DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The present application filed February 2, 2024, claims priority to PCT/CN2021/123796 filed October 14, 2021.
Claims 1-24 are currently pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure amendments are accepted. Examiner appreciates the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Niu does not teach “LBT scheme indications associated with the multiple beams” because Niu’s omni bit is a single indication that indicates whether the network has used omni-directional sensing for the network side CCA and cites Niu as “if omni sensing is performed before the COT, omni LBT bit may be set to 1, and the other bit field for directional LBT may be ignored….” and states that even if the omni bit could be considered as an LBT scheme indication, Niu fails to teach “DCI indicating LBT scheme indications with multiple beams.”
Similarly, applicant argues that El Hamss fails to teach “obtaining at least one downlink control information (DCI) indicating multiple beams and listen before talk (LBT) scheme indications associated with multiple beams” and therefore does not overcome the deficiencies of Niu.
However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, Niu teaches a DCI “indicating” multiple beams and LBT “indications” associated with multiple beams. It is clear that Niu teaches in para. [0032] that a DCI can indicate an LBT beam “indirectly or directly” the DCI can indicate a “sensing beam direction” for LBT DIRECTLY and the UE may DERIVE a transmission beam by INDIRECTLY. Thus, the DCI in Niu teaches “indications” for multiple beams and LBT “indications” associated with at least the directly and indirect beams, which are “multiple beams”.
Here, as previously provided, para. [0040] of Niu teaches that Fig. 3B illustrates a bit field 300b which may be used in a DCI for type two LBT which may result in different combinations of LBT beams. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims this teaches at least one DCI “indicating” multiple beams and LBT scheme “indications” associated with the multiple beams.
Examiner suggests that the applicant use terminology that is less susceptible to broad interpretation to advance prosecution. For at least these reasons, the rejections are maintained.
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. 20230101279 to Huaning Niu et al. (hereinafter Niu) in view of US Pat. Pub. 20230072340 to Aata El Hamss et al. (hereinafter El Hamss).
Regarding claim 1, Niu in view of El Hamss teaches A method for wireless communications at a user equipment, comprising: obtaining a channel occupancy time (COT) structure information (COT-SI) [[message]]; (Niu Fig. 2 teaches receiving COT information via a base station in block 216. Examiner interprets the DCI message as a “structure information” message because Niu para. [0037] teaches that the DCI message may indicate a COT TCI (omni or directional) to apply to all CCs, wherein bits may indicate what COT TCI state is enabled, which is a COT structure.)
obtaining at least one downlink control information (DCI) indicating multiple beams and listen before talk (LBT) scheme indications associated with the multiple beams; (Niu teaches in Fig. 3A and 3B and para. [0035] that the DCI message may include a first type of LBT indicated by bit field 300a in Fig. 3A, and a second type of LBT procedure in bit field 300b in Fig 3B. Niu para. [0040] teaches that for LBT type two, the LBT CCA procedure “may result in different combinations of LBT beams based on which CC are determined to be clear and not clear.” Further, Niu teaches in para. [0032] that a DCI can indicate an LBT beam “indirectly or directly” the DCI can indicate a “sensing beam direction” for LBT DIRECTLY and the UE may DERIVE a transmission beam INDIRECTLY, thus, multiple beams are may be indicated with one or more DCI. )
determining an LBT scheme to be used for transmission via each of the multiple beams based on the LBT scheme indications and the COT-SI message; (Niu teaches in para. [0035] that the DCI received includes COT structure information and LBT bit fields used to determine the type of LBT associated with either directional or omni beams. Fig. 1, scenarios 104 and 106 illustrate beam/LBT scenarios 104 and 106. The COT information Para. [0022] teaches an omni LBT scenario 106 wherein the omni LBT process is used to communicate to multiple UE via an associated omni COT:
PNG
media_image1.png
891
917
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
and
outputting signaling for transmission [[on each]] of the multiple beams based on the LBT scheme. (Niu teaches in para. [0046] that UE402 receives an UL DCI indicating directional or omni for transmitting using a “new bit” indicating a sensing beam in uplink DCI 410. Therefore, the signaling UL DCI enables UE 402 to output transmission on the identified omni beams based on omni LBT due to the “new bit”.)
Niu does NOT teach that the outputting signaling for transmission is “on each” of the multiple beams based on the LBT scheme.
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, El Hamss teaches “outputting signaling for transmission on each of the multiple beams based on the LBT scheme. (El Hamss teaches in para. [0143] that a WTRU may determine an LBT configuration based on multiple associated transmissions, and that a WTRU configured/scheduled with multiple transmissions adjacent in time may select an LBT configuration that enables all transmissions occurring within the maximum duration of a COT. A selection may involve the use of a larger beam for the LBT so that all upcoming associated transmission beams may be covered by the beam of the LBT process. Further, El Hamss teaches in para. [0149] the WTRU will use “multiple beams” according to multiple LBT configurations for an associated transmission. Examiner interprets that “each” is taught as the multiple beams for the multiple LBT configurations for a transmission using the multiple beams taught in El Hamss.)
Niu does NOT specifically identify the DCI message as a COT-SI message.
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, El Hamss teaches “receiving a COT-SI message”.(El Hamss teaches in para. [0135] “A WTRU may receive an indication of an LBT configuration that may be used by a gNB to initiate a COT. For example, an LBT configuration may be in a COT structure indication message. An indication may be provided, for example, by one or more of the following: a reference signal or an index of an RS; an (e.g., explicit) identification of the beam(s) used for LBT; a resource that may be used to transmit the indication of the LBT configuration; and/or a timing of the COT.”)
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine El Hamss with Niu to teach upgrading an LBT configuration and outputting each beam. Each of El Hamss and Niu are in the field of wireless communications and both address LBT configurations and COT information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Niu and El Hamss in order to improve and enhance channel access by considering potential interference to/from other nodes (e.g., for beam-based operation), and complying with regulatory requirements for use of unlicensed spectrum as taught in El Hamss para. [0075].
Regarding claim 2, Niu teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein: the LBT scheme indications in the at least one DCI include at least one LBT scheme indication associated with at least one of the multiple beams, the COT-SI message indicating the at least one of the multiple beams”; (Niu teaches that the COT information includes either directional LBT or omni LBT for directional beams or omni beams as shown in Fig. 1, above)
and
determining the LBT scheme to be used for transmission via the at least one of the multiple beams comprises determining, based on the COT-SI message, to use a less stringent LBT scheme as compared to at least one LBT scheme associated with the at least one LBT scheme indication in the at least one DCI. (Niu teaches that, based on the DCI COT message including a bit. More specifically, Niu teaches in para. [0035] and [0036] that the DCI received includes COT structure information and LBT bit fields used to determine the type of LBT associated with either directional or omni beams meaning that LBT omni or LBT directional must be used. More specifically, as shown in Fig. 3A, if bit field 300a is used in a DCI for type one LBT, then if one random CC determined to be clear, transmission on all the multiple CCs can proceed after one shot LBT on other CC. Therefore, the LBT type one is less stringent as compared to a type two LBT scheme wherein the LBT CCA procedure must be performed independently.)
Regarding claim 3, Niu teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein: the LBT scheme indications in the at least one DCI include a first LBT scheme indication associated with a first beam of the multiple beams (Niu teaches in para. [0032] that the DCI message can indicate a first LBT beam “sensing beam direction” and determine the transmission beam.) and a second LBT scheme indication associated with a second beam of the multiple beams; (Niu teaches a second LBT scheme indication associated with a second type of LBT wherein directional LBT must be performed as shown in Fig. 1 block 104 shown above. Niu para. [0040] teaches that when bit field 300b is used in a DCI for type two LBT, the network node performs LBT CCA independently which “may result in different combinations of LBT beams based on which CC are determined to be clear and not clear.”)
and
determining the LBT scheme comprises determining to use a less stringent LBT scheme for the transmissions via the first beam and the second beam as compared to an LBT scheme associated with the first LBT scheme indication or the second LBT scheme indication, wherein the determination to use the less stringent LBT scheme is based on the at least one DCI and the COT-SI message being associated with a same cell-ID.” (Niu teaches determining type one or type two LBT according to the DCI bit indication. The bit indication is associated with the type of LBT and as shown in Fig. 1, the omni LBT and the omni COT are with a same cell and would have the same cell-ID.)
Regarding claim 4, Niu teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein determining the LBT scheme comprises determining to use a less stringent LBT scheme for transmission via a first beam of the multiple beams as compared to the LBT scheme to be used for transmission via a second beam of the multiple beams.” (Niu teaches determining to use the less stringent “omni” LBT scheme is determined according to the DCI bit shown in Fig. 3 which does not require a direction LBT determination on a second beam. A directional LBT scheme as shown in Fig. 1, block 104 illustrates a UE LBT directional on a second beam of the multiple beams.)
Regarding claim 5, Niu teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein: the LBT scheme indications in the at least one DCI include at least one LBT scheme indication associated with at least one of the multiple beams; (Niu para. [0040] teaches that when bit field 300b is used in a DCI for type two LBT, the network node performs LBT CCA independently which “may result in different combinations of LBT beams based on which CC are determined to be clear and not clear.”)
and
determining the LBT scheme comprises determining to use a less stringent LBT scheme for the transmission on the at least one of the multiple beams as compared to at least one LBT scheme associated with the at least one LBT scheme indication if the transmissions on all of the multiple beams use the less stringent LBT scheme.” (Niu para. [0036] teaches “In type one, the network node picks one random CC of the multiple CCs and then performs the LBT procedure for CCA on that one random CC. If the random CC is determined to be clear, transmission on all of the multiple CCs can proceed after one shot LBT on other CC. Accordingly, the network node may configure and transmit a DCI message (e.g., DCI Format 2-0).)
Regarding claim 6, Niu teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising performing LBT operations on the multiple beams in accordance with the determination, wherein the signaling is outputted for transmission via the multiple beams if the LBT operations performed on all the multiple beams are successful.” (Niu para. [0040] teaches that in type two LBT, “may result in different combinations of LBT beams based on which CC are determined to be clear and not clear.”)
Regarding claim 7, Niu teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising performing LBT operations on the multiple beams in accordance with the determination, wherein the signaling is outputted for transmission on a particular beam of the multiple beams if the LBT operation on the particular beam is successful.” (Niu Fig. 1 illustrates LBT operations wherein when two or more beams are subject to LBT operations, transmission on a particular beam is successful:
PNG
media_image1.png
891
917
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Niu does NOT teach “The method of claim 1, further comprising obtaining an indication of an LBT scheme upgrade policy, the LBT scheme upgrade policy indicating whether the LBT scheme to be used for the transmission on a first one of the multiple beams can be changed to a less stringent LBT scheme as compared to the LBT scheme to be used for the transmission on a second one of the multiple beams.”
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, El Hamss teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising obtaining an indication of an LBT scheme upgrade policy, the LBT scheme upgrade policy indicating whether the LBT scheme to be used for the transmission on a first one of the multiple beams can be changed to a less stringent LBT scheme as compared to the LBT scheme to be used for the transmission on a second one of the multiple beams.” (El Hamss teaches in para. [0133] that an LBT scheme configuration selection may depend on the “priority of an associated transmission” wherein an “appropriate LBT configuration” is based on the priority of a logical channel, a priority indication of a physical channel, or whether a grant is configured or dynamically scheduled”. Thus, an LBT configuration would enable transmission “over multiple beams” which would be an upgrade from a single beam due to the priority of the transmission.)
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine El Hamss with Niu to teach upgrading an LBT configuration. Each of El Hamss and Niu are in the field of wireless communications and both address LBT configurations and COT information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Niu and El Hamss in order to improve and enhance channel access by considering potential interference to/from other nodes (e.g., for beam-based operation), and complying with regulatory requirements for use of unlicensed spectrum as taught in El Hamss para. [0075].
Regarding claim 9, Niu does NOT teach “The method of claim 1, further comprising obtaining an indication of a transmission policy, the transmission policy indicating whether the transmission on the multiple beams requires LBT operations for all of the multiple beams being successful, wherein the signaling is outputted for transmission in accordance with the transmission policy.”
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, El Hamss teaches “obtaining an indication of a transmission policy, the transmission policy indicating whether the transmission on the multiple beams requires LBT operations for all of the multiple beams being successful, wherein the signaling is outputted for transmission in accordance with the transmission policy. (El Hamss teaches in para. [0020] that LBT procedures may be performed as a function of “beam management”. El Hamss para. [0129] teaches beam management with LBT by teaching in para. [0131] that a WTRU may receive an indication for a specific LBT configuration in control signaling configuring or scheduling the associated transmission. Para. [0137] teaches that the specific configuration could be an explicit identification of the beams used for LBT, via assigned indices, which are beam indices on which “LBT was performed or succeeded.”)
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine El Hamss with Niu to teach indication of a transmission policy. Each of El Hamss and Niu are in the field of wireless communications and both address LBT configurations and COT information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Niu and El Hamss in order to improve and enhance channel access by considering potential interference to/from other nodes (e.g., for beam-based operation), and complying with regulatory requirements for use of unlicensed spectrum as taught in El Hamss para. [0075].
Regarding claim 10, Regarding claim 9, Niu does NOT teach “The method of claim 1, wherein a field in the COT-SI message indicates at least one of the multiple beams, and wherein the LBT scheme is determined based on the at least one of the multiple beams.”
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, El Hamss teaches “wherein a field in the COT-SI message indicates at least one of the multiple beams,” (El Hamss teaches in para. [0135] that the WTRU may receive an LBT configuration in a “COT structure indication message” that includes explicit identification of the beams used for LBT.)
and
wherein the LBT scheme is determined based on the at least one of the multiple beams. (El Hamss para. [0137] teaches that the indication with explicit beam identification may be used based on LBT success.)
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine El Hamss with Niu to teach indications of least one of the multiple beams. Each of El Hamss and Niu are in the field of wireless communications and both address LBT configurations and COT information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Niu and El Hamss in order to improve and enhance channel access by considering potential interference to/from other nodes (e.g., for beam-based operation), and complying with regulatory requirements for use of unlicensed spectrum as taught in El Hamss para. [0075].
Regarding claim 11, Niu combined with El Hamss teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the COT-SI message indicates one of the multiple beams using a quasi co-location (QCL) relation of a physical control channel (PDCCH) carrying the COT-SI message, and wherein the LBT scheme is determined based on the one of the multiple beams.” (Examiner interprets the claim language “indicates one of the multiple beams using a quasi co-location (QCL) relation of a physical control channel (PDCCH) carrying the COT-SI message” in accordance with the Applicant’s specification para. [0074] which states the UE “may deduce the TCI state of each COT-SI message based on the QCL relation of the PDCCH carrying each COT-SI message.” Niu teaches in para. [0025] that an LBT configuration element may include parameters related to an LBT beam TCI state. The parameters may include a TCI state identifier and a Quasi co-location (QCL) type A, type D or both type A and type D. Examiner interprets the “QCL relation of the PDCCH” as taught by the “type” of QCL. Further, the UE may “derive the TCI state of the COT based on a mapping of the sensing beam to the transmission beam. the TCI state can be the sensing TCI state”.
Niu does NOT teach that the LBT configuration element is in a COT-SI message.
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, El Hamss teaches “the COT-SI message indicates one of the multiple beams .... and wherein the LBT scheme is determined based on the one of the multiple beams.” (El Hamss teaches in para. [0135] “A WTRU may receive an indication of an LBT configuration that may be used by a gNB to initiate a COT. For example, an LBT configuration may be in a COT structure indication message. An indication may be provided, for example, by one or more of the following: a reference signal or an index of an RS; an (e.g., explicit) identification of the beam(s) used for LBT; a resource that may be used to transmit the indication of the LBT configuration; and/or a timing of the COT.”)
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine El Hamss with Niu to teach a COT structure indication message using QCL. Each of El Hamss and Niu are in the field of wireless communications and both address LBT configurations and COT information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Niu and El Hamss in order to improve and enhance channel access by considering potential interference to/from other nodes (e.g., for beam-based operation), and complying with regulatory requirements for use of unlicensed spectrum as taught in El Hamss para. [0075].
Regarding claim 12, Niu in view of El Hamss teaches “An apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment, comprising:
a memory comprising instructions (Niu Fig. 7, memory circuitry 708 coupled to application circuitry 702);
and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions (Niu Fig. 7, application circuitry 702 and para. [0071] teaches that application circuitry 702 may include processor or cores configured to execute instructions stored in memory) and cause the apparatus to:
obtain a channel occupancy time (COT) structure information (COT-SI) message; (Niu Fig. 2 teaches receiving COT information via a base station in block 216. Examiner interprets the DCI message as a “structure information” message because Niu para. [0037] teaches that the DCI message may indicate a COT TCI (omni or directional) to apply to all CCs, wherein bits may indicate what COT TCI state is enabled, which is a COT structure.)
obtain at least one downlink control information (DCI) indicating multiple beams and listen before talk (LBT) scheme indications associated with the multiple beams; (Niu teaches in Fig. 3A and 3B and para. [0035] that the DCI message may include a first type of LBT indicated by bit field 300a in Fig. 3A, and a second type of LBT procedure in bit field 300b in Fig 3B. Niu para. [0040] teaches that for LBT type two, the LBT CCA procedure “may result in different combinations of LBT beams based on which CC are determined to be clear and not clear.” Further, Niu teaches in para. [0032] that a DCI can indicate an LBT beam “indirectly or directly” the DCI can indicate a “sensing beam direction” for LBT DIRECTLY and the UE may DERIVE a transmission beam INDIRECTLY, thus, multiple beams are may be indicated with one or more DCI.)
determine an LBT scheme to be used for transmission via each of the multiple beams based on the LBT scheme indications and the COT-SI message; (Niu teaches in para. [0035] that the DCI received includes COT structure information and LBT bit fields used to determine the type of LBT associated with either directional or omni beams. Fig. 1, scenarios 104 and 106 illustrate beam/LBT scenarios 104 and 106. The COT information Para. [0022] teaches an omni LBT scenario 106 wherein the omni LBT process is used to communicate to multiple UE via an associated omni COT:
PNG
media_image1.png
891
917
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
and
output signaling for transmission on [[each]] of the multiple beams based on the LBT scheme. (Niu teaches in para. [0046] that UE402 receives an UL DCI indicating directional or omni for transmitting using a “new bit” indicating a sensing beam in uplink DCI 410. Therefore, the signaling UL DCI enables UE 402 to output transmission on the identified omni beams based on omni LBT due to the “new bit”.)
Niu does NOT teach that the outputting signaling for transmission is “on each” of the multiple beams based on the LBT scheme.
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, El Hamss teaches “outputting signaling for transmission on each of the multiple beams based on the LBT scheme. (El Hamss teaches in para. [0143] that a WTRU may determine an LBT configuration based on multiple associated transmissions, and that a WTRU configured/scheduled with multiple transmissions adjacent in time may select an LBT configuration that enables all transmissions occurring within the maximum duration of a COT. A selection may involve the use of a larger beam for the LBT so that all upcoming associated transmission beams may be covered by the beam of the LBT process. Further, El Hamss teaches in para. [0149] the WTRU will use “multiple beams” according to multiple LBT configurations for an associated transmission. Examiner interprets that “each” is taught as the multiple beams for the multiple LBT configurations for a transmission using the multiple beams taught in El Hamss.)
Niu does NOT specifically identify the DCI message as a COT-SI message.
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, El Hamss teaches “receiving a COT-SI message”.(El Hamss teaches in para . [0135] “A WTRU may receive an indication of an LBT configuration that may be used by a gNB to initiate a COT. For example, an LBT configuration may be in a COT structure indication message. An indication may be provided, for example, by one or more of the following: a reference signal or an index of an RS; an (e.g., explicit) identification of the beam(s) used for LBT; a resource that may be used to transmit the indication of the LBT configuration; and/or a timing of the COT.”
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine El Hamss with Niu to teach a COT-SI message and outputting on each beam. Each of El Hamss and Niu are in the field of wireless communications and both address LBT configurations and COT information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Niu and El Hamss in order to improve and enhance channel access by considering potential interference to/from other nodes (e.g., for beam-based operation), and complying with regulatory requirements for use of unlicensed spectrum as taught in El Hamss para. [0075].
Regarding claim 13, Niu teaches “The apparatus of claim 12, wherein: the LBT scheme indications in the at least one DCI include at least one LBT scheme indication associated with at least one of the multiple beams, the COT-SI message indicating the at least one of the multiple beams; (Niu teaches that the COT information includes either directional LBT or omni LBT for directional beams or omni beams as shown in Fig. 1, above)
and
determining the LBT scheme to be used for transmission via the at least one of the multiple beams comprises determining, based on the COT-SI message, to use a less stringent LBT scheme as compared to at least one LBT scheme associated with the at least one LBT scheme indication in the at least one DCI. (Niu teaches that, based on the DCI COT message including a bit. More specifically, Niu teaches in para. [0035] and [0036] that the DCI received includes COT structure information and LBT bit fields used to determine the type of LBT associated with either directional or omni beams meaning that LBT omni or LBT directional must be used. More specifically, as shown in Fig. 3A, if bit field 300a is used in a DCI for type one LBT, then if one random CC determined to be clear, transmission on all the multiple CCs can proceed after one shot LBT on other CC. Therefore, the LBT type one is less stringent as compared to a type two LBT scheme wherein the LBT CCA procedure must be performed independently.)
Regarding claim 14, Niu teaches “The apparatus of claim 12, wherein:
the LBT scheme indications in the at least one DCI include a first LBT scheme indication associated with a first beam of the multiple beams (Niu teaches in para. [0032] that the DCI message can indicate a first LBT beam “sensing beam direction” and determine the transmission beam.) and a second LBT scheme indication associated with a second beam of the multiple beams; (Niu teaches a second LBT scheme indication associated with a second type of LBT wherein directional LBT must be performed as shown in Fig. 1 block 104 shown above. Niu para. [0040] teaches that when bit field 300b is used in a DCI for type two LBT, the network node performs LBT CCA independently which “may result in different combinations of LBT beams based on which CC are determined to be clear and not clear.”)
and
determining the LBT scheme comprises determining to use a less stringent LBT scheme for the transmissions via the first beam and the second beam as compared to an LBT scheme associated with the first LBT scheme indication or the second LBT scheme indication, wherein the determination to use the less stringent LBT scheme is based on the at least one DCI and the COT-SI message being associated with a same cell-ID. (Niu teaches determining type one or type two LBT according to the DCI bit indication. The bit indication is associated with the type of LBT and as shown in Fig. 1, the omni LBT and the omni COT are with a same cell and would have the same cell-ID.)
Regarding claim 15, Niu teaches “The apparatus of claim 12, wherein determining the LBT scheme comprises determining to use a less stringent LBT scheme for transmission via a first beam of the multiple beams as compared to the LBT scheme to be used for transmission via a second beam of the multiple beams.” (Niu teaches determining to use the less stringent “omni” LBT scheme is determined according to the DCI bit shown in Fig. 3 which does not require a direction LBT determination on a second beam. A directional LBT scheme as shown in Fig. 1, block 104 illustrates a UE LBT directional on a second beam of the multiple beams.)
Regarding claim 16, Niu teaches “The apparatus of claim 12, wherein: the LBT scheme indications in the at least one DCI include at least one LBT scheme indication associated with at least one of the multiple beams; (Niu para. [0040] teaches that when bit field 300b is used in a DCI for type two LBT, the network node performs LBT CCA independently which “may result in different combinations of LBT beams based on which CC are determined to be clear and not clear.”)
and
determining the LBT scheme comprises determining to use a less stringent LBT scheme for the transmission on the at least one of the multiple beams as compared to at least one LBT scheme associated with the at least one LBT scheme indication if the transmissions on all of the multiple beams use the less stringent LBT scheme. (Niu para. [0036] teaches “In type one, the network node picks one random CC of the multiple CCs and then performs the LBT procedure for CCA on that one random CC. If the random CC is determined to be clear, transmission on all of the multiple CCs can proceed after one shot LBT on other CC. Accordingly, the network node may configure and transmit a DCI message (e.g., DCI Format 2-0).)
Regarding claim 17, Niu teaches “The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to cause the apparatus to perform LBT operations on the multiple beams in accordance with the determination, wherein the signaling is outputted for transmission via the multiple beams if the LBT operations performed on all the multiple beams are successful.” (Niu para. [0040] teaches that in type two LBT, “may result in different combinations of LBT beams based on which CC are determined to be clear and not clear.”)
Regarding claim 18, Niu teaches “The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to cause the apparatus to perform LBT operations on the multiple beams in accordance with the determination, wherein the signaling is outputted for transmission on a particular beam of the multiple beams if the LBT operation on the particular beam is successful.“ (Niu Fig. 1 illustrates LBT operations wherein when two or more beams are subject to LBT operations, transmission on a particular beam is successful:
PNG
media_image1.png
891
917
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Niu does NOT teach “The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to cause the apparatus to obtain an indication of an LBT scheme upgrade policy, the LBT scheme upgrade policy indicating whether the LBT scheme to be used for the transmission on a first one of the multiple beams can be changed to a less stringent LBT scheme as compared to the LBT scheme to be used for the transmission on a second one of the multiple beams.”
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, El Hamss teaches “wherein the one or more processors is further configured to cause the apparatus to obtain an indication of an LBT scheme upgrade policy, the LBT scheme upgrade policy indicating whether the LBT scheme to be used for the transmission on a first one of the multiple beams can be changed to a less stringent LBT scheme as compared to the LBT scheme to be used for the transmission on a second one of the multiple beams.” (El Hamss teaches in para. [0133] that an LBT scheme configuration selection may depend on the “priority of an associated transmission” wherein an “appropriate LBT configuration” is based on the priority of a logical channel, a priority indication of a physical channel, or whether a grant is configured or dynamically scheduled”. Thus an LBT configuration would enable transmission “over multiple beams” which would be an upgrade from a single beam due to the priority of the transmission.)
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine El Hamss with Niu to teach upgrading an LBT configuration. Each of El Hamss and Niu are in the field of wireless communications and both address LBT configurations and COT information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Niu and El Hamss in order to improve and enhance channel access by considering potential interference to/from other nodes (e.g., for beam-based operation), and complying with regulatory requirements for use of unlicensed spectrum as taught in El Hamss para. [0075].
Regarding claim 20,Niu does NOT teach “The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to cause the apparatus to obtain an indication of a transmission policy, the transmission policy indicating whether the transmission on the multiple beams requires LBT operations for all of the multiple beams being successful, wherein the signaling is outputted for transmission in accordance with the transmission policy. “
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, El Hamss teaches “wherein the one or more processors is further configured to cause the apparatus to obtain an indication of a transmission policy, the transmission policy indicating whether the transmission on the multiple beams requires LBT operations for all of the multiple beams being successful, wherein the signaling is outputted for transmission in accordance with the transmission policy. (El Hamss teaches in para. [0020] that LBT procedures may be performed as a function of “beam management” which is interpreted as a transmission policy. El Hamss para. [0129] teaches beam management with LBT by teaching in para. [0131] that a WTRU may receive an indication for a specific LBT configuration in control signaling configuring or scheduling the associated transmission. Para. [0137] teaches that the specific configuration could be an explicit identification of the beams used for LBT, via assigned indices, which are beam indices on which “LBT was performed or succeeded.”)
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine El Hamss with Niu to teach an indication of a transmission policy. Each of El Hamss and Niu are in the field of wireless communications and both address LBT configurations and COT information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Niu and El Hamss in order to improve and enhance channel access by considering potential interference to/from other nodes (e.g., for beam-based operation), and complying with regulatory requirements for use of unlicensed spectrum as taught in El Hamss para. [0075].
Regarding claim 21, Niu does NOT teach “The apparatus of claim 12, wherein a field in the COT-SI message indicates at least one of the multiple beams, and wherein the LBT scheme is determined based on the at least one of the multiple beams. “
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, El Hamss teaches “wherein a field in the COT-SI message indicates at least one of the multiple beams,” (El Hamss teaches in para. [0135] that the WTRU may receive an LBT configuration in a “COT structure indication message” that includes explicit identification of the beams used for LBT.”)
and
wherein the LBT scheme is determined based on the at least one of the multiple beams. (El Hamss para. [0137] teaches that the indication with explicit beam identification may be used based on LBT having succeeded.)
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine El Hamss with Niu to teach indications of at least one of the multiple beams. Each of El Hamss and Niu are in the field of wireless communications and both address LBT configurations and COT information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Niu and El Hamss in order to improve and enhance channel access by considering potential interference to/from other nodes (e.g., for beam-based operation), and complying with regulatory requirements for use of unlicensed spectrum as taught in El Hamss para. [0075].
Regarding claim 22, Niu in view of El Hamss teaches The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the COT-SI message indicates one of the multiple beams using a quasi co-location (QCL) relation of a physical control channel (PDCCH) carrying the COT-SI message, and wherein the LBT scheme is determined based on the one of the multiple beams. (Examiner interprets the claim language “indicates one of the multiple beams using a quasi co-location (QCL) relation of a physical control channel (PDCCH) carrying the COT-SI message” in accordance with the Applicant’s specification para. [0074] which states the UE “may deduce the TCI state of each COT-SI message based on the QCL relation of the PDCCH carrying each COT-SI message.” Niu teaches in para. [0025] that an LBT configuration element may include parameters related to an LBT beam TCI state. The parameters may include a TCI state identifier and a Quasi co-location (QCL) type A, type D or both type A and type D. Examiner interprets the “QCL relation of the PDCCH” as taught by the “type” of QCL. Further, the UE may “derive the TCI state of the COT based on a mapping of the sensing beam to the transmission beam. the TCI state can be the sensing TCI state”.
Niu does NOT teach that the LBT configuration element is in a COT-SI message.
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, El Hamss teaches “the COT-SI message indicates one of the multiple beams .... and wherein the LBT scheme is determined based on the one of the multiple beams.” (El Hamss teaches in para. [0135] “A WTRU may receive an indication of an LBT configuration that may be used by a gNB to initiate a COT. For example, an LBT configuration may be in a COT structure indication message. An indication may be provided, for example, by one or more of the following: a reference signal or an index of an RS; an (e.g., explicit) identification of the beam(s) used for LBT; a resource that may be used to transmit the indication of the LBT configuration; and/or a timing of the COT.”)
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine El Hamss with Niu to teach a COT structure indication message. Each of El Hamss and Niu are in the field of wireless communications and both address LBT configurations and COT information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Niu and El Hamss in order to improve and enhance channel access by considering potential interference to/from other nodes (e.g., for beam-based operation), and complying with regulatory requirements for use of unlicensed spectrum as taught in El Hamss para. [0075].
Regarding claim 23, Niu in view of El Hamss teaches “The apparatus of claim 12, further comprising at least one transceiver (Niu teaches in Fig. 7, radio front end module 706) configured to receive the COT-SI message and the at least one DCI and transmit signaling on [[each]] of the multiple beams based on the LBT scheme, wherein the apparatus is configured as the user equipment. (Niu teaches in para. [0046] that UE402 receives an UL DCI indicating directional or omni for transmitting using a “new bit” indicating a sensing beam in uplink DCI 410. Therefore, the signaling UL DCI enables UE 402 to output transmission on the identified omni beams based on omni LBT due to the “new bit”.)
Niu does NOT teach that the transmit signaling is “on each” of the multiple beams based on the LBT scheme.
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, El Hamss teaches “transmit signaling on each of the multiple beams based on the LBT scheme.” (El Hamss teaches in para. [0143] that a WTRU may determine an LBT configuration based on multiple associated transmissions, and that a WTRU configured/scheduled with multiple transmissions adjacent in time may select an LBT configuration that enables all transmissions occurring within the maximum duration of a COT. A selection may involve the use of a larger beam for the LBT so that all upcoming associated transmission beams may be covered by the beam of the LBT process. Further, El Hamss teaches in para. [0149] the WTRU will use “multiple beams” according to multiple LBT configurations for an associated transmission. Examiner interprets that “each” is taught as the multiple beams for the multiple LBT configurations for a transmission using the multiple beams taught in El Hamss.)
Niu does NOT specifically identify a COT-SI message.
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, El Hamss teaches “receiving a COT-SI message”.(El Hamss teaches in para. [0135] “A WTRU may receive an indication of an LBT configuration that may be used by a gNB to initiate a COT. For example, an LBT configuration may be in a COT structure indication message. An indication may be provided, for example, by one or more of the following: a reference signal or an index of an RS; an (e.g., explicit) identification of the beam(s) used for LBT; a resource that may be used to transmit the indication of the LBT configuration; and/or a timing of the COT.”)
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine El Hamss with Niu to teach upgrading an LBT configuration. Each of El Hamss and Niu are in the field of wireless communications and both address LBT configurations and COT information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Niu and El Hamss in order to improve and enhance channel access by considering potential interference to/from other nodes (e.g., for beam-based operation), and complying with regulatory requirements for use of unlicensed spectrum as taught in El Hamss para. [0075].
Regarding claim 24, Niu in view of El Hamss teaches “A user equipment (UE) for wireless communications, (Niu Fig. 7 and para. [0070] teach infrastructure equipment 700 could be a UE) comprising:
at least one transceiver configured to: (Fig. 7 radio front end 706 and network interface connector 720)
receive a channel occupancy time (COT) structure information (COT-SI) [[message]]; (Niu Fig. 2 teaches receiving COT information via a base station in block 216. Examiner interprets the DCI message as a “structure information” message because Niu para. [0037] teaches that the DCI message may indicate a COT TCI (omni or directional) to apply to all CCs, wherein bits may indicate what COT TCI state is enabled, which is a COT structure.)
and receive at least one downlink control information (DCI) indicating multiple beams and listen before talk (LBT) scheme indications associated with the multiple beams; (Niu teaches in Fig. 3A and 3B and para. [0035] that the DCI message may include a first type of LBT indicated by bit field 300a in Fig. 3A, and a second type of LBT procedure in bit field 300b in Fig 3B. Niu para. [0040] teaches that for LBT type two, the LBT CCA procedure “may result in different combinations of LBT beams based on which CC are determined to be clear and not clear.” Further, Niu teaches in para. [0032] that a DCI can indicate an LBT beam “indirectly or directly” the DCI can indicate a “sensing beam direction” for LBT DIRECTLY and the UE may DERIVE a transmission beam INDIRECTLY, thus, multiple beams are may be indicated with one or more DCI.)
a memory comprising instructions; (Niu Fig. 7 memory circuitry 708 coupled to application circuitry 708) and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions (Fig. 7 application circuitry 702 and para. [0072] teaches processors such as a GPU or CPU or ARM processor etc. execute instructions)
and
cause the UE to: determine an LBT scheme to be used for transmission via each of the multiple beams based on the LBT scheme indications and the COT-SI message, (Niu teaches in para. [0035] that the DCI received includes COT structure information and LBT bit fields used to determine the type of LBT associated with either directional or omni beams. Fig. 1, scenarios 104 and 106 illustrate beam/LBT scenarios 104 and 106. The COT information Para. [0022] teaches an omni LBT scenario 106 wherein the omni LBT process is used to communicate to multiple UE via an associated omni COT:
PNG
media_image1.png
891
917
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
and
wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit signaling on [[each]] of the multiple beams based on the LBT scheme. (Niu teaches in para. [0046] that UE402 receives an UL DCI indicating directional or omni for transmitting using a “new bit” indicating a sensing beam in uplink DCI 410. Therefore, the signaling UL DCI enables UE 402 to output transmission on the identified omni beams based on omni LBT due to the “new bit”.)
Niu does NOT teach transmit signaling on “on each” of the multiple beams based on the LBT scheme.
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, El Hamss teaches “transmit signaling on “on each” of the multiple beams based on the LBT scheme.” (El Hamss teaches in para. [0143] that a WTRU may determine an LBT configuration based on multiple associated transmissions, and that a WTRU configured/scheduled with multiple transmissions adjacent in time may select an LBT configuration that enables all transmissions occurring within the maximum duration of a COT. A selection may involve the use of a larger beam for the LBT so that all upcoming associated transmission beams may be covered by the beam of the LBT process. Further, El Hamss teaches in para. [0149] the WTRU will use “multiple beams” according to multiple LBT configurations for an associated transmission. Examiner interprets that “each” is taught as the multiple beams for the multiple LBT configurations for a transmission using the multiple beams taught in El Hamss.)
Niu does NOT specifically identify a COT-SI message.
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, El Hamss teaches “receiving a COT-SI message”.(El Hamss teaches in para . [0135] “A WTRU may receive an indication of an LBT configuration that may be used by a gNB to initiate a COT. For example, an LBT configuration may be in a COT structure indication message. An indication may be provided, for example, by one or more of the following: a reference signal or an index of an RS; an (e.g., explicit) identification of the beam(s) used for LBT; a resource that may be used to transmit the indication of the LBT configuration; and/or a timing of the COT.”
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine El Hamss with Niu to teach upgrading an LBT configuration and outputting each beam. Each of El Hamss and Niu are in the field of wireless communications and both address LBT configurations and COT information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Niu and El Hamss in order to improve and enhance channel access by considering potential interference to/from other nodes (e.g., for beam-based operation), and complying with regulatory requirements for use of unlicensed spectrum as taught in El Hamss para. [0075].
Conclusion
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 MARGARET MARIE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1068. The examiner can normally be reached M-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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/MARGARET MARIE ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2412 /CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights