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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/03/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not comply with the standard format of the abstract for the U.S. Application. That is, it is improper to include any of the drawing figures and/or internation publication data within the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of claims 9 and 15, lines 1-2, “listen-before-talk gaps” should read as -- listen-before-talk (LBT) gaps – for consistency in claim language recitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-30 are 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.
In claim 1, lines 3-5, it is confusing and ambiguous for reciting “determining, among the UE and multiple transmit receive points (TRPs) communicating with the UE in a frame based equipment (FBE) mode, an initiating node that acquired a current channel occupancy time” since it is unclear as to where the initiating node is located or coming from. It is also unclear as to what purpose it serves to determine an initiating node that acquired current channel occupancy time. That is, it is unclear as to what usage is for the determined initiating node that acquired current channel occupancy time. Lines 9-10, it is also confusing and ambiguous for reciting “refraining from transmitting during the one or more idle periods, wherein the one or more idle periods include at least an idle period associated with the UE” since it is unclear as to what purpose it serves to have the one or more idle periods include at least an idle period associated with the UE.
In claim 2, lines 1-2, it is confusing and ambiguous for reciting “the one or more idle periods include an idle period in the FFP structure associated with the initiating node” since the one or more idle periods already include at least an idle period associated with the UE according to claim 1, how can the one or more idle periods include an idle period in the FFP structure associated with the initiating node if there is only one idle period exists for the one or more idle periods?
In claim 3, lines 1-2, it is unclear as to how the UE is determined to be either an initiating node or a responding node.
In claim 4, lines 1-2, it is confusing and ambiguous for reciting “the one or more idle periods include a common idle period associated with the multiple TRPs” since the one or more idle periods already include at least an idle period associated with the UE according to claim 1, how can the one or more idle periods include a common idle period associated with the multiple TRPs if there is only one idle period exists for the one or more idle periods?
In claim 5, lines 1-2, it is confusing and ambiguous for reciting “the one or more idle periods include an idle period associated with a TRP” since the one or more idle periods already include at least an idle period associated with the UE according to claim 1, how can the one or more idle periods include an idle period associated with a TRP if there is only one idle period exists for the one or more idle periods?
In claim 8, lines 1-4, it is confusing and ambiguous for reciting “the one or more idle periods include an idle period associated with one or more of a first TRP, of the multiple TRPs, …. , or a second TRP, of the multiple TRPs” since the one or more idle periods already include at least an idle period associated with the UE according to claim 1, how can the one or more idle periods include an idle period associated with a first TRP or a second TRP if there is only one idle period exists for the one or more idle periods?
Claims 6-7 are rejected for depending on claim 5.
Claim 9 is rejected for depending on claim 8.
Claim 10 is rejected for depending on claim 1.
Claim 11 is rejected for substantially same reason as claim 1, except the method is performed on a transmit receive points (TRP) perspective instead of UE.
Claims 12-23 are rejected for depending on claim 11.
Claim 24 is rejected for substantially identical reason as claim 1, except the claim is in an apparatus claim format.
Claims 25-27 are rejected for depending on claim 24.
Claim 28 is rejected for substantially identical reason as claim 11, except the claim is in an apparatus claim format.
Claims 29-30 are rejected for depending on claim 28.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-30 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Note: In view of the 112(b) rejection as indicated above, no allowable subject matter can be applied at this time since it is still unclear as to what the intended scope for the claimed invention will be before the 112(b) issues are resolved.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Radulescu et al., Fisher-Jeffes et al., Xue et al., Sun et al., Xu et al. ‘688, ‘015 & ‘275, Awadin et al., Guo et al. ‘896 & ‘617, Tooher et al., and Tsai et al. are all cited to show the common feature of determining fixed frame period (FFP) that is configured for user equipment (UE) in frame based equipment (FBE) mode associated with one or more idle periods and channel occupancy time (COT) sharing similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALPUS H HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-3146. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:30 AM - 3:00 PM. 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, AYMAN A ABAZA can be reached at (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 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.
/ALPUS HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights