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 .
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 –
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Signaling options of LBT category for Msg3” by Ericsson (IDS filed 1/24/24).
Regarding claim 34, Ericsson teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
receiving an indication (section 2, the gNB needs to signal LBT category for UL data transmission with a dynamic grant. In that case, LBT category is signalled in the DCI…the gNB signals LBT category to a UE in DCI for a PUSCH transmission with a dynamic grant) associated with performing listen-before-talk relative to a channel occupancy time (COT) (section 2, it is feasible for Msg3 to share the DL COT initiated by the gNB with the DL transmission of Msg2, the gNB can decide LBT category for Msg3 depending on the gap duration…In other words, the LBT category is determined based on below conditions: Category 1 immediate transmission for Msg3 if the gap is less than 16us: Category 2 LBT for Msg3 if the gap is not more than 25us. For Category 2 LBT, it may be necessary for RAN1 to decide if Category 2 LBT in 16us duration can be applied for Msg3 if the gap is equal to 16us…In case COT sharing between Msg2 and Msg3 is applied, the UE uses either Category 1 immediate transmission or Category 2 LBT for Msg3…It may be necessary for RAN1 to decide if Category 2 LBT in 16us duration can be applied for Msg3 if the gap is equal to 16us); and transmitting an uplink communication, wherein the uplink communication is transmitted (section 2, the gNB needs to signal LBT category for UL data transmission with a dynamic grant. In that case, LBT category is signalled in the DCI…the gNB signals LBT category to a UE in DCI for a PUSCH transmission with a dynamic grant) using a listen-before-talk procedure based at least in part on the indication (section 2, it is feasible for Msg3 to share the DL COT initiated by the gNB with the DL transmission of Msg2, the gNB can decide LBT category for Msg3 depending on the gap duration…In other words, the LBT category is determined based on below conditions: Category 1 immediate transmission for Msg3 if the gap is less than 16us: Category 2 LBT for Msg3 if the gap is not more than 25us. For Category 2 LBT, it may be necessary for RAN1 to decide if Category 2 LBT in 16us duration can be applied for Msg3 if the gap is equal to 16us…In case COT sharing between Msg2 and Msg3 is applied, the UE uses either Category 1 immediate transmission or Category 2 LBT for Msg3…It may be necessary for RAN1 to decide if Category 2 LBT in 16us duration can be applied for Msg3 if the gap is equal to 16us).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-2, 4, 9, 18-20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Signaling options of LBT category for Msg3” by Ericsson (IDS filed 1/24/24) in view of US 20230300881 by Myung et al. (hereinafter Myung).
Regarding claim 1, Ericsson teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (section 2, UE), comprising:
receive an indication (section 2, the gNB needs to signal LBT category for UL data transmission with a dynamic grant. In that case, LBT category is signalled in the DCI…the gNB signals LBT category to a UE in DCI for a PUSCH transmission with a dynamic grant) associated with performing listen-before-talk relative to a channel occupancy time (COT) (section 2, it is feasible for Msg3 to share the DL COT initiated by the gNB with the DL transmission of Msg2, the gNB can decide LBT category for Msg3 depending on the gap duration…In other words, the LBT category is determined based on below conditions: Category 1 immediate transmission for Msg3 if the gap is less than 16us: Category 2 LBT for Msg3 if the gap is not more than 25us. For Category 2 LBT, it may be necessary for RAN1 to decide if Category 2 LBT in 16us duration can be applied for Msg3 if the gap is equal to 16us…In case COT sharing between Msg2 and Msg3 is applied, the UE uses either Category 1 immediate transmission or Category 2 LBT for Msg3…It may be necessary for RAN1 to decide if Category 2 LBT in 16us duration can be applied for Msg3 if the gap is equal to 16us);
and transmit an uplink communication, wherein the uplink communication is transmitted (section 2, the gNB needs to signal LBT category for UL data transmission with a dynamic grant. In that case, LBT category is signalled in the DCI…the gNB signals LBT category to a UE in DCI for a PUSCH transmission with a dynamic grant) using a listen-before-talk procedure based at least in part on the indication (section 2, it is feasible for Msg3 to share the DL COT initiated by the gNB with the DL transmission of Msg2, the gNB can decide LBT category for Msg3 depending on the gap duration…In other words, the LBT category is determined based on below conditions: Category 1 immediate transmission for Msg3 if the gap is less than 16us: Category 2 LBT for Msg3 if the gap is not more than 25us. For Category 2 LBT, it may be necessary for RAN1 to decide if Category 2 LBT in 16us duration can be applied for Msg3 if the gap is equal to 16us…In case COT sharing between Msg2 and Msg3 is applied, the UE uses either Category 1 immediate transmission or Category 2 LBT for Msg3…It may be necessary for RAN1 to decide if Category 2 LBT in 16us duration can be applied for Msg3 if the gap is equal to 16us).
Although Ericsson teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) and the receive and transmit processes above, Ericsson does not explicitly disclose but Myung in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to receive and transmit (fig. 27; ¶ 416-442).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ericsson’s teachings with Myung’s above teachings. The motivation is reducing the possibility of collision between signals due to the COT sharing (Myung ¶ 20).
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Although Ericsson teaches the indication, Ericsson does not explicitly disclose the indication is included in a RRC message.
Myung in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches an indication is included in a RRC message (¶ 327, indicated in advance by the BS (through RRC signaling or DCI)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ericsson’s teachings with Myung’s above teachings. The motivation is reducing the possibility of collision between signals due to the COT sharing (Myung ¶ 20).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the uplink communication is associated with a dynamic grant (Ericsson section 2, the gNB needs to signal LBT category for UL data transmission with a dynamic grant. In that case, LBT category is signalled in the DCI…the gNB signals LBT category to a UE in DCI for a PUSCH transmission with a dynamic grant).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to (Myung fig. 27; ¶ 416-442): receive downlink control information (DCI) that indicates a listen-before-talk type (Ericsson section 2, the gNB needs to signal LBT category for UL data transmission with a dynamic grant. In that case, LBT category is signalled in the DCI…the gNB signals LBT category to a UE in DCI for a PUSCH transmission with a dynamic grant), wherein the listen-before-talk procedure is based at least in part on the DCI (Ericsson section 2, the gNB needs to signal LBT category for UL data transmission with a dynamic grant. In that case, LBT category is signalled in the DCI…the gNB signals LBT category to a UE in DCI for a PUSCH transmission with a dynamic grant…the UE uses either Category 1 immediate transmission or Category 2 LBT for Msg3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ericsson’s teachings with Myung’s above teachings. The motivation is reducing the possibility of collision between signals due to the COT sharing (Myung ¶ 20).
Regarding claim 18, Ericsson teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a network node (section 2, gNB), comprising:
transmit an indication (section 2, the gNB needs to signal LBT category for UL data transmission with a dynamic grant. In that case, LBT category is signalled in the DCI…the gNB signals LBT category to a UE in DCI for a PUSCH transmission with a dynamic grant) associated with performing listen-before-talk relative to a channel occupancy time (COT) (section 2, it is feasible for Msg3 to share the DL COT initiated by the gNB with the DL transmission of Msg2, the gNB can decide LBT category for Msg3 depending on the gap duration…In other words, the LBT category is determined based on below conditions: Category 1 immediate transmission for Msg3 if the gap is less than 16us: Category 2 LBT for Msg3 if the gap is not more than 25us. For Category 2 LBT, it may be necessary for RAN1 to decide if Category 2 LBT in 16us duration can be applied for Msg3 if the gap is equal to 16us…In case COT sharing between Msg2 and Msg3 is applied, the UE uses either Category 1 immediate transmission or Category 2 LBT for Msg3…It may be necessary for RAN1 to decide if Category 2 LBT in 16us duration can be applied for Msg3 if the gap is equal to 16us);
and receive an uplink communication, wherein the uplink communication was transmitted (section 2, the gNB needs to signal LBT category for UL data transmission with a dynamic grant. In that case, LBT category is signalled in the DCI…the gNB signals LBT category to a UE in DCI for a PUSCH transmission with a dynamic grant) using a listen-before-talk procedure based at least in part on the indication (section 2, it is feasible for Msg3 to share the DL COT initiated by the gNB with the DL transmission of Msg2, the gNB can decide LBT category for Msg3 depending on the gap duration…In other words, the LBT category is determined based on below conditions: Category 1 immediate transmission for Msg3 if the gap is less than 16us: Category 2 LBT for Msg3 if the gap is not more than 25us. For Category 2 LBT, it may be necessary for RAN1 to decide if Category 2 LBT in 16us duration can be applied for Msg3 if the gap is equal to 16us…In case COT sharing between Msg2 and Msg3 is applied, the UE uses either Category 1 immediate transmission or Category 2 LBT for Msg3…It may be necessary for RAN1 to decide if Category 2 LBT in 16us duration can be applied for Msg3 if the gap is equal to 16us).
Although Ericsson teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a network node and the transmit and receive processes above, Ericsson does not explicitly disclose but Myung in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a network node, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to transmit and receive (fig. 27; ¶ 416-442).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ericsson’s teachings with Myung’s above teachings. The motivation is reducing the possibility of collision between signals due to the COT sharing (Myung ¶ 20).
Claims 19-20 recite similar limitations of claims 2 and 4, respectively and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 25, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 18, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to (Myung fig. 27; ¶ 416-442): transmit downlink control information (DCI) that indicates a listen-before-talk type (Ericsson section 2, the gNB needs to signal LBT category for UL data transmission with a dynamic grant. In that case, LBT category is signalled in the DCI…the gNB signals LBT category to a UE in DCI for a PUSCH transmission with a dynamic grant), wherein the listen-before-talk procedure is based at least in part on the DCI (Ericsson section 2, the gNB needs to signal LBT category for UL data transmission with a dynamic grant. In that case, LBT category is signalled in the DCI…the gNB signals LBT category to a UE in DCI for a PUSCH transmission with a dynamic grant…the UE uses either Category 1 immediate transmission or Category 2 LBT for Msg3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ericsson’s teachings with Myung’s above teachings. The motivation is reducing the possibility of collision between signals due to the COT sharing (Myung ¶ 20).
Claim(s) 5-7, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson and Myung and in further view of US 20220210830 by Lin.
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Although the combination teaches the one or more processors are further configured to, the COT and the listen-before-talk procedure, the combination does not explicitly disclose but Lin in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to (figs. 7-8 and ¶ 116-119): receive an indication of the COT, wherein the listen-before-talk procedure is based at least in part on the indication of the COT (¶ 52, gNB may obtain a COT and may send a first information to the UE indicating the obtained COT. Based on the first information the UE may then transmit the PUSCH by performing LBT Cat 1 or LBT Cat 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Lin’s above teachings. The motivation is channel access procedure performance can be increased, and communication efficiency can thus be increased (Lin ¶ 21).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure is a category 1 (Cat1) LBT procedure based at least in part on the indication of the COT (Lin ¶ 52, gNB may obtain a COT and may send a first information to the UE indicating the obtained COT. Based on the first information the UE may then transmit the PUSCH by performing LBT Cat 1 or LBT Cat 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Lin’s above teachings. The motivation is channel access procedure performance can be increased, and communication efficiency can thus be increased (Lin ¶ 21).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure is a category 2 (Cat2) LBT procedure based at least in part on the indication of the COT (Lin ¶ 52, gNB may obtain a COT and may send a first information to the UE indicating the obtained COT. Based on the first information the UE may then transmit the PUSCH by performing LBT Cat 1 or LBT Cat 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Lin’s above teachings. The motivation is channel access procedure performance can be increased, and communication efficiency can thus be increased (Lin ¶ 21).
Regarding claim 21, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 18.
Although the combination teaches the one or more processors are further configured to, the COT, and the listen-before-talk procedure, the combination does not explicitly disclose but Lin in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to (figs. 7-8 and ¶ 116-119): transmit an indication of the COT, wherein the listen-before-talk procedure is based at least in part on the indication of the COT (¶ 52, gNB may obtain a COT and may send a first information to the UE indicating the obtained COT. Based on the first information the UE may then transmit the PUSCH by performing LBT Cat 1 or LBT Cat 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Lin’s above teachings. The motivation is channel access procedure performance can be increased, and communication efficiency can thus be increased (Lin ¶ 21).
Claims 22-23 recite similar limitations of claims 6-7, respectively and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson in view of US 20220210830 by Lin.
Regarding claim 36, Ericsson teaches the method of claim 34.
Although Ericsson teaches the COT and the listen-before-talk procedure, Ericsson does not explicitly disclose but Lin in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches receiving an indication of the COT, wherein the listen-before-talk procedure is based at least in part on the indication of the COT (¶ 52, gNB may obtain a COT and may send a first information to the UE indicating the obtained COT. Based on the first information the UE may then transmit the PUSCH by performing LBT Cat 1 or LBT Cat 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ericsson with Lin’s above teachings. The motivation is channel access procedure performance can be increased, and communication efficiency can thus be increased (Lin ¶ 21).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8,14-15 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYAZ R SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-3795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F between 9 AM – 5 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 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.
/AYAZ R SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2476