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 bypass application of an international application that was filed on 8 Jan 2021.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 29 Jan 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements, submitted on 7 Jul 2023, 7 Jul 2023, and 2 Apr 2024, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Reply notes that Wang teaches a device not performing sensing when the gap between consecutive DL/UL is less than or equal to 16 µs. Reply, 8. The Reply further notes that the claimed invention now requires a device to not perform sensing when the “gap is smaller than the first predetermined value, wherein the first predetermined value comprises 8 µs.” Claim 1:15-16. Therefore, the argument that “Wang fails to disclose performing no sensing when the first gap is less than the predetermined value being 8 µs as recited in amended claim 1” is persuasive. Reply, 9.
However, Salem defines a transmission burst “as a set of transmissions from a BS 170 . . . with gaps no greater than X μs (X μs may be 3 μs or 8 μs).” Salem, ¶77. All the transmissions within a transmission burst are performed “without sensing the corresponding channel(s) for availability.” Ibid. In short, if the gap between transmissions is equal to or less than 8 microseconds, sensing is not needed in Salem. This teaching of Salem is supported by its provisional application ‘136, which pre-dates the effective filing date of this Application. Spec. of ‘136, ¶75. As a result, Salem constitutes prior art that teaches a device that does not perform sensing when the gap is “smaller than” 8 μs and performing sensing when the gap is greater than 8 μs. See also Salem, ¶128 and claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
All claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite, in part, “a channel access mode of a second type.” A “first type” of channel access mode is never recited in the claims. As a result of using “second,” it is unclear how many types of channel access modes are required by the claimed invention (i.e. 1 or 2). All other claims are rejected due to their dependence upon an indefinite claim.
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 1, 7, 9-11, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Niu (US 20220312482) in view of Salem (US 20220124796, cited on PTO-892 dated 17 Jul 2025) and further in view of Wang (US 20210360421).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Niu teaches a channel access method and a channel access device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory has a computer program stored thereon, and the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program stored in the memory to perform a channel access method comprising:
determining, by a first device, to transmit a first physical channel or physical signal on a first carrier (Niu, figure 5 and ¶¶87-88 – UE 502 seeks to transmit on an uplink channel to base station 506 or Niu, figure 2 and ¶60 – base station 202 seeks to transmit a PDSCH to a first or second UE 206 or 208; Niu, ¶25 – the NR devices [e.g base station 202 or UE 502] may utilize a first carrier between 52.6 and 71 GHz),
the first physical channel or physical signal corresponding to a first channel access mode (Niu, ¶¶27, 74 – LBT/CCA is used as the channel access mechanism for the device seeking to transmit on the channel [e.g. base station 202 or UE 502]), and
the first carrier being on an unlicensed spectrum within a first frequency range (Niu, ¶24 – the spectrum from 57 GHz to 71 GHz is unlicensed);
performing, by the first device, channel access on the first carrier based on the first channel access mode (Niu, ¶¶34, 36 – base station performs CCA over sensing area 204 or Niu, ¶74 – UE 502 performs CCA over sensing area 504; Niu, ¶25 – first carrier is between 52.6 and 71 GHz); and
transmitting, by the first device, the first physical channel or physical signal via the first carrier after the channel access succeeds (Niu, ¶¶59-60 – after using omnidirectional CCA to acquire the channel, base station 202 transmits a PDSCH or Niu, ¶¶87-88 – after acquiring the channel, UE 502 uses the channel for a transmission, including one to base station 506),
wherein the first device determines that a channel access procedure corresponding to the first channel access mode is a channel access mode of a second type with a fixed sensing slot length . . . wherein the fixed sensing slot length comprises 5 µs (Niu, figure 1 – each slot shown in figure 1 has the same size; Niu, ¶21 – e.g. fixed slot duration of 5 µs, where CCA time [time during which the device is sensing the channel] is 8 microseconds plus a number of one or more slot durations [i.e. sensing occurs during the fixed-sized slots]); and
Niu does not explicitly teach (1) sensing “when a length of a first gap is greater than or equal to a first predetermined value,” (2) the first device determines that the channel access procedure corresponding to the first channel access mode is a channel access procedure without channel sensing when the length of the first gap is smaller than the first predetermined value, wherein the first predetermined value comprises 8 µs” or (3) “wherein the first gap is a gap between a start position of the first physical channel or physical signal and an end position of a first transmission burst, the firs transmission burst being a prior transmission burst corresponding to the first channel or physical channel.”
However, regarding (1) and (2), Salem teaches a transmitter (either a BS or UE) sensing the channel when the gap is greater than X µs before transmitting and not sensing the channel when the gap is less than or equal to X µs, where X may be 8. Salem, ¶¶77, 79 (mmWave shared spectrum operation). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to allow a device to determine whether to perform channel sensing, as taught by Niu, based on the size of the gap between its transmissions, as taught by Salem, in order to reduce LBT overhead when possible. Salem, ¶54.
While Salem teaches gaps between transmissions in a transmission burst (e.g. id. at ¶77, 79), the combination of Niu and Salem does not explicitly teach (3) “wherein the first gap is a gap between a start position of the first physical channel or physical signal and an end position of a first transmission burst, the first transmission burst being a prior transmission burst corresponding to the first channel or physical channel.” However, Wang teaches a gap between transmission bursts (Wang, ¶269) and sensing based on the size of the gap. Wang, ¶¶268, 273-274 (if the gap is less than 16 µs, a device can transmit without LBT sensing, but must sense if the gap is more than 16 µs). Wang also teaches (3) the gap being between the current transmission burst and any previous transmission burst. Wang, ¶268, 271 (i.e. between consecutive UL bursts or DL bursts). 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 define a gap, as taught by Wang, when attempting to access the spectrum, taught by the combination of Niu and Salem, in order to make efficient use of the frequency resources, while still transmitting only when the channel has been recognized as free. Wang, ¶¶141-142.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the combination of Niu, Salem, and Wang also teaches also teaches wherein the first channel access mode is a channel access of a first type (Niu, ¶34 – one type is omnidirectional CCA; Niu, ¶93 – one type is directional CCA), and the channel access of the first type is a channel access procedure with channel sensing for a plurality of random backoff sensing slots. Niu, ¶¶28-29 (UE defers transmission and continues sensing for a random number of N slots).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the combination of Niu, Salem, and Wang also teaches also teaches wherein said performing, by the first device, channel access on the first carrier based on the first channel access mode comprises: performing, by the first device, channel access on the first carrier based on omnidirectional channel sensing and the first channel access mode; or performing, by the first device, channel access on the first carrier based on directional channel sensing and the first channel access mode (Niu, ¶34 – one type is omnidirectional CCA; Niu, ¶93 – one type is directional CCA).
Claims 6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu in view of Salem and Wang (all of record) and further in view of Li (US 20190132882).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the combination of Niu and Wang teaches the method of claim 1 and the device of claim 11, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the first predetermined value comprises a length of an integer number of symbols, and/or the first predetermined value is related to a subcarrier spacing.” However, Li teaches a gap duration of 8 or 16 microseconds (i.e. the predetermined value). Li, ¶184 (8 or 16 microsecond SIFS). All transmissions have a SCS of 15kHz for sub-7 GHz or a SCS of 60 kHz for above-7 GHz. Li, ¶223. And the time duration of all transmissions is an integer number of symbols. Li, ¶¶249, 254. 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 define the 16 microsecond gap, as taught by the combination of Niu, Salem, and Wang, based on the symbol length and/or SCS, taught by Li, in order to define a gap or SIFS based on an integer number of its time subcomponents. Li, e.g. ¶228 (time relationship between SCS and symbols).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu in view of Salem and Wang (all of record) and further in view of Tang (WO 2019/136720, published on 18 Jul 2019, with citations based on English Translation, US 2020/0344802).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the combination of Niu, Salem and Wang teaches the method according to claim 7 and the device of claim 17, but does not explicitly teach “wherein when channel sensing fails during the channel access procedure, a counter is not decremented by 1 for a first sensing slot with successful channel sensing after the channel sensing fails; or when channel sensing fails during the channel access procedure, a counter is decremented by 1 for a first sensing slot with successful channel sensing after the channel sensing fails.” However, Tang teaches a second type of channel access mechanism that utilizes a contention window. Tang, ¶¶104, 157 (example shown in figure 5). In the example of a second type of channel access mechanism, a failed LBT precedes a successful LBT. Tang, figure 5. In the second type of channel access mechanism, a count value is reduced by 1 for each slot during which CCA is attempted. Tang, ¶¶105-112 (attempts CCA in each slot until N=0). If all slots are considered idle, then the sensing is considered successful. Id. at ¶¶108, 110. 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 use the second type of channel access mechanism, as taught by Tang, when accessing the unlicensed spectrum, taught by the combination of Niu, Salem, and Wang, in order to utilize a contention window, which allows for consideration of the priority of the service seeking access to the channel. Id. at ¶112.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure including paragraphs 163 and 330 of Myung, which describe decrementing a counter and a gap of 1 microsecond being 8 symbols.
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 fax number is 571-270-8514 and email address is benjamin.lamont@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 for authorizing unsecure communication). 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
Prosecution Insights