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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims filed on 11/18/2025 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are on the amended features from an unexamined alternative of old claim3 raising a new scope and do not apply to any of the references being used in the instant office action, thus rendering the applicant’s arguments moot.
The applicant also presented other arguments drawn to the various dependent claims. However, said other arguments are all dependency based, depending from the arguments drawn to the independent claims’ limitations discussed above.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozturk et al. (US 2021/0321314, “Ozturk”) in view of Ganesan et al. (US 2025/0280437, “Ganesan”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Ozturk unless otherwise mentioned.
Ozturk comprises the following features:
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 1, a method comprising:
receiving a system information block (SIB) in a serving cell ([0097 and Fig. 4] “UE 30 is currently in a connected state with source cell 31. Based at least in part on measurement reports provided by UE 30 (not shown) to source cell 31, source cell 31 may transmit a handover command at 300 to UE 30.” Note SIB will be discussed in view of Ganesan.), the SIB to include an indication of whether a neighbor cell uses a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure ([0097 and Fig. 4] “Upon receipt of the handover command at 300, UE 30 may begin to monitor for consistent LBT failures, whether detected directly by observing failure of an LBT procedure performed by UE 30 to access the shared communication spectrum for any type of uplink transmission or detected implicitly by identifying missing downlink reference signals expected at scheduled or configured times and frequencies from target cell 32.” Note that the handover command triggering monitoring LBT at the target cell is equivalent to the recited indication.); and
performing a measurement with respect to the neighbor cell based on whether the neighbor cell uses the LBT procedure ([0098] “UE 30 may perform such LBT failure detection on a bandwidth part (BWP) configured for and associated with target cell 32.”).
It is noted that while disclosing HO procedures based on LBT with a target cell, Ozturk does not specifically teach about SIB containing an LBT indication. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Ganesan as follows;
receiving a system information block (SIB) ([Ganesan, 0022] “a gNB provides UE(s) with higher layer parameters LBT-Mode by system information block (SIB) 1”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Ozturk by using the features of Ganesan in order to provide schemes for communicating with multiple communication targets such that “A sensing beam, which includes the plurality of transmission beams corresponding to the communication target devices, is determined.” [Ganesan, 0007].
Regarding claim 8, a method comprising:
generating a system information block (SIB) (See below [0097]. A handover command has to be generated before being transmitted. A SIB containing indication of LBT will be discussed in view of Ganesan.) to include an indication of whether a neighbor cell of a serving cell with which a user equipment (UE) is connected uses a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure ([0097 and Fig. 4] “Upon receipt of the handover command at 300, UE 30 may begin to monitor for consistent LBT failures, whether detected directly by observing failure of an LBT procedure performed by UE 30 to access the shared communication spectrum for any type of uplink transmission or detected implicitly by identifying missing downlink reference signals expected at scheduled or configured times and frequencies from target cell 32.” Note that the handover command triggering monitoring LBT at the target cell is equivalent to the recited indication.); and
outputting the SIB for transmission to the UE in the serving cell ([0097 and Fig. 4] “UE 30 is currently in a connected state with source cell 31. Based at least in part on measurement reports provided by UE 30 (not shown) to source cell 31, source cell 31 may transmit a handover command at 300 to UE 30.” Note SIB will be discussed in view of Ganesan.).
It is noted that while disclosing HO procedures based on LBT with a target cell, Ozturk does not specifically teach about SIB containing an LBT indication. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Ganesan as follows;
a system information block (SIB) to include an indication … LBT ([Ganesan, 0022] “a gNB provides UE(s) with higher layer parameters LBT-Mode by system information block (SIB) 1”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Ozturk by using the features of Ganesan in order to provide schemes for communicating with multiple communication targets such that “A sensing beam, which includes the plurality of transmission beams corresponding to the communication target devices, is determined.” [Ganesan, 0007].
Regarding claim 14, it is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 8, except the limitations, “a radio-frequency (RF) interface; and processing circuitry coupled with the RF interface” (See Fig. 2 and [0086] “Downlink signals from modulators 232a through 232t may be transmitted via the antennas 234a through 234t, respectively.”), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 10 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozturk et al. (US 2021/0321314, “Ozturk”) in view of Ganesan et al. (US 2025/0280437, “Ganesan”) and further in view of Guo et al. (US 2024/0334334, “Guo”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Ozturk unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 2, it is noted that while disclosing a LBT procedure at a target cell, Ozturk does not specifically teach about RRC connected UE. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Guo as follows;
the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving the SIB while in a radio resource control (RRC) connected state ([Guo, 0156] “for RRC connected mode UE, a SIB is transmitted in a part of serving cells.”) or an RRC idle state (This alternative is not examined.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Ozturk by using the features of Guo in order to save power such that “receiving, by the communication device, a first signal in at least one resource based on the indication information” [Guo, 0006].
Regarding claim 5, the method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, to the serving cell, a request for the indication ([Guo, 0154] “a UE can send a request for a reduced SIB transmission”).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Guo are the same as for claim 2.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, the method of claim 8 and the apparatus of claim 14, respectively, wherein the SIB includes the indication in a measurement object information element (IE) ([Guo, 0317] “the indication information includes a second resource configuration for the communication device to receive the first signal. In some embodiments, the second resource configuration for the first signal includes a measurement window or a timer.”, and [Guo, 0318] “the indication information includes a sparser system information block (SIB) transmission or a denser SIB transmission”).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Guo are the same as for claim 2.
Claim(s) 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozturk et al. (US 2021/0321314, “Ozturk”) in view of Ganesan et al. (US 2025/0280437, “Ganesan”) and Guo et al. (US 2024/0334334, “Guo”), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2024/0340928, “Kim”, provisional application 63296773 (“773”)).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Ozturk unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 6, it is noted that while disclosing a LBT procedure at a target cell, Ozturk does not specifically teach about PRACH transmission. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Kim as follows;
the method of claim 1, wherein the request is a physical random access channel (PRACH) transmission ([Kim, 0410] “the wireless device may determine a PRACH preamble and PRACH resource corresponding to a desired SIB in SI request configuration received via SIB1. The wireless device may initiate a random access procedure using the PRACH preamble and PRACH resource. Upon receiving the PRACH preamble, the base station may broadcast the desired SIB on the DL-SCH”. See [773, 0393].), uplink control information, a media access control - control element (MAC-CE), or a radio resource control (RRC) transmission (These alternatives are not examined.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Ozturk by using the features of Kim in order to effectively manage resources such that “the RAN 104 may provide scheduling, radio resource management, and retransmission protocols.” [Kim, 0057].
Claim(s) 7, 13 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozturk et al. (US 2021/0321314, “Ozturk”) in view of Ganesan et al. (US 2025/0280437, “Ganesan”) and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2024/0340928, “Kim”, provisional application 63296773 (“773”)).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Ozturk unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 7, the method of claim 1, wherein the SIB comprises a SIB 3 ([Kim, 0180] “The UE may initiate the random access procedure to request one or more system information blocks (SIBs) (e.g., other system information such as SIB2, SIB3, and/or the like).”. See [773. 0163].) or SIB 4 (This alternative is not examined.).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Kim are the same as for claim 6.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the method of claim 8 and the apparatus of claim 14, respectively, wherein the SIB comprises a SIB 3 ([Kim, 0180] “The UE may initiate the random access procedure to request one or more system information blocks (SIBs) (e.g., other system information such as SIB2, SIB3, and/or the like).”. See [773. 0163].) or SIB 4 (This alternative is not examined.).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Kim are the same as for claim 6.
Claim(s) 11 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozturk et al. (US 2021/0321314, “Ozturk”) in view of Ganesan et al. (US 2025/0280437, “Ganesan”) and further in view of Xue et al. (US 2022/0159709, “Xue”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Ozturk unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, it is noted that while disclosing a LBT procedure at a target cell, Ozturk does not specifically teach about another LBT at a different frequency. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Xue as follows;
the method of claim 8 and the apparatus of claim 14, respectively,
wherein the SIB is in a message, the indication is a first indication to indicate whether the neighbor cell uses the LBT procedure for a first carrier frequency level and
the method further comprises:
generating the message to include a second indication to indicate whether the neighbor cell uses the LBT procedure for a second carrier frequency level ([0114] “the second UE 115 may receive a configuration of four PSFCH opportunities 315 over two LBT sub-bands 305 and in two PSFCH symbols 320.”, [0113] “the second UE 115 may perform an LBT procedure for each of the multiple PSFCH opportunities 315”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Ozturk by using the features of Kim in order to support multiple frequency opportunities such that “the second UE may receive a configuration of multiple opportunities or occasions over which the second UE may transmit feedback to the first UE” [Xue, 0005].
Claim(s) 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozturk et al. (US 2021/0321314, “Ozturk”) in view of Ganesan et al. (US 2025/0280437, “Ganesan”) and further in view of Sun et al. (US 2018/0098224, “Sun”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Ozturk unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 15, it is noted that while disclosing a LBT procedure at a target cell, Ozturk does not specifically teach about another receiving a message from another base station. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Sun as follows;
the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the processing circuitry is further to:
receive, via an inter-base station (BS) interface or a BS-UE interface, a message from a base station that provides the neighbor cell; and determine whether the neighbor cell uses the LBT procedure based on the second message ([Sun, 0051] “where the spectrum management apparatus 100 is located in a macro base station, the spectrum sensing result and the information on the spectrum time validity are carried in X2 signaling under the LTE communication protocol and are transmitted between a small base station and the macro base station through an X2 interface.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Ozturk by using the features of Sun in order to use the same unlicensed frequency band fairly and effectively such that “a spectrum management apparatus for wireless communications is provided, which includes: a transceiving unit, configured to receive, from a user equipment, cell IDs and information on corresponding signal quality” [Sun, 0006].
Claim(s) 21-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozturk et al. (US 2021/0321314, “Ozturk”) in view of Ganesan et al. (US 2025/0280437, “Ganesan”) and further in view of Jano et al. (US 2025/0119805, “Jano”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Ozturk unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 21, it is noted that while disclosing a LBT procedure at a target cell, Ozturk does not specifically teach about measurements in other neighbor cells. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Jano as follows;
the method of claim 1, wherein the indication applies to a plurality of neighbor cells in a carrier frequency ([Jano, 0024] “After camping on the cell, as noted, at various times after waking from a low power state, the UE monitors (receives) system information (e.g., system information block (SIB)) from the serving cell, monitors paging occasions, detects paging messages from the serving cell, and may perform cell reselection (including measurement of cells).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Ozturk by using the features of Jano in order to enable multiple communications between nodes or devices such that “receiving, by a user device, slice specific cell reselection information including slice group specific frequency priorities for one or more slice groups” [Jano, 0005].
Regarding claim 22, the method of claim 1, wherein the serving cell and the neighbor cell operate in a same carrier frequency ([Jano, 0026] “measuring neighbor cells on the same carrier frequency (or frequency band), which may be the same carrier frequency or frequency band as the serving cell”).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Jano are the same as for claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 12, 16, 19 and 23 were objected with allowable subject matter in the previous office action dated 08/18/2025, and said claims remain objected now.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry H. Kim whose telephone number and email address are as follows; 571-272-5009, harry.kim2@uspto.gov.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from www.uspto.gov. For questions or assistance, 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.
/HARRY H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411