DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application filed on 01/26/2024.
Claims 1- 19 are pending for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application.
Drawings
The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 01/26/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
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 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(a) 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 10-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oteri et al. (US 20210058967 A1), hereinafter “Oteri”; and in further view of Hu et al. (US 20220046702 A1), hereinafter “Hu”.
Regarding claim 1, Oteri teaches an electronic device, comprising a processing circuit configured to [Oteri: Abstract]:
initiate a plurality of listen before talk (LBT) procedures on a plurality of beams [Oteri: Fig. 6 illustrates directional LBT for beams; Par. 128 teaches enable multiple LBT processes, the WTRU may receive, at 610, signaling from the GNB or other Network entity],
for an LBT procedure on a first beam of the plurality of beams, determine that a first threshold number of successful clear channel assessment (CCA) detections have been completed [Oteri: Fig. 6; Par. 131- 133 teaches of determines CCA success];
for an LBT procedure on at least one other beam of the plurality of beams, determine that a corresponding threshold number of successful CCA detections have not been completed [Oteri: Fig. 6; Par. 131- 133 teaches of determines CCA failure and defers its transmission].
PNG
media_image1.png
542
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Oteri does not teaches determine whether at least one additional CCA detection is to be performed on the first beam.
Nevertheless, Hu, in the similar filed of endeavor, teaches determine whether at least one additional CCA detection is to be performed on the first beam [Hu: Fig. 15; Par. 134 teaches performing directional CCA for first beam]].
PNG
media_image2.png
612
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Hu for performing CCA on first beam. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Hu in the Oteri system in order to determine and perform directional CCA sensing. [Hu: Par. 133].
Regarding claim 2, the combined Oteri in view of Hu teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Oteri in view of Hu further teaches wherein the initiating the plurality of LBT procedures comprises generating a corresponding random number for each of the plurality of beams, wherein the random number defines a threshold number of successful CCA detections to be comprised in an LBT procedure for a corresponding beam [Oteri: Fig. 6; Par. 131- 133 teaches of determines CCA failure and defers its transmission], and
wherein the processing circuit is further configured to set a value of a CCA counter of the corresponding beam to be equal to the random number, wherein one successful CCA detection on the beam decreases the value of the CCA counter by 1 [Oteri: Par. 107 teaches of generated counter by [q-1] where q is updated response to an input].
Regarding claim 10, the combined Oteri in view of Hu teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Oteri in view of Hu further teaches wherein the plurality of beams comprise a plurality of downlink beams, and the electronic device can be implemented as at least a portion of a base station [Oteri: Fig. 3; Par. 10 teaches of transmit beam and receiving beam ].
Regarding claim 11, the combined Oteri in view of Hu teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Oteri in view of Hu further teaches wherein the plurality of beams comprise a plurality of uplink beams, and the electronic device can be implemented as at least a portion of a terminal device [Oteri: Par. 54 teaches of beams have transmit beam with different oriented width, direction and gain among others].
Regarding claim 12, Oteri teaches A method for wireless communication, comprising [Oteri: Abstract]:
initiating a plurality of listen before talk (LBT) procedures on a plurality of beams [Oteri: Fig. 6 illustrates directional LBT for beams; Par. 128 teaches enable multiple LBT processes, the WTRU may receive, at 610, signaling from the GNB or other Network entity],
for an LBT procedure on a first beam of the plurality of beams, determining that a first threshold number of successful clear channel assessment (CCA) detections have been completed [Oteri: Fig. 6; Par. 131- 133 teaches of determines CCA success];
for an LBT procedure on at least one other beam of the plurality of beams, determining that a corresponding threshold number of successful CCA detections have not been completed [Oteri: Fig. 6; Par. 131- 133 teaches of determines CCA failure and defers its transmission].
PNG
media_image1.png
542
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Oteri does not teaches determining whether at least one additional CCA detection is to be performed on the first beam.
Nevertheless, Hu, in the similar filed of endeavor, teaches determining whether at least one additional CCA detection is to be performed on the first beam [Hu: Fig. 15; Par. 134 teaches performing directional CCA for first beam]].
PNG
media_image2.png
612
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Hu for performing CCA on first beam. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Hu in the Oteri system in order to determine and perform directional CCA sensing. [Hu: Par. 133].
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, the combined Oteri in view of Hu teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Oteri in view of Hu further teaches wherein A computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions stored thereon, wherein the executable instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause operations of the method according to any one of claims 12 to 13 to be implemented [Oteri: Par. 342 disclosed computer readable storage medium has been used to be implemented method and apparatus].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 and 14-18 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter:
A full search was conducted and the features of the instant claims 3-9 and 14- 18 were not found to be in any reasonable combination of the closest prior art in combination of Oteri in view of Hu.
With respect to exemplary, the prior arts in above teach of initiating LBT procedure by determining CCA threshold success [Oteri: Fig. 6; Par. 131- 133; Hu: Fig. 15; Par. 134].
However, the combined Oteri in view of Hu does not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitations of the instant claims 3 and 14 reciting;
“wherein the determining that the first threshold number of successful CCA detections have been completed comprises determining that a value of a CCA counter of the first beam is 0; and/or
wherein for the LBT procedure on the at least one other beam, the determining that the corresponding threshold number of successful CCA detections have not been completed comprises determining that a value of a CCA counter of the at least one other beam is not 0; and/or
wherein the determining that at least one additional CCA detection is to be performed on the first beam comprises increasing the value of the CCA counter of the first beam by N, wherein N≥1”
Moreover, the combined Oteri in view of Hu does not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitations of the instant claims 4 and 15 reciting;
“wherein, for the LBT procedure on the at least one other beam, it is determined, based on one of the following, that the corresponding threshold number of successful CCA detections have not been completed:
a ratio of the number of beams with a CCA counter value of 0 to the total number of the plurality of beams is less than 1; or
a sum of CCA counter values of the plurality of beams is greater than 0.”
Moreover, the combined Oteri in view of Hu does not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitations of the instant claims 5-8 and 16-17 reciting;
“wherein the processing circuit is further configured to:
based on sensing within a first window, group a first subset of the plurality of beams into a first group; and
assign a value of a CCA counter of a second beam in the first subset to a common CCA counter of the first group, wherein the common CCA counter takes priority over individual CCA counters of members of the first subset, and concurrent successful CCA detections for the members of the first subset decrease the value of the common CCA counter by 1.”.
In addition, the combined Oteri in view of Hu does not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitations of the instant claims 9 and 18 reciting;
“wherein the processing circuit is further configured to:
record a number of times of increasing a value of a counter of any one beam of the plurality of beams;
when the number of times reaches a second threshold, end the plurality of LBT procedures; and
perform multi-beam transmission without using a beam for which the LBT procedure has not been completed”.
Therefore, Claims 3-9 and 14-18 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter and allowed over the closest Prior Art references of Oteri in view of Hu.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYAW Z SOE whose telephone number is (571)270-0304. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 5712707191. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KYAW Z SOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights