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 Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed 20 November 2025, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1, 10 and 16 are amended.
Claims 14 and 15 are canceled.
Claims 1-13 and 16-22 are currently pending.
The outstanding objection to Claim 13 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claim 10.
The outstanding rejections of Claims 1-4, 7, 10, 12, 16-18 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and Claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1, 10 and 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 20 November 2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 3, 4, 10-13, 17, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 3, 4, 10-13, 17, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejection of claims 1, 10 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding Claims 1, 10 and 16, Applicant’s disclosure, as originally filed, contains a “sender unilateral assessment” (as recited at paragraphs 0033, 0037 and 0047); however, the newly added phrase “transmitter unilateral assessment” is not supported by Applicant’s disclosure, as originally filed, and therefore constitutes new matter. Claims 2-9, 11-13 and 17-22 are rejected by virtue of dependency on the rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0100284), hereinafter Li, in view of Pan et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication.
Regarding Claim 16, Li discloses a transmitter device (Figure 2, base station 102), comprising:
a processor (Figure 2, processor 225); and
a memory (Figure 2, memory 230), configured to store executable instructions of the processor (paragraph 0072, the processor executes programs and processes stored in the memory), wherein the processor is configured to:
determine an assessment manner of performing a listen before talk (LBT) assessment on an unlicensed channel (paragraph 0120 – the disclosure covers an NR-U system operating in unlicensed bands; Figure 26, steps 2604-2606 and paragraphs 0480-0482 – the base station adjusts a contention window size (CWS) to be used in an LBT assessment),
wherein the assessment manner comprises a first manner or a second manner, the first manner comprises the transmitter device performing the LBT assessment to obtain a first assessment result, and the second manner comprises the transmitter device performing the LBT assessment to obtain the first assessment result and obtaining a second assessment result of the LBT assessment performed by a receiver device (Figure 26, steps 2606-2608 and paragraphs 0482-0485 – the base station performs LBT based on the CWS adjustment (i.e., in a first manner if the CWS is increased to a next available value (second manner) or a minimum value (first manner); and
assess the unlicensed channel according to the determined assessment manner (Figure 26, step 2608 and paragraph 0485 – the base station performs LBT with the configurable sensing duration based on the adjusted CWS).
However, Li does not disclose the first manner is a transmitter unilateral assessment manner and the second manner is a receiver assisted assessment manner. In an analogous art, Pan discloses this. Specifically, Pan discloses a first manner of assessment performed solely by the transmitter (e.g., at Figure 10 where only the UE performs LBT) and a second manner of assessment where both the transmitter and receiver perform LBT (e.g., as shown in Figure 7 where both the transmitter and receiver perform LBT before data is transmitted). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li and Pan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to mitigate issues cased by hidden nodes (refer to paragraph 0103 of Pan).
Claim 1 is a method claim comprising the same steps as performed by the transmitter device in Claim 16. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 16.
Claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing executable instructions, wherein the executable instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method for accessing the unlicensed channel according to claim 1. As presented above, Li discloses the claimed method steps, as well as the base station compris(ing) a memory storing instructions executed by the processor to perform the method steps in Claim 1 (paragraph 0072).
Regarding Claim 2, Li discloses determining the assessment manner according to an HARQ-ACK feedback result of the receiver device (paragraphs 0475 and 0479 – a UE (receiver device) sends HARQ-ACK/NACK responses to the base station (transmitter device), where each ACK/NACK feedback bit is provided to adjust the contention window size (CWS)).
Regarding Claim 3, Li discloses determining a proportion of NACK received within a first time interval being greater than or equal to a threshold value (paragraph 0483 – the base station adjusts the CWS based on a fraction of NACK’d transport block with code block groups (CBG)); and determining to perform the LBT assessment on the unlicensed channel by using the second manner (paragraph 0483 – the CWS is increased to a next available value when the fraction of NACK’d CBG exceeds the predetermined threshold).
Regarding Claim 4, Li discloses determining a proportion of NACK received within a first time interval being less than or equal to a threshold value (paragraph 0483 – the base station adjusts the CWS based on a fraction of NACK’d transport block with code block groups (CBG)); and determining to perform the LBT assessment on the unlicensed channel by using the first manner (paragraph 0483 – the CWS is reset to a minimum value when the fraction of NACK’d CBG is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold).
Regarding Claim 7, Li discloses receiving a configuration signaling (paragraphs 0475 and 0479 – a UE (receiver device) sends HARQ-ACK/NACK responses to the base station (transmitter device), where each ACK/NACK feedback bit is provided to adjust the contention window size (CWS)); and determining the assessment manner of performing the LBT assessment on the unlicensed channel according to the configuration signaling (Figure 26, step 2608 and paragraph 0485 – the base station performs LBT with the configurable sensing duration based on the adjusted CWS).
Regarding Claim 10, Li discloses a method for accessing an unlicensed channel, performed by a receiver device, and comprising:
sending assistance information to a transmitter device, the assistance information is configured to determine an assessment manner by the transmitter device according to the assistance information (paragraphs 0475 and 0479 – a UE (receiver device) sends HARQ-ACK/NACK responses to the base station (transmitter device), where each ACK/NACK feedback bit is provided to adjust the contention window size (CWS)),
wherein the assessment manner is an assessment manner for assessing accessing the unlicensed channel (paragraph 0120 – the disclosure covers an NR-U system operating in unlicensed bands; Figure 26, steps 2604-2606 and paragraphs 0480-0482 – the base station adjusts a contention window size (CWS) to be used in an LBT assessment); and the assessment manner comprises a first manner or a second manner, the first manner comprises the transmitter device performing LBT assessment to obtain a first assessment result, and the second manner comprises the transmitter device performing the LBT assessment to obtain the first assessment result and obtaining a second assessment result of the LBT assessment performed by the receiver device (Figure 26, steps 2606-2608 and paragraphs 0482-0485 – the base station performs LBT based on the CWS adjustment (i.e., in a first manner if the CWS is increased to a next available value (second manner) or a minimum value (first manner).
However, Li does not disclose the first manner is a transmitter unilateral assessment manner and the second manner is a receiver assisted assessment manner. In an analogous art, Pan discloses this. Specifically, Pan discloses a first manner of assessment performed solely by the transmitter (e.g., at Figure 10 where only the UE performs LBT) and a second manner of assessment where both the transmitter and receiver perform LBT (e.g., as shown in Figure 7 where both the transmitter and receiver perform LBT before data is transmitted). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li and Pan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to mitigate issues caused by hidden nodes (refer to paragraph 0103 of Pan).
Regarding Claim 17, Li discloses a receiver device (Figure 3, UE 116), comprising: a processor (Figure 3, processor 340); and a memory (Figure 3, memory 360), configured to store executable instructions of the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute the executable instructions in the memory (paragraphs 0080-0081, the processor executes the instructions stored in the memory) so as to implement steps of the method for accessing the unlicensed channel according to claim 10 (as shown above, Li discloses the method of Claim 10).
Claim 22 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing executable instructions, wherein the executable instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method for accessing the unlicensed channel according to claim 10. As presented above, Li discloses the claimed method steps, as well as the UE compris(ing) a memory storing instructions executed by the processor to perform the method steps in Claim 10 (paragraphs 0080-0081).
Regarding Claim 12, Li discloses the assistance information is configured to represent information of an HARQ-ACK feedback result (paragraphs 0475 and 0479 – a UE (receiver device) sends HARQ-ACK/NACK responses to the base station (transmitter device), where each ACK/NACK feedback bit is provided to adjust the contention window size (CWS)).
Claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Pan, as applied to Claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Hu et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0124799), hereinafter Hu.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Li and Pan discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose receiving an assistance opening request of the receiver device; and determining to perform the LBT assessment on the unlicensed channel by using the second manner. In an analogous art, Hu discloses this. Specifically, Hu discloses multiple LBT assessment manners (e.g., directional LBT, quasi-omni-directional LBT, receiver-assisted LBT), where the LBT assessment manner corresponds to a Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) communicated via RRC signaling (paragraphs 0073-0076). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li/Pan and Hu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to manage interference and reduce signaling overhead (paragraphs 0035-0036 of Hu).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Li and Pan discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose receiving an assistance terminating request sent by the receiver device; and determining to perform the LBT assessment on the unlicensed channel by using the first manner. In an analogous art, Hu discloses this. Specifically, Hu discloses multiple LBT assessment manners (e.g., directional LBT, quasi-omni-directional LBT, receiver-assisted LBT), where the LBT assessment manner corresponds to a Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) communicated via RRC signaling (paragraphs 0073-0076). Additionally, the gNB can change its channel access move to no-LBT (i.e., assistance terminating) based on a specific TCI state (paragraph 0078). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li/Pan and Hu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to manage interference and reduce signaling overhead (paragraphs 0035-0036 of Hu).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Li and Pan discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose receiving a medium access control (MAC) signaling or a radio resource control (RRC) signaling; and determining to perform the LBT assessment on the unlicensed channel by using the second manner according to preset fields of the MAC signaling or RRC signaling. In an analogous art, Hu discloses this. Specifically, Hu discloses multiple LBT assessment manners (e.g., directional LBT, quasi-omni-directional LBT, receiver-assisted LBT), where the LBT assessment manner corresponds to a Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) communicated via RRC signaling (paragraphs 0073-0076, therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li/Pan and Hu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to manage interference and reduce signaling overhead (paragraphs 0035-0036 of Hu).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Li and Pan discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose receiving an MAC signaling or an RRC signaling; and determining to perform the LBT assessment on the unlicensed channel by using the first manner according to preset fields of the MAC signaling or RRC signaling. In an analogous art, Hu discloses this. Specifically, Hu discloses multiple LBT assessment manners (e.g., directional LBT, quasi-omni-directional LBT, receiver-assisted LBT), where the LBT assessment manner corresponds to a Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) communicated via RRC signaling (paragraphs 0073-0076, therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li/Pan and Hu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to manage interference and reduce signaling overhead (paragraphs 0035-0036 of Hu).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Li and Pan discloses the limitations of Claim 10, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose assistance information comprises an assistance opening request or an assistance terminating request. In an analogous art, Hu discloses this. Specifically, Hu discloses multiple LBT assessment manners (e.g., directional LBT, quasi-omni-directional LBT, receiver-assisted LBT), where the LBT assessment manner corresponds to a Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) communicated via RRC signaling (paragraphs 0073-0076) (i.e., assistance opening). Additionally, the gNB can change its channel access move to no-LBT (i.e., assistance terminating) based on a specific TCI state (paragraph 0078). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li/Pan and Hu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to manage interference and reduce signaling overhead (paragraphs 0035-0036 of Hu).
Regarding Claim 21, Li discloses the assistance information is configured to represent information of an HARQ-ACK feedback result (paragraphs 0475 and 0479 – a UE (receiver device) sends HARQ-ACK/NACK responses to the base station (transmitter device), where each ACK/NACK feedback bit is provided to adjust the contention window size (CWS)).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Li and Pan discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose receiving a medium access control (MAC) signaling or a radio resource control (RRC) signaling; and determining to perform the LBT assessment on the unlicensed channel by switching from the first manner to the second manner according to preset fields of the MAC signaling or RRC signaling. In an analogous art, Hu discloses this. In an analogous art, Hu discloses this. Specifically, Hu discloses switching between multiple LBT assessment manners (e.g., directional LBT, quasi-omni-directional LBT, receiver-assisted LBT), where the LBT assessment manner corresponds to a Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) communicated via RRC signaling (paragraphs 0073-0076, therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li/Pan and Hu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to manage interference and reduce signaling overhead (paragraphs 0035-0036 of Hu).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Li and Pan discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose receiving a medium access control (MAC) signaling or a radio resource control (RRC) signaling; and determining to perform the LBT assessment on the unlicensed channel by switching from the second manner to the first manner according to preset fields of the MAC signaling or RRC signaling. In an analogous art, Hu discloses this. In an analogous art, Hu discloses this. Specifically, Hu discloses switching between multiple LBT assessment manners (e.g., directional LBT, quasi-omni-directional LBT, receiver-assisted LBT), where the LBT assessment manner corresponds to a Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) communicated via RRC signaling (paragraphs 0073-0076, therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li and Hu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to manage interference and reduce signaling overhead (paragraphs 0035-0036 of Hu).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Pan and Hu as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Yang et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0126765), hereinafter Yang. The combination of Li, Pan and Hu renders the limitations of Claim 11 obvious, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose obtaining the second assessment result by performing clear channel assessment; and determining the assistance information according to the second assessment result and a second threshold value. In an analogous art, Yang discloses this. Specifically, Yang discloses performing CCA and determining the received energy is below a certain threshold, and utilizing RRC or DCI to configure from a plurality of LBT operations (described in paragraphs 0173-0175 and shown in Table 12). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li/Pan/Hu with Yang to prevent exposed node/hidden node problems and achieve a match between sensing beams and transmission beams (paragraph 0034 of Yang).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang et al (“Receiver Assisted LBT Mechanism Design for Beam-based Transmission in Unlicensed Bands”) is directed to energy detection thresholds in receiver-assisted LBT mechanisms.
Zheng et al (“Design of Multi-Carrier LBT for LAA&WiFi Coexistence in Unlicensed Spectrum”) discloses load-based and frame-based LBT (refer to Figure 1).
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 ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights