DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. In particular, this Application is the national stage application of an international application that claims foreign priority to a Swedish application filed on 22 Mar 2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement, submitted on 5 Sept 2023, 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
The Reply finds “the network node [in Liu] does not provide more than one alternative configuration.” Reply, 6. And if “only one configuration is provided to the UE, then it would not be possible to adaptively determine a specific configuration.” Ibid. This argument fails to appreciate how Liu’s LCP restriction create more than one “configurations.” Besides an initial set of LCP restrictions (Liu, ¶157), additional LCP restrictions may be introduced. Liu, ¶164. These additional LCP restrictions can include the same or different LBT types or longer or shorter channel sensing durations. Liu, ¶167. Just one of these LCP restrictions creates more than one of the claimed “configurations.” And a combination of two or more LCP restrictions certainly creates even more configurations.
As for the amendments to the claimed invention, provided in the Rule 111 reply, they fail to overcome the anticipation rejection. To comply with the LCP restrictions provided by the network node, the UE must set up a data transmission of the logical channel based on the LCP restrictions. See e.g. Liu, ¶¶152-153. In other words, the UE adapts its data transmission of the logical channel to meet the LCP restrictions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2-6, 9, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu (US 2022/0150916).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Liu teaches a method carried out in a radio station and a radio station adapted for wireless transmission in an unlicensed radio spectrum, the radio station comprising: a radio transceiver; logic configured to:
obtain identification of alternative configurations of radio parameters (Liu, ¶¶222-223 – UE receives an LCP restriction and LBT parameter associated with an uplink grant from a network node; Liu, ¶¶184, 211 – LBT parameter relates to an LBT type/category, CAPC value, transmission time, etc.; Liu, ¶164 – more than one LCP restriction may be used);
adaptively determine a specific configuration of said alternative configurations, based on a clear channel assessment requirement associated with an upcoming transmission of a signal (Liu, ¶¶151, 157 – LCP restricts how the UE maps data to a logical channel, such that the LBT parameters associated with the logical channel meet the LCP restriction; see also id. at ¶5 for background on CCA within LBT); and
control the transceiver to transmit the signal using the specific configuration. Liu, ¶156 (UE performs data transmission of the logical channel that meets the LCP restrictions on the LBT parameters).
Regarding claim 2, Liu also teaches wherein the specific configuration is determined as the configuration offering a shortest clear channel assessment period among the alternative configurations. Liu, ¶¶168, 188 (shortest channel sensing duration is prioritized and thus selected for data transmission of the prioritized logical channel).
Regarding claim 3, Liu also teaches wherein the specific configuration offers a shortest listen before talk period. Liu, ¶¶170, 190 (shortest random back-off time is prioritized); see also id. at ¶5 for background of random back-off time as a period within LBT).
Regarding claim 4, Liu also teaches wherein the specific configuration is determined as the configuration offering a preferred clear channel assessment procedure among the alternative configurations. Liu, ¶173 (LCP restriction may be an allowed LBT type or category).
Regarding claim 5, Liu also teaches wherein the alternative configurations comprises a first configuration and a second configuration, of which the second configuration provides for shorter transmission time of the signal. Liu, ¶169 (LCP restriction may be the transmission time of an uplink data channel corresponding that earlier than a threshold [i.e. resulting in multiple logical channels that may meet the threshold requirement]).
Regarding claim 6, Liu also teaches wherein the determining identifies the specific configuration as the second configuration responsive to the shorter transmission time providing a shorter clear channel assessment period than using the first configuration. Liu, ¶164 (multiple LCP restrictions may be used); Liu, ¶168 (shortest channel sensing duration may be prioritized in addition to transmission time threshold referenced in claim 5).
Regarding claim 9, Liu also teaches wherein the alternative configurations of radio parameters identify different subcarrier spacing. Liu, ¶¶157, 160 (LCP restriction may be a list of allowed SCS).
Regarding claim 12, Liu also teaches wherein the radio station is a wireless User Equipment (UE), configured to transmit the signal to a cellular wireless network. Liu, ¶153 (UE performs data transmission of logical channel).
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.
Claims 7, 8, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (of record) in view of Yang (US 20190200386).
Regarding claim 7, Liu teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the determining is carried out based on the signal being a predetermined type of signal.” However, Yang teaches selecting a CAPC based on signal type or channel type. Yang, ¶¶42, 73-74 (priority class based on signal or channel type). At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to consider the signal or channel type, as taught by Yang, when deciding on a logical channel for data transmission based on LCP restrictions, as taught by Liu, in order to match a CCA parameter to priority class, such that the success rate of channel access is improved. Id. at ¶33; see id. at ¶44 for CCA parameter being LBT mechanism.
Regarding claim 8, Liu teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the determining is carried out based on content to be conveyed in the signal.” However, Yang teaches selecting a CAPC based on signal type or channel type. Yang, ¶¶42, 73-74 (priority class based on signal or channel type). At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to consider the signal or channel type, as taught by Yang, when deciding on a logical channel for data transmission based on LCP restrictions, as taught by Liu, in order to match a CCA parameter to priority class, such that the success rate of channel access is improved. Id. at ¶33; see id. at ¶44 for CCA parameter being LBT mechanism.
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the determining is carried out based on a transmission gap preceding transmission of the signal.” However, Yang teaches a transmission device performing an LBT mechanism immediately after a gap interval. Yang, ¶152. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to transmit only after a gap, as taught by Yang, when executing the data transmission, taught by Liu, in order to ensure the channel is free for at least one slot before accessing the channel. Yang, ¶126 (slot is 9 microseconds); Yang, ¶152 (gap is either 9 or 16 microseconds).
Regarding claim 13, Liu taches the method of claim 12, wherein the signal is an uplink . . . signal. Liu, figure 1 (UE performs data transmission based on uplink grant). Liu does not explicitly teach an uplink control signal. However, Yang teaches a signal being a PUCCH. Yang, ¶¶42, 73. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to transmit a PUCCH, as taught by Yang, when performing the data transmission based on an uplink grant, as taught by Liu, in order to provide the base station with HARQ feedback, so it can determine whether to execute a retransmission.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (of record) in view of Lei (US 20190190668).
Regarding claim 11, Liu teaches the method of claim 1 and alternative configurations of radio parameters (Liu, ¶52 – various LBT parameters that configure the LBT mechanism in accordance with a LCP restriction), but does not explicitly teach said parameters “identify[ing] different modulation schemes and/or transmit powers.” However, Lei teaches transmitting nodes that perform LBT. Lei, ¶53. The transmitting node receives a configuration that includes a power scaling configuration. Id. at ¶92. The scaling creates different transmit powers for use by the transmitting node. Id. at ¶¶130, 166. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the configuration, taught by Liu, to include possible transmit powers, as taught by Lei, in order to enable the transmitting node to use different transmit powers based on which sub-band it is attempting to acquire access. Id. at ¶132 (each RACH attempt may have a different transmit power).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (of record) in view of Tiirola (US 20220078841).
Regarding claim 14, Liu teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the radio station is a base station of a cellular wireless network, configured to transmit the signal to a User Equipment (UE).” Instead, Liu teaches executing the method of claim 1 using an UE instead of a base station. However, Tiirola teaches a network node that determines an LBT parameter based on a received message. Tiirola, figures 13-14. The network node can be either a UE or a gNB. Id. at ¶¶262-263. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have the LBT parameter configuration, as taught by Liu, be device-agnostic, as taught by Tiirola, such that a gNB, instead of a UE, executes the data transmission in accordance with the LBT configuration, in order to customize downlink channel access in addition to Liu’s uplink. Id. at ¶264.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, including Axnas, which teaches a UE using a larger transmit power or bandwidth when a gap is short. Axnas, ¶¶143-144.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENJAMIN S LAMONT whose telephone number is (571)270-7514 and email address is benjamin.lamont@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03, which allows for written authorization via the USPTO electronic filing system or mail, but not via email). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am to 3pm EST.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/Benjamin Lamont/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461