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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 02, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
RE claims 1, 13 and 33, Applicant’s position is that “none of the cited references teach or suggest at least "receiving a flag indicating whether to perform a specific data communication using the LBT mode of operation or the non-LBT mode of operation, wherein the flag indicating whether to perform the specific data communication is received using semi-static cell specific information, semi-static user equipment (UE) specific information, dynamic UE specific signaling, or dynamic group common signaling," as found in the independent Claim 1 (and similarly recited in Claims 13 and 33).”. Upon additional review of the previously cited Park reference, Examiner finds that Park indeed discloses a “flag” to indicate a Listen Before Talk (LBT) mode including a mode in which a UE is directed to not perform LBT. Paragraphs 129-131, which match between the WIPO publication and the provided machine generated English Translation, explicitly discloses four LBT methods. The first is to not perform LBT, the other three are modes in which LBT is performed but with different random back-off options. The terminal “can be directly instructed by a base station through L1 control signaling whether to perform LBT for uplink transmission of the terminal or the LBT method.” Finally, paragraph 131 explicitly discloses “the LBT indication may be 1 bit of indication information. In this case, depending on the value (0, 1) of the LBT indication information bit, it can be determined whether or not to perform LBT at the terminal when transmitting PUCCH corresponding to the downlink assignment DCI format.”. This 1 bit indication is well known in the art to also be referred to as a flag. Assuming, arguendo, that this is not the case, this single bit indication fully meets the claimed function. It is a binary indication of whether or not to perform LBT.
For this reason, Applicants argument is unpersuasive at this time. Updated grounds of rejection are made below as necessitated by amendment.
RE claims 14-24 and 34-39, no specific issues have been raised at this time. Examiner maintains all rejections for at least the reasons stated above.
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.
(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, 13-16, 19-22, 33-36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park (WO 2019221443).
RE claims 1 and 13, Park discloses a method and apparatus for wireless communication the apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory comprising instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: configure communications in an unlicensed spectrum (Paragraph 116) to use a listen-before-talk (LBT) mode of operation, a non-LBT mode of operation, or a combination thereof (Paragraphs 124-125 and 128-129); and a receiver that receives receive a flag indicating whether to perform a specific data communication using the LBT mode of operation or the non-LBT mode of operation (Paragraphs 217-128, 130-131, 134 and 147 disclose discloses that the terminal receives the indication of the LBT scheme from the base station and in one possible configuration, the LBT indication determines whether to perform LBT or not. Paragraphs 129-131 explicitly discloses four LBT methods. The first is to not perform LBT, the other three are modes in which LBT is performed but with different random back-off options. The terminal “can be directly instructed by a base station through L1 control signaling whether to perform LBT for uplink transmission of the terminal or the LBT method.” Finally, paragraph 131 explicitly discloses “the LBT indication may be 1 bit of indication information. In this case, depending on the value (0, 1) of the LBT indication information bit, it can be determined whether or not to perform LBT at the terminal when transmitting PUCCH corresponding to the downlink assignment DCI format.”. This 1 bit indication is well known in the art to also be referred to as a flag. Assuming, arguendo, that this is not the case, this single bit indication fully meets the claimed function. It is a binary indication of whether or not to perform LBT. Paragraph 135 also discloses the bit or flag may be carried within a uplink grant DCI), wherein the flag indicating whether to perform the specific data communication is received using semi-static cell specific information, semi-static user equipment (UE) specific information, dynamic UE specific signaling, or dynamic group common signaling (Paragraphs 130-131, 138 and 147-148 discloses that the information can be received using RRC (higher layer) or DCI, and further discloses that the indication can be UE specific or cell specific. Paragraphs 132-135 also discloses the bit or flag may be carried within downlink DCI format or a uplink grant DCI format. Paragraph 127 further establishes that the information is generated by the base station when allocating resources for the uplink channel for any terminal. At least paragraph 140-142 finally discloses that resources and information indicating LBT can be either set semi-statically or dynamically. The cited portions with respect to the bit/flag itself are indicated as one of a plurality of options for indicating LBT mode but given that allocations may be dynamic or semi-static and if the bit is sent when allocating resources, then based on Examiners interpretation Park anticipates dynamically or semi-statically setting the bit/bits/flag.)
RE claim 33, Park discloses apparatus for wireless communication, the apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory comprising instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: configure communications in an unlicensed spectrum (Paragraph 116) to use a listen-before-talk (LBT)mode of operation, a non-LBT mode of operation, or a combination thereof(Paragraphs 124-125 and 128-129); and transmit a flag indicating whether to perform a specific data communication using the LBT mode of operation or the non-LBT mode of operation (Paragraphs 217-128, 130-131, 134 and 147 disclose discloses that the terminal receives the indication of the LBT scheme from the base station and in one possible configuration, the LBT indication determines whether to perform LBT or not. Paragraphs 129-131 explicitly discloses four LBT methods. The first is to not perform LBT, the other three are modes in which LBT is performed but with different random back-off options. The terminal “can be directly instructed by a base station through L1 control signaling whether to perform LBT for uplink transmission of the terminal or the LBT method.” Finally, paragraph 131 explicitly discloses “the LBT indication may be 1 bit of indication information. In this case, depending on the value (0, 1) of the LBT indication information bit, it can be determined whether or not to perform LBT at the terminal when transmitting PUCCH corresponding to the downlink assignment DCI format.”. This 1 bit indication is well known in the art to also be referred to as a flag. Assuming, arguendo, that this is not the case, this single bit indication fully meets the claimed function. It is a binary indication of whether or not to perform LBT.), wherein the flag indicating whether to perform the specific data communication is received using semi-static cell specific information, semi-static user equipment (UE) specific information, dynamic UE specific signaling, or dynamic group common signaling (Paragraphs 130-131, 138 and 147-148 discloses that the information can be received using RRC (higher layer) or DCI, and further discloses that the indication can be UE specific or cell specific. Paragraphs 132-135 also discloses the bit or flag may be carried within downlink DCI format or a uplink grant DCI format. Paragraph 127 further establishes that the information is generated by the base station when allocating resources for the uplink channel for any terminal. At least paragraph 140-142 finally discloses that resources and information indicating LBT can be either set semi-statically or dynamically. The cited portions with respect to the bit/flag itself are indicated as one of a plurality of options for indicating LBT mode but given that allocations may be dynamic or semi-static and if the bit is sent when allocating resources, then based on Examiners interpretation Park anticipates dynamically or semi-statically setting the bit/bits/flag.).
RE claims 14 and 34, Park discloses the apparatuses of claims 13 and 33 as set forth above. Note that Park further discloses wherein the semi-static cell specific information is implemented using radio resource control (RRC) common signaling (Paragraphs 130-131, 138 and 147-148 discloses that the information can be received using RRC (higher layer) or DCI, and further discloses that the indication can be UE specific or cell specific.).
RE claims 15 and 35, Park discloses the apparatuses of claims 13 and 33 as set forth above. Note that Park further discloses wherein the semi-static UE specific signaling is implemented using radio resource control (RRC) dedicated signaling (Paragraphs 130-131, 138 and 147-148 discloses that the information can be received using RRC (higher layer) or DCI, and further discloses that the indication can be UE specific or cell specific.).
RE claims 16 and 36, Park discloses the apparatuses of claims 13 and 33 as set forth above. Note that Park further discloses wherein the dynamic UE specific signaling is implemented using dedicated downlink control information (DCI) or using group common DCI that indicates dynamic switching between the LBT mode of operation and the non-LBT mode of operation to fulfil at least one condition (Paragraphs 130-131, 138 and 147-148 discloses that the information can be received using RRC (higher layer) or DCI, and further discloses that the indication can be UE specific or cell specific.).
RE claims 19 and 39, Park discloses the apparatuses of claims 13 and 33 as set forth above. Note that Park further discloses wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to receive a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) for reception of group common downlink control information (DCI) indicating switching between the LBT mode of operation and the non-LBT mode of operation (Paragraphs 130-131, 138 and 147-148 discloses that the information can be received using RRC (higher layer) or DCI, and further discloses that the indication can be UE specific or cell specific.).
RE claim 20, Park discloses the apparatuses of claim 13 as set forth above. Note that Park further discloses wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to transmit further comprising a transmitter that transmits a request for switching between the LBT mode of operation and the non-LBT mode of operation via a scheduling resource or a random access channel RACH transmission (Paragraph 151, its inherent in the art the request and LBT indication will occur with every successive PRACH).
RE claim 21, Park discloses the apparatuses of claim 13 as set forth above. Note that Park further discloses wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to determine processor determines a time for switching after reception of a switching indication in a current ongoing carrier occupancy time (COT), and the time for switching between the LBT listen-before-talk mode of operation and the non -LBT mode of operation is performed after completion of the current COT (Paragraphs 217-128, 130-131, 134 and 147 disclose discloses that the terminal receives the indication of the LBT scheme from the base station and in one possible configuration, the LBT indication determines whether to perform LBT or not. It is inherent in the, its inherent in the art the request and LBT indication will occur with every successive PRACH and thereby applied with each PRACH following a previously completed transmission )
RE claim 22, Park discloses the apparatuses of claim 13 as set forth above. Note that Park further discloses wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to determine processor determines a time for switching after reception of a switching indication in a current ongoing carrier occupancy time (COT), wherein the time for switching between the LBT mode of operation and the non-LBT mode of operation is performed immediately from a next slot (Paragraphs 217-128, 130-131, 134 and 147 disclose discloses that the terminal receives the indication of the LBT scheme from the base station and in one possible configuration, the LBT indication determines whether to perform LBT or not. It is inherent in the, its inherent in the art the request and LBT indication will occur with every successive PRACH and thereby applied with each PRACH following a previously completed transmission )
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.
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 17 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Yang et al. (US 2018/0352573, Yang hereafter)
RE claims 17 and 37, Park discloses the apparatuses of claims 13 and 33 as set forth above. Park does not explicitly disclose wherein switching criteria is determined based on measurement of reference signal received power(RSRP), reported reference signal received quality(RSRQ), a percentage of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) reports received, a ratio corresponding to a number of HARQ reports received, a number of consecutive HARQ reports received, or a combination thereof.
However, Yang teaches wherein switching criteria is determined based on measurement of reference signal received power(RSRP), reported reference signal received quality(RSRQ), a percentage of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) reports received, a ratio corresponding to a number of HARQ reports received, a number of consecutive HARQ reports received, or a combination thereof (Paragraphs 172 and 179 teaches LBT mode switching according to at least measurements of “Channel State Information (CSI) within a predetermined time length, a Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) within a predetermined time length, a Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ) within a predetermined time length, Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest—Acknowledge (HARQ-ACK) information, or information on a measured interference.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatuses of Park with the teachings of Yang in order to adapt LBT schemes to the current radio environment so as to improve utilization.
Claims 18 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Bhattad et al. (US 2020/0187250, Bhattad hereafter).
RE claims 18 and 38, Park discloses the apparatuses of claims 13 and 33 as set forth above. Park does not explicitly disclose wherein switching between the LBT mode of operation and the non-LBT mode of operation is cell specific, user equipment UE specific UE beam specific, or for a set of beams.
However, Bhattad teaches wherein switching between the LBT mode of operation and the non-LBT mode of operation is cell specific, user equipment UE specific UE beam specific, or for a set of beams (Paragraphs 147-148).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatuses of Park with the teachings of Bhattad since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Non-Patent Literature (QUALCOMM INCORPORATED: "FL summary for channel access mechanism for 52.6GHz-71 GHz band, ver 10", 3GPP DRAFT; R1-2009760, NPL hereafter)
RE claim 24, Park discloses the apparatuses of claims 13 and 33 as set forth above. Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to initiate the LBT mode of operation or the non-LBT non-listen-before-talk mode of operation using an independent maximum carrier occupancy time(COT).
However, NPL teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to initiate the LBT mode of operation or the non-LBT non-listen-before-talk mode of operation using an independent maximum carrier occupancy time(COT) (Section 2.3.1, LBT Parameters, COT duration, gaps. Proposals 2 and 3, maximum COT shall be 5m with consecutive transmissions in the COT without additional LBT should be at least 13ms).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatuses of Park with the teachings of NPL since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but may be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
RE claim 23, prior arts do not explicitly disclose, teach or suggest determining a time for switching after reception of a switching indication in a current ongoing carrier occupancy time(COT), wherein the time for switching between the mode of operation and the non-LBT mode of operation is performed immediately by terminating the current COT.
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 James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/James P Duffy/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights