine translation’s paragraph 539 recites “dynamically adjust information such as the priority of channels… or transmitted traffic types.” The use of term “or” rather than “and” denotes exclusivity, thus the word “priority” (of channels) does not apply to/describe the transmitted traffic types as they (channels and traffic types) are separated by the term “or”. Thus, Yang ‘573 is a prior art for 103 rejection.
In page 8 of Remark, the Applicant argues that none of the cited prior art documents discloses at least “determining, by the UE, based on the table, a set of UL channel access parameters corresponding to the adjusted LBT priority; and performing an LBT operation using the determined UL channel access parameter.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The combination of Yang ‘596 and Yang ‘573 discloses the claimed limitation (see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TITO Q PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM 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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/TITO Q PHAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/FARUK HAMZA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights