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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application is a National Stage entry of PCT/US2022/012072 (international filing date: 01/12/2022), which claims priority from provisional application 63136248
(filed 01/12/2021).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 18-19, and 26-27 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 18 line 3, the term “if” in the phrase “if the second COT is ongoing...” is vague and indefinite. It is vague and indefinite because it is questionable whether said condition using the term “if” should be considered. It is suggested that the term “if” be replaced by terms/phrases such as “when” or “in an event”. Similar problem appears in claim 26.
Regarding claims 19 and 27, these claims are rejected based on their dependency from rejected claims 18 and 26, respectively.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 17-22 and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20200359411 A1, hereinafter Li), in view of MOHAMED ADEL SALEM (US 20210105815 A1, hereinafter SALEM).
Regarding claim 17, Li teaches a wireless transmit receive unit (WTRU), comprising: a processor and a transceiver (Li, see at least fig. 2-3, e.g. functional components),
wherein the WTRU configured to (Li, in general, see fig. 12 and corresponding paragraphs 169-194 for UE-initiated COT sharing, along with background information on para. 159-168; see also fig. 21 and its corresponding paragraphs for relevant information on gNB COT sharing):
receive configuration information, wherein the configuration information comprises an indication of a first uplink resource associated with a first operating condition (Li, see at least para. 176 along with para. 256, for one non-limiting example, “...the DL transmission can be an UL grant that schedules another UL data transmission for the UE that initiated the COT. In one instance, the DL transmission can be the UL grant that activates/deactivates the CG-PUSCH transmission for the UE. In another instance, the DL transmission can be the UL grant that schedules regular PUSCH transmission for the UE...”, note that for an non-limiting example, “...the UL grant/PDCCH can have a LBT type field to indicate one of the CAT-1 LBT, 16 μs CAT-2 LBT, 25 μs CAT-2 LBT, CAT-4 LBT with priority class/CAPC value 1, CAT-4 LBT with priority class/CAPC value 2, CAT-4 LBT with priority class/CAPC value 3, and CAT-4 LBT with priority class/CAPC value 4...”);
and wherein the first uplink resource is in a first period (Li, see at least para. 169-170 along with para. 172, “...FIG. 12 illustrates an example UL transmission with constraint 1200 according to embodiments of the present disclosure...”);
determine, during the first period, that data is available (Li, see at least para. 172, “...the UL data transmission of the UE(s) that is transmitted within the UE-initiated COT(s) (i.e., a UE obtains the COT after successful CAT-4 LBT to transmit the UL data transmissions)...”);
and
transmit the data, wherein the data is transmitted in the first period using a second uplink resource when conditions are satisfied (Li, see at least para. 172, “...the UL data transmission of the UE(s) that is transmitted within the UE-initiated COT(s) (i.e., a UE obtains the COT after successful CAT-4 LBT to transmit the UL data transmissions)...”),
wherein the second uplink resource is associated with a second operating condition (Li, see at least para. 172 along with para. 103, “...the UL data transmission of the UE(s) that is transmitted within the UE-initiated COT(s) (i.e., a UE obtains the COT after successful CAT-4 LBT to transmit the UL data transmissions)...”),
wherein the conditions comprise that the WTRU has initiated a first channel occupancy time (COT) (Li, see at least para. 172 along with para. 103, “...the UL data transmission of the UE(s) that is transmitted within the UE-initiated COT(s) (i.e., a UE obtains the COT after successful CAT-4 LBT to transmit the UL data transmissions)...”),
and
wherein the conditions further comprise one or more conditions from a set of conditions comprising:
a first amount of time after a second COT associated with the first operating condition has ended exceeds a first threshold (Li, see at least para. 249 along with para. 256, note that these paragraphs disclose several examples as follow, and one or more of these examples can be applied: (i) The CAT-4 LBT can be used by the UE to obtain a UE-initiated COT; CAT-2 LBT of 25 μs duration (This can be used when the gap from the start of the UL transmission to the end of previous transmission is at least 25 μs); (ii) the UL transmission can be shared within a COT obtained through CAT-4 LBT; CAT-2 LBT of 16 μs duration (This can be used when the gap from the start of the UL transmission to the end of previous transmission is 16 μs); (iii) the UL transmission can be shared within a COT obtained through CAT-4 LBT; and CAT-1 LBT with immediate transmission (This can be used when the gap from the start of the UL transmission to the end of previous transmission is less than 16 μs); (iii) and the UL transmission can be shared within a COT obtained through CAT-4 LBT; note that “...the UL grant/PDCCH can have a LBT type field to indicate one of the CAT-1 LBT, 16 μs CAT-2 LBT, 25 μs CAT-2 LBT, CAT-4 LBT with priority class/CAPC value 1, CAT-4 LBT with priority class/CAPC value 2, CAT-4 LBT with priority class/CAPC value 3, and CAT-4 LBT with priority class/CAPC value 4...”),
or
a second amount of time between the second uplink resource and a second FFP exceeds a second threshold.
Li does not teach [first uplink resource is in] a first fixed frame period (FFP).
SALEM teaches [first uplink resource is in] a first fixed frame period (FFP) (SALEM, see at least para. 130, “...The minimum time between such periodic instants is the fixed frame period, which encompasses the channel occupancy time [i.e. COT] of the transmission and an idle period...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate SALEM into the apparatus of Li for effectively reducing scheduling overheads (SALEM, para. 7).
Regarding claim 18, Li in view of SALEM teaches the first operating condition is a condition during which available data is allowed to be sent in the first uplink resource associated with the first operating condition in the first FFP if the second COT is ongoing or the first amount of time after the second COT associated with the first operating condition has ended is below the first threshold. (Li, see at least para. 249 along with para. 256 and fig. 12, note that these paragraphs disclose several examples as follow, and one or more of these examples can be applied, see also claim 17 rejection above for detail)
Regarding claim 19, Li in view of SALEM teaches the first operating condition is associated with a frame-based equipment (FBE) configuration. (Li, see at least fig. 12 along with para. 281-284, “...In another sub-example, this example can be applied when different supported LBT types can be configured by higher layer parameter for LBE NR-U and FBE NR-U...”)
Regarding claim 20, Li in view of SALEM teaches the second operating condition is a condition during which available data is allowed to be sent in the second uplink resource associated with the second operating condition in the first FFP when the conditions are met. (Li, see at least para. 172 of fig. 12 along with para. 253-256, “...the UL grant refers to the PDCCH that can schedule or configure an UL transmission...”, note that “...UL grant/PDCCH can have a LBT type field to indicate one of the CAT-1 LBT, 16 μs CAT-2 LBT, 25 μs CAT-2 LBT, CAT-4 LBT ...”)
Regarding claim 21, Li in view of SALEM teaches the second operating condition is associated with a load-based equipment (LBE) configuration. (Li, see at least fig. 12 along with para. 281-284 in view of para. 103, “...In another sub-example, this example can be applied when different supported LBT types can be configured by higher layer parameter for LBE NR-U and FBE NR-U...”)
Regarding claim 22, Li in view of SALEM teaches the set of conditions further comprises: an activation being received or a priority of the data being above a third threshold. (Li, see at least para. 254 along with para. 408, “...the UL grant can refer to PDCCH of DCI format 0_0 or DCI format 0_1, which directly schedules a PUSCH uplink transmission...”, note that “...DCI (e.g., DCI format 0_0, 0_1, 1_0 or 1_1) that activates the CG-PUSCH...”)
Regarding claims 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22, respectively, except each of these claims is in method claim format.
Claims 23-24, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of SALEM, as applied to claims 17 and 25 above, and further in view of AWADIN et al. (WO 2021062118 A1, hereinafter AWADIN, NOTE: corresponding US 20230035989 A1 is currently used below for rejection citation purposes)
Regarding claim 23, Li in view of SALEM teaches all of the subject matter in claim 17 except a value of the second threshold is based on a priority of the data.
AWADIN, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches a value of the second threshold is based on a priority of the data (AWADIN, in general, see fig. 5 and corresponding paragraphs 145-149 including TABLE 2 and TABLE 3, in particular see at least para. 148 and TABLE 2, for one non-limiting example, TABLE 2 discloses N(FFP) is based on Transmission priority classes, note that para. 149 and TABLE 3 discloses another embodiment which could also be applied).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate AWADIN into the apparatus of Li in view of SALEM for effectively performing channel access procedures for handling transmission priority, collisions, and sharing in the COT (AWADIN, para. 3)
Regarding claim 24, Li in view of SALEM and AWADIN teaches as the priority of the data increases the value of the second threshold is decreased. (AWADIN, see at least para. 148 and TABLE 2, for one non-limiting example, TABLE 2 discloses as Transmission priority classes increases the N(FFP) decreases, note that para. 149 and TABLE 3 discloses another embodiment which could also be applied).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate AWADIN into the apparatus of Li in view of SALEM for effectively performing channel access procedures for handling transmission priority, collisions, and sharing in the COT (AWADIN, para. 3)
Regarding claims 31, and 32, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 23, and 24, respectively, except each of these claims is in method claim format.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 17 and 25, since applicant's amendment necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, previous Office action's rejections are moot. Accordingly, corresponding dependent claims have also been rejected in this Office action.
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 YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 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 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.
/YEE F LAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465