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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 12 May 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 2-5, 12, 14, 15 and 19-21 are canceled.
Claims 1, 6-11, 13, 16-18 and 22 are amended and currently pending.
The outstanding rejections of Claims 1, 6-11, 13, 16-18 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1, 10 and 16.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 25 February 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12 May 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1, 6-11, 13, 16-18 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered. The Office notes that the amendment remedies the issue identified in the Office action dated 13 February 2026. However, the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is maintained for the reasons presented herein.
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, 6-11, 13, 16-18 and 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. The Office notes that citations to Applicant’s specification are taken from the instant application’s pre-grant publication (US 2024/0064802).
Regarding Claims 1 and 16, these claims have been amended to recite the following:
“determining the assessment manner according to an HARQ-ACK feedback result of the receiver device;
wherein determining the assessment manner according to the HARQ-ACK feedback result of the receiver device comprises:
determining a proportion of NACK received within a first time interval being greater than a threshold value, and determining to perform the LBT assessment on the unlicensed channel by using the second manner;
determining the proportion of NACK received within the first time interval being less than the threshold value, and determining to perform the LBT assessment on the unlicensed channel by using the first manner; and
determining the proportion of NACK received within the first time interval being equal to the threshold value, and determining to perform the LBT assessment on the unlicensed channel by using the first manner or the second manner;”
However, Applicant’s disclosure, as originally filed, does not support a single determination comprising three separate determinations as part of “determining the assessment manner according to an HARQ-ACK feedback result of the receiver device.” Rather, as described at paragraphs 0056 and 0057 (emphasis added by the Office):
“[0056] In an example, determining the assessment manner according to the HARQ-ACK feedback result of the receiver device includes: determining, in response to a proportion of NACK received within the first time interval being greater than or equal to the first threshold value, to perform the LBT assessment on the unlicensed channel by using the second manner.
[0057] In an example, determining the assessment manner according to the HARQ-ACK feedback result of the receiver device includes: determining, in response to the proportion of NACK received within the first time interval being less than or equal to the first threshold value, to perform the LBT assessment on the unlicensed channel by using the first manner.”
Similar disclosure is found at paragraphs 0123-0126 and 0179-0181 of the specification. However, as is shown in the passage above, the specification contemplates separate examples respectively resulting in the second manner or the first manner. However, these separate examples do not provide support for one single step of performing three determinations in order to determine the assessment manner according to HARQ-ACK feedback. Accordingly, this claim language constitutes new matter.
Claim 10 recites similar language to Claims 1 and 16 and has the same issue with respect to the performing three separate determinations with regards to the assessment manner.
Claims 6-9, 11, 13, 17, 18 and 22 are rejected by virtue of dependency on the rejected independent claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 6-11, 13, 16-18 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and 16, these claims have been amended to recite the following:
“determining the assessment manner according to an HARQ-ACK feedback result of the receiver device;
wherein determining the assessment manner according to the HARQ-ACK feedback result of the receiver device comprises:
determining a proportion of NACK received within a first time interval being greater than a threshold value, and determining to perform the LBT assessment on the unlicensed channel by using the second manner;
determining the proportion of NACK received within the first time interval being less than the threshold value, and determining to perform the LBT assessment on the unlicensed channel by using the first manner; and
determining the proportion of NACK received within the first time interval being equal to the threshold value, and determining to perform the LBT assessment on the unlicensed channel by using the first manner or the second manner;”
Firstly, the claim comprises three separate determination steps related to the same “proportion of NACK received within a first time interval” and “threshold value” However, the step requires determining that the (single) proportion of NACK received is greater than, less than, and equal to the threshold. The claim does not specify how a single value can satisfy the three conditions simultaneously and is therefore indefinite.
Further, if the proportion of NACK is equal to the threshold value, the assessment manner remains undetermined (i.e., using the first manner or the second manner without specifying which manner is used). Therefore, it is not clear how the assessment manner is determined since the claim language does not specify whether the first or second manner would be used in the instance where the proportion of NACK is equal to the threshold value. This language also creates clarity issues later in the claim language at “switching from the first manner to the second manner” or vice versa. Since neither manner is determined in the event that the proportion of NACK is equal to the threshold value, it is unclear how the claimed transmitter device could switch between the manners.
Claim 10 recites similar language to Claims 1 and 16 and has the same issue with respect to the undetermined assessment manner. For these reasons, Claims 1, 10 and 16 are indefinite. Claims 6-9, 11, 13, 17, 18 and 22 are rejected by virtue of dependency on the rejected independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Goyal et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20200314906) discloses, at paragraphs 0410-0411, switching from a directional LBT to an omnidirectional LBT based on HARQ-ACK feedback. For example, if multiple HARQ-ACK feedbacks are NACKs, then a transmitting node (TX) may switch to an omnidirectional LBT. Otherwise, it may continue with the directional LBT. Switching from a directional LBT to an omnidirectional LBT may be implemented based, e.g., on information such as a HARQ-ACK feedback. More specifically, in some embodiments, the transmitting node may average the collected information for a DL (downlink) case. In one example embodiment, the transmitting node in the DL case, such as a gNB, may collect HARQ-ACK feedback from a UE, and may determine to switch from a directional LBT to an omnidirectional LBT when a number of NACKs exceeds a particular threshold within a given time period or over a certain number of received HARQ feedbacks.
Bhattad et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20220399964) discloses adjusting a size of an LBT contention window based on HARQ feedback (refer to Figure 3).
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