DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The instant Office Action is in response to communication filed on 12/3/2025.
Claims 1-6 are pending. Claims 1 and 6 are the base independent claims.
Claims 1 and 6 are amended.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
Regarding claim 1, Applicant files arguments with respect to the amendment.
--In response, new grounds of rejection are made by the combination of BAE and Xiong based on the amended claim limitations. Upon further consideration, BAE still applies to a portion of the independent claims because the amendment does not change the scope of this portion. In addition, the reference, Yoshimura, had properly claimed the foreign priority benefit through the submitted certified copies of the priority documents, hence the prior art is valid. The rest of the arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference being used in the current rejection.
Regarding claim 6, because the patent scopes of the limitations in the independent claim is the same as in claim 1, therefore the claim is rejected based on the same reason given to claim 1 mutatis mutandis.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over BAE et al (US 2022/0132495) in view of Xiong et al (US 2022/0104253) and in view of Yoshimura et al (US 2024/0137146).
Regarding claim 1, BAE discloses a communication device comprising:
a processor (par 237; e.g. processor) configured to determine a coding-related parameter to apply to a data signal (par 147, par 154-160, par 238; e.g. the UE and the BS may derive/determine the same resources available for an actual PDSCH or PUSCH transmission; par 160; mcsAndTBS that provides IMCS indicating a modulation order, a target code rate, and a transport block size; par 173; a corresponding MCS are provided by resource assignment fields (e.g., a TDRA field providing a TDRA value m, an FDRA field providing frequency resource block assignment, and/or an MCS field; also see fig. 11, table 6); and
a transmitter configured to transmit the determined coding-related parameter, and the data signal to which the coding-related parameter is applied, in autonomously selected resources, to another communication device (par 219; e.g. PUSCH allocated in each slot may be transmitted only in consideration of i) the determined TBS and ii) a modulation order selected based on an MCS (S903). According to Example 2-2, the BS and the UE may successfully transmit or receive the PDSCH/PUSCH, assuming the same TBS; also par 265-267, par 285-286; e.g. The network/UE may perform the indicated transmissions/receptions in at least one of the five resources by applying the mapped RV values to the corresponding resources; also fig. 12).
The reference does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processor performs Listen Before Talk (LBT), wherein, in response to the LBT being successful, the transmitter performs transmission of the data signal by attaching a preamble signal to the data signal, and wherein, in response to the LBT failing, the processor performs LBT again before a given transmission timing and the transmitter transmits a different data signal from the data signal that was prepared to be transmitted at a time when the LBT failed.
However, Xiong discloses:
wherein the processor performs Listen Before Talk (LBT), wherein, in response to the LBT being successful, the transmitter performs transmission of the data signal by attaching a preamble signal to the data signal (fig. 2 & par 137-138; e.g. UE1 successfully performs LBT and transmits the message 3 at one time; wherein the UEs are in a contention (select the same RO and/or preamble), hence preamble signal is attached; also see par 35), and wherein, in response to the LBT failing, the processor performs LBT again before a given transmission timing and the transmitter transmits a different data signal from the data signal that was prepared to be transmitted at a time when the LBT failed (par 53, par 139; e.g. in the subsequent transmission resource occasion after LBT failure and successful again… the UE may transmit multiple uplink data that may be different, hence a different data signal).
In view of the above, 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 teaching of communication protocol configured for the electronic system of Xiong with the electronic system of BAE. One is motivated as such to perform random access in an unlicensed spectrum (Xiong, par 4).
Regarding claim 2, the combination does not explicitly disclose the subject matter, however Yoshimura discloses:
wherein the coding-related parameter indicates which bits in a coded bit sequence are transmitted (par 247; e.g. Configuration regarding monitoring of DCI format 2_0 may include at least one or more of S1 to S3. S1 is an identifier of a serving cell. S2 is information indicating bit location of field for index of a slot format indicator. S3 is a set of slot format combinations).
In view of the above, 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 teaching of communication protocol configured for the electronic system of Yoshimura with the electronic system of BAE and Xiong. One is motivated as such to improve communication flexibility and efficiency (Youshimura, par 4).
Regarding claim 3, BAE discloses:
wherein the coding-related parameter is an index that indicates an RV (Redundancy Version) and a number of transmissions associated with the RV (par 271-273; e.g. When the RV sequence associated with the index indicated by RRC signaling or DCI is {R_0, R_1, R_2, R_3, …, R_(M-1)}, the UE may perform each transmission or each reception in corresponding resources by using R_0 for resource CH_0, R_1 for resource CH_i, …, R_K’ for resource CH_K (K’=K mod M)).
Regarding claim 4, BAE discloses:
wherein the transmitter transmits the coding-related parameter, in a preamble or a dedicated signal, to the another communication device (par 142, par 154; UE may be provided with the following parameters through RRC signaling; also par 241, par 273).
Regarding claim 5, BAE discloses:
wherein the transmitter transmits a location of resources in which the dedicated signal is transmitted, to the another communication device (par 295-300; e.g. Type-1 resource allocation information is information used to determine the physical location of resources, and determine a pattern of repeated transmissions, when the repeated transmissions are performed).
Regarding claim 6, BAE discloses a communication method to preformed by a communication device, the method comprising:
determining a coding-related parameter to apply to a data signal (par 147, par 154-160, par 238; e.g. the UE and the BS may derive/determine the same resources available for an actual PDSCH or PUSCH transmission; par 160; mcsAndTBS that provides IMCS indicating a modulation order, a target code rate, and a transport block size; par 173; a corresponding MCS are provided by resource assignment fields (e.g., a TDRA field providing a TDRA value m, an FDRA field providing frequency resource block assignment, and/or an MCS field; also see fig. 11, table 6); and
transmitting the determined coding-related parameter, and the data signal to which the coding-related parameter is applied, in autonomously selected resources, to another communication device (par 219; e.g. PUSCH allocated in each slot may be transmitted only in consideration of i) the determined TBS and ii) a modulation order selected based on an MCS (S903). According to Example 2-2, the BS and the UE may successfully transmit or receive the PDSCH/PUSCH, assuming the same TBS; also par 265-267, par 285-286; e.g. The network/UE may perform the indicated transmissions/receptions in at least one of the five resources by applying the mapped RV values to the corresponding resources; also fig. 12).
The reference does not explicitly disclose:
performing Listen Before Talk (LBT), wherein, in response to the LBT being successful, the communication device performs transmission of the data signal by attaching a preamble signal to the data signal, and wherein, in response to the LBT failing, the communication device performs LBT again before a given transmission timing and transmits a different data signal from the data signal that was prepared to be transmitted at a time when the LBT failed.
However, Xiong discloses:
performing Listen Before Talk (LBT), wherein, in response to the LBT being successful, the communication device performs transmission of the data signal by attaching a preamble signal to the data signal (fig. 2 & par 137-138; e.g. UE1 successfully performs LBT and transmits the message 3 at one time; wherein the UEs are in a contention (select the same RO and/or preamble), hence preamble signal is attached; also see par 35), and wherein, in response to the LBT failing, the communication device performs LBT again before a given transmission timing and transmits a different data signal from the data signal that was prepared to be transmitted at a time when the LBT failed (par 53, par 139; e.g. in the subsequent transmission resource occasion after LBT failure and successful again… the UE may transmit multiple uplink data that may be different, hence a different data signal).
In view of the above, 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 teaching of communication protocol configured for the electronic system of Xiong with the electronic system of BAE. One is motivated as such to perform random access in an unlicensed spectrum (Xiong, par 4).
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 YAOTANG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4023. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-18:00 ET (M, W, TH & alternate F).
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, HADI ARMOUCHE can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/YAOTANG WANG/SCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409