DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on December 29, 2025, after the non-final rejection of the application.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/29/25 has been entered. Claims 1-11, 14 and 23 were cancelled. Claims 12-13,15-22 and 24-29 are pending, of which claims 12 and 21 were amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claims 12 and 21 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Wang and Loehr, alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest all claim limitations recited in amended claims 12 and 21.
To be specific, Loehr does not teach or suggest "deprioritizing the
first configured uplink grant configuration in response to determining the LBT procedure has failed."
Reply, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Wang teaches the condition of determining the LBT procedure has failed.
Loehr teaches deprioritizing the first configured uplink grant configuration (configured grant is not transmitted, e.g., deprioritized, due to LBT failure, [0084]-[0086]).
Thus, Wang in view of Loehr does disclose or suggest all claim limitations recited in amended claims 12 and 21.
Consequently, the rejections to claims 12-13,15-22 and 24-29 are still to be maintained.
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 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 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.
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 12-13, 17-22, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20220393794 A1), hereinafter referred to as Wang, in view of Loehr (US 20230336313 A1), hereinafter referred to as Loehr.
Regarding claim 12:
Wang discloses a method for communicating in an unlicensed spectrum by a user equipment (UE) (method of using configured uplink scheduling in NR unlicensed operation by UE [0015]), the method comprising:
receiving, by the UE from a base station, a first configured uplink grant configuration for transmitting data in an unlicensed spectrum (obtaining, by wireless device, e.g., UE, from network node, first configured grant {CG} configuration information for data transmission [0032-0033] in unlicensed spectrum [0015, lines 10-11]);
and a second configured uplink grant configuration for transmitting data in the unlicensed spectrum (and a second CG configuration to use for data retransmission [0032] in unlicensed spectrum [0015, lines 10-11]);
generating, by the UE, a data packet for the first configured uplink grant configuration using a first hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) transmission scheme (building, by UE, transport block {TB} associated with CG [0112] and with initial Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) transmission allowed to use configured grant [0091 and 0016]);
performing, by the UE for the first configured uplink grant configuration, a first listen- before-talk (LBT), procedure (performing, by UE, LBT before acquiring channel for PUSCH transmission using a configured grant [0015, lines 10-21]); and in response to determining that the first LBT procedure has failed (when UL LBT fails on PUSCH transmission for grant received [0087])’
identifying, by the UE, an opportunity to transmit the data packet using the second configured uplink grant configuration (scheduling retransmission grant [0087] and selecting a second CG configuration to use for data retransmission, in response to determining that retransmission of data is required [0032]);
performing, by the UE for the second configured uplink grant configuration, a second LBT procedure (selecting a second CG configuration to use [0032] and performing {second} LBT before any transmission [0012, lines 1-7]); and
in response to determining that the second LBT procedure has been successful, transmitting, by the UE to the base station the data packet (after {second} LBT success, UE acquires channel for PUSCH transmission using a configured grant [0015, lines 10-16]) using a second HARQ transmission scheme different from the first HARQ transmission scheme via the opportunity in a HARQ retransmission (using, for retransmission, HARQ process that can be a second, different HARQ process from HARQ process used in initial transmission [0148]).
Wang does not further disclose deprioritizing the first configured uplink grant configuration.
Loehr, from the same field of endeavor, teaches deprioritizing the first configured uplink grant configuration (configured grant is not transmitted, e.g., deprioritized, due to LBT failure, [0084]- [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to transmit a data packet using a second HARQ transmission scheme, which is different from first HARQ transmission scheme associated with first CG configuration for initial transmission, in response to LBT success, and deprioritize he first configured uplink grant configuration in response to determining the LBT procedure has failed; thus improving data throughput by implementing proper CGs, which improve the channel access probability for physical uplink shared channel {PUSCH} transmissions [0015].
Regarding claim 13:
Wang in view of Loehr discloses all limitations of claim 12, and –
Wang does not, while Loehr further teaches prioritizing, by the UE, the first configured uplink grant configuration over the second configured uplink grant configuration (prioritizing, by UE, dynamic uplink grant scheduling dynamic retransmission grant, e.g., first CG, over configured uplink grant, e.g., second CG [0089]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to prioritize CG; thus improving communication of uplink information and power efficiency of the UE.
Regarding claim 17:
Wang in view of Loehr discloses all limitations of claim 12, and –
Wang further discloses determining, by the UE, that the UE is configured to perform retransmission in an unlicensed spectrum (UE is scheduled for retransmission [0093] in unlicensed operation [0015]).
Regarding claim 18:
Wang in view of Loehr discloses all limitations of claim 17, and –
Wang further discloses determining whether the UE is configured to perform retransmission in an unlicensed spectrum includes at least one of:
determining, by the UE, that the UE is configured to use a configured grant retransmission timer (CG configuration received by UE has CG retransmission timer [0144]); or
receiving, by the UE from the base station, an indication in a message or control element to perform retransmission in the unlicensed spectrum (UE is scheduled for retransmission [0093] in unlicensed operation [0015] via control message or MAC signaling [0140]).
Regarding claim 19:
Wang in view of Loehr discloses all limitations of claim 12, and –
Wang further discloses at least one of: a size of the second configured uplink grant configuration matches a size of a protocol data unit (PDU), associated with a media access control (MAC), layer for the data packet;
logical channels including the MAC PDU are allowed to use the second configured uplink grant configuration (logical channels {LCHs} that have been multiplexed/mapped into TB, use configured resources belonging to CG configurations [0115]); or
logical channels including the MAC PDU are allowed to use a configured grant type for the second configured uplink grant configuration.
Regarding claim 20:
Wang in view of Loehr discloses all limitations of claim 19, and –
Wang further discloses adjusting, by the UE, a process for transmitting the MAC PDU to the base station from the first HARQ transmission scheme to the second HARQ transmission scheme (determining, by wireless device, a second, different HARQ process for re-transmission or wireless device can be configured with a separate HARQ process for each CG configuration [0148]).
Regarding claim 21:
Claim 21 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 12 above, except that claim 21 is in device claim format, and wherein Wang [in claim 21] also discloses a user device (wireless device, element 110 in Fig.8) comprising processing hardware (control module, transceiver module, elements 550, 560 in Fig. 8) configured to perform claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 22:
Claim 22 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 13 above, except that claim 22 is recited in a device claim format.
Regarding claims 26-29:
Claims 26-29 are rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claims 17-20 above, respectively, except that claims 26-29 are recited in a device claim format.
Claims 15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Loehr, and further in view of Lee (US 20220060292 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lee.
Regarding claim 15:
Wang in view of Loehr discloses all limitations of claim 12, and –
Wang in view of Loehr does not explicitly disclose configuring, by the UE, a retransmission counter; and retransmitting, by the UE, to the base station, the data packet in response to determining that a number of retransmissions is less than or equal to the retransmission counter; which are known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Lee’s disclosure as below.
Lee, from the same field of endeavor, discloses configuring, by the UE, a retransmission counter (choosing highest number among maximum numbers of retransmissions, e.g., count [0250]); and retransmitting, by the UE to the base station, the data packet in response to determining that a number of retransmissions is less than or equal to the retransmission counter (performing, by wireless device, a retransmission of MAC PDU up to chosen maximum number of retransmissions [0233]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to retransmit data packet in in response to determining that a number of retransmissions is less than or equal to the retransmission counter; thus efficiently controlling the number of retransmissions while avoiding inefficient use of resources.
Regarding claim 24:
Claim 24 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 15 above, except that claim 24 is recited in a device claim format.
Claims 16 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Loehr and Lee, respectively, and further in view of Ozturk et al. (US 20210321314 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ozturk.
Regarding claim 16:
Wang in view of Loehr and Lee discloses all limitations of claim 15, and –
Wang further discloses determining, by the UE, that the UE is configured to use a configured grant retransmission timer (CG configuration received by UE has CG retransmission timer [0144]),
starting, by the UE, the configured grant retransmission timer (starting, by UE, CG retransmission timer [0144]).
Wang in view of Loehr and Lee does not explicitly disclose resetting, by the UE, the retransmission counter when the configured grant retransmission timer expires; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Ozturk’s suggestions as below.
Ozturk, from the same field of endeavor, discloses the counter is reset when the detection timer expires, wherein the counter is incremented with every detected uplink LBT failure, a timer is configured to re-start with every LBT failure indication, and determining when the counter exceeds the predetermined maximum threshold of uplink LBT failures [0092].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the feature of the detection and recovery mechanism for failures by using a timer and a counter – of Ozturk, wherein failures can be data transmissions failures; thus meeting demands for access to communicate data and enhancing users’ experience with mobile communications [0006].
Regarding claim 25:
Claim 25 discloses all limitations of claim 24.
Claim 25 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 16 above, except that claim 25 is recited in a device claim format.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMQUYEN THAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7245. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and videoconferencing 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 A. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.Q.T./
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights