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 .
This office action is in response to RCE filed 04/22/2026.
Claims 1-30 are pending and presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
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 1-3, 9-13, 16, 18-20, 23-25, 27, 28, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2019/0090279 A1) in view of Cao et al. (US 2024/0188128 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 23, Sun discloses a method and an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
a memory storing computer-executable instructions (see par. 0008); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory (see par. 0008) and configured to execute the instructions to:
receive a pre-grant (PG) indicating a plurality of beams and a transmission resource (see para. 0035-0037, discloses receiving PG with band as resource, see par. 0084, 0100, 0102 further discloses indication of beams, see para. 0080-0090);
perform a listen before talk (LBT) procedure on each beam of the indicated plurality of beams (see Id. discloses performing an LBT, see also para. 0129-130); and
transmit an acknowledgment to the pre-grant (APG) including a LBT report for the indicated plurality of beams on the transmission resource, the LBT report indicating a result of the LBT procedure for each beam of the indicated plurality of beams (see para. 0037, discloses transmitting response such as ack or nack, alternatively, see para. channel reservation procedure, indicating result of LBT, see para. 0080-0090).
Sun fails to disclose but Cao discloses wherein the LBT report indicating, for each beam of the indicated plurality of beams, a respective result of the LBT procedure for the beam of the indicated plurality of beams (see para. 0069-0070, discloses transmitting a report comprising sequence of bits indicating a respective result of LBT procedure for each of the beams).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include LBT report indicating, for each beam of the indicated plurality of beams, a respective result of the LBT procedure for the beam of the indicated plurality of beams as described by Cao.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow notifying the recipient of success or failure of access such that interfering beams can be eliminated.
Regarding claim 18 and 27, Sun discloses a method an apparatus for wireless communication at a base station, comprising:
a memory storing computer-executable instructions (see fig. 13, 1325); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory (see fig. 13, 1320) and configured to execute the instructions to:
transmit a pre-grant (PG) indicating a plurality of beams and a transmission resource to a user equipment (UE) (see para. 0035-0037, discloses transmitting PG with band as resource, see par. 0084, 0100, 0102 further discloses indication of beams); and
receive an acknowledgment to the pre-grant (APG) on the transmission resource, the APG including a listen before talk (LBT) report indicating a result of a LBT procedure for each beam of the indicated plurality of beams (see para. 0037, discloses receiving response such as ack or nack, alternatively, see para. channel reservation procedure, indicating result of LBT).
Sun fails to disclose but Cao discloses wherein the LBT report indicating, for each beam of the indicated plurality of beams, a respective result of the LBT procedure for the beam of the indicated plurality of beams (see para. 0069-0070, discloses transmitting a report comprising sequence of bits indicating a respective result of LBT procedure for each of the beams).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include LBT report indicating, for each beam of the indicated plurality of beams, a respective result of the LBT procedure for the beam of the indicated plurality of beams as described by Cao.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow notifying the recipient of success or failure of access such that interfering beams can be eliminated.
Regarding claims 2, 19-20, 24, 25, 28, Sun discloses the method or an apparatus, wherein the result for at least one beam of the indicated plurality of beams is a successful LBT procedure, and wherein a transmitter is allowed to transmit a downlink transmission on the at least one beam during a channel occupancy time (COT) (see para. 0035-0037, 0129-0130 discloses transmission of ack or channel reservation is successful LBT is performed, COT is TxOP) or wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive the downlink transmission on the at least one beam with the successful LBT procedure (see para. 0035-0037, 0129-0130 discloses transmission of ack or channel reservation is successful LBT is performed, COT is TxOP).
Regarding claim 3, Sun discloses the method, further comprising receiving the downlink transmission on the at least one beam with the successful LBT procedure (par. 0035-0037, discloses receiving downlink transmission, see also fig. 4-5).
Regarding claim 9, 30, Sun discloses the method wherein the APG is transmitted on a COT is defined by an end of an LBT procedure performed prior to the PG and a maximum channel occupancy time (MCOT) value (see fig. 3, discloses transmission of channel reservation after LBT and PG in TxOP as MCOT, see also para. 0083) or performing a base station LBT procedure prior to transmitting the PG, wherein the APG is received on a COT defined by an end of the base station LBT procedure and a maximum channel occupancy time (MCOT) value (see fig. 3, discloses transmission of channel reservation after LBT and PG in TxOP as MCOT, see also para. 0083).
Regarding claim 10, Sun discloses the method wherein the APG is transmitted outside of a channel occupancy time (COT) as a contention-free transmission (see par. 0083, discloses transmitting response in different channel entirely).
Regarding claim 11, Sun discloses the method wherein the PG indicates that only control signaling is allowed on the transmission resource (see par. 0013, discloses channel reservation using TxOP of the pre-grant and its transmitted in PUCCH).
Regarding claim 12, Sun discloses the method wherein the APG is a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) scheduled by the PG (see par. 0100, discloses PG scheduling in TxOP downlink or uplink, e.g. PUSCH).
Regarding claim 13, Sun discloses the method wherein the PG is a downlink control information (DCI) (see par. 0100).
Regarding claim 16, Sun discloses the method wherein the LBT procedure for each beam of the indicated plurality of beams is time division multiplexed (TDM) or space division multiplexed (SDM) (see par. 0068, discloses at least TDM).
Claims 4-6, 8, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Cao as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Chendamarai Kannan et al. (US 2020/0037169 A1, referred to as Chendamarai).
Regarding claims 4, 8, the combination of Sun and Cao disclose wherein the LBT procedure on each beam of the indicated plurality of beams is a clear channel assessment (CCA) procedure (see para. 0069-0071).
Sun fails to disclose but Chendamarai discloses wherein the clear channel assessment is an extended clear channel assessment (eCCA) as recited in claim 4, or a short clear channel assessment as recited in claim 8 (see para. 0109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to replace CCA with extended CCA or short CCA procedure.
The motivation for doing so would be to satisfy different channel access procedure for different situation.
Regarding claim 5, 29, Sun discloses the method wherein the COT is defined by an end of the successful LBT procedure corresponding to the at least one beam and a maximum channel occupancy time (MCOT) value (para. 0083-0084, discloses TxOP as COT corresponding to transmitting beam and max duration).
Regarding claim 6, Sun discloses the method, wherein the transmission resource corresponds to the at least one beam with the successful LBT procedure (see par. 0035-0037, 0084, 0100, 0102 discloses TxOP associated with the transmission beam).
Claims 7, 21, 22, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Cao, Chendamarai as applied to claims 4 above, and further in view of Koorapaty et al. (US 2017/0142746 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Sun fails to disclose but Koorapaty discloses the method wherein the APG includes a timestamp of the successful LBT procedure (see par. 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include an APG with timestamp of successful LBT procedure as described by Koorapaty.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow identifying the most recent status of the channel.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Sun and Cao disclose wherein the LBT procedure on each beam of the indicated plurality of beams is a clear channel assessment (CCA) procedure (see para. 0069-0071).
Sun fails to disclose but Chendamarai discloses wherein the clear channel assessment is an extended clear channel assessment (eCCA) (see para. 0109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to replace CCA with extended CCA or short CCA procedure.
The motivation for doing so would be to satisfy different channel access procedure for different situation.
Sun fails to disclose but Koorapaty discloses the method wherein the APG includes a timestamp of the successful LBT procedure (see par. 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include an APG with timestamp of successful LBT procedure as described by Koorapaty.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow identifying the most recent status of the channel.
Regarding claim 22, Sun discloses the method performing a base station LBT procedure prior to transmitting the PG, wherein the APG is received on a COT defined by an end of the base station LBT procedure and a maximum channel occupancy time (MCOT) value (see fig. 3, discloses transmission of channel reservation after LBT and PG in TxOP as MCOT, see also para. 0083).
Regarding claim 26, Sun discloses the apparatus wherein the COT is defined by an end of the successful LBT procedure corresponding to the at least one beam and a maximum channel occupancy time (MCOT) value (see fig. 3, discloses transmission of channel reservation after LBT and PG in TxOP as MCOT, see also para. 0083).
Sun fails to disclose but Chendamarai discloses wherein the clear channel assessment is an extended clear channel assessment (eCCA) (see para. 0109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to replace CCA with extended CCA or short CCA procedure.
The motivation for doing so would be to satisfy different channel access procedure for different situation.
Sun fails to disclose wherein the APG includes a timestamp of the successful LBT procedure.
Koorapaty discloses the method wherein the APG includes a timestamp of the successful LBT procedure (see par. 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include an APG with timestamp of successful LBT procedure as described by Koorapaty.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow identifying the most recent status of the channel.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Cao as applied to claims 13 above, and further in view of Khoshnevisan et al. (US 2020/0205149 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Sun fails to disclose but Khoshnevisan discloses the method wherein the DCI includes a field indicating activated beams based on a configured mapping of field values to sets of beams (see par. 0122).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include the DCI includes a field indicating activated beams based on a configured mapping of field values to sets of beams.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow indicating activated beams to the UE.
Claim 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Cao as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Tooher et al. (US 2022/0287094 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Sun fails to disclose but Tooher discloses the method wherein the LBT report is a multi-beam channel state information (CSI) report (see par. 0146).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include wherein the LBT report is a multi-beam channel state information report as described by Tooher.
The motivation for doing so would be to report the status of each beam utilizing CSI report.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Cao as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Ganesan et al. (US 2023/0141702 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Sun fails to disclose but Ganesan discloses the method, wherein performing the LBT procedure for each beam of the indicated plurality of beams comprises performing an LBT procedure on a wider beam including a group of the plurality of beams (see par. 0080).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include performing an LBT procedure on a wider beam including a group of the plurality of beams as described by Ganesan.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow utilizing wider beam.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-30 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NISHANT B DIVECHA whose telephone number is (571)270-3125. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-6:00 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, Deborah J. Reynolds can be reached at 571-272-0734. 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.
NISHANT B. DIVECHA
Supervisory Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights