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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 18-24, 31-43 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Remarks regarding 35 USC 112(f) are considered and noted.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, while amendments substantially change the scope of the claimed subject matter and necessitate new grounds of rejection with new citations of prior art, Examiner respectfully maintains the prior art cited reasonably teaches/suggests the amended limitations of the claim(s), albeit with revised citations.
Regarding remarks on page 17-18, applicants state “However, the "overwriting indication of an updated COT type to the UE 10" described in CHIEN does not disclose, as recited in amended claim 1: transmitting, during a first channel occupancy time (COT), on or more downlink (DL) control signals, wherein the one or more DL control signals comprise a first DL control signal to a first user equipment (UE) associated with a first UE type [and] transmitting, based on a second configuration during a second COT, a second DL control signal to a second UE associated with a second UE type different from the first UE type. (emphasis added)”. However Chien citations are now revised and/or maintained accordingly based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of amended claim(s) (0063, 0212, 0331, fig. 3-4). Therefore Examiner respectfully submits the prior art references cited reasonably teaches/suggests the amended limitations of the claim(s).
NOTE: Based on discussions in the prior interview dated 1/29/26, it appears an intended direction may have been to word claim 1 to further clarify the first and second control signals being transmitted in a same COT and what the control signals do; however, the current claim wording may still be interpreted to have the two control signals being sent in different COTs (“…transmitting, based on a second configuration during a second COT, a second DL control signal…”).
Rejections for similar independent and dependent claims are revised and/or maintained accordingly. New claim(s) 43 are addressed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Said claim(s) include: claim 31-36 which recite “means for transmitting”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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 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.
Claim 1, 4, 8, 11, 18, 21, 23, 31, 34, 37, 40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chien (US 2023/0146487).
For claim 1, Chien teaches: A method for wireless communication performed by a network entity (see at least 0468, fig. 12, gNB and UE may comprise processor/memory for communications), the method comprising:
transmitting, during a first channel occupancy time (COT), one or more downlink (DL) control signals (see at least 0063, fig. 3-4, a UE may receive PDCCH during a gNB-initiated COT), wherein the one or more DL control signals comprise a first DL control signal to a first user equipment (UE) associated with a first UE type (see at least 0212, gNB may configure COT type based on UE traffic e.g. for UE having higher priority traffic, UE-initiated COT is configured, thus the COT may correspond to gNB-initiated COT for low-priority traffic UE), wherein the first DL control signal is transmitted based on a first configuration, wherein the first configuration is based on the first COT associated with a first COT type (see at least 0063, 0212, fig. 3-4, a UE may receive PDCCH during DL portion of a gNB-initiated COT, comprising a first configured COT structure and type); and
transmitting, based on a second configuration during a second COT, a second DL control signal (see at least 0331, fig. 3-4, a UE may receive PDCCH during a UE-initiated COT) to a second UE associated with a second UE type different from the first UE type (see at least 0212, gNB may configure COT type based on UE traffic e.g. for UE having higher priority traffic, UE-initiated COT is configured, thus the COT may correspond to UE-initiated COT for high-priority traffic UE), wherein the second configuration is based on the second COT associated with a second COT type different from the first COT type, and wherein the second configuration is different from the first configuration (see at least 0063, 0212, fig. 3-4, a UE may receive PDCCH during DL portion of a UE-initiated COT, comprising a second configured COT structure and type).
For claim 4, Chien teaches claim 1, Chien further teaches: wherein the first DL control signal is transmitted during a first period associated with a DL control channel monitoring occasion for the first UE type, and wherein the second DL control signal is transmitted during a second period associated with a DL control channel monitoring occasion for the second UE type (see at least 0212, gNB may indicate COT type based on UE traffic e.g. for UE having high priority traffic, UE-initiated COT is configured, thus a first period may correspond to gNB-initiated COT for low-priority traffic UE, and a second period may correspond to UE-initiated COT for high-priority traffic UE).
For claim 8, Chien teaches claim 1, Chien further teaches: wherein the transmitting the first DL control signal comprises transmitting a first downlink control information (DCI) comprising a first number of bits, and wherein the transmitting the second DL control signal comprises transmitting a second DCI comprising a second number of bits different from the first number of bits (see at least 0063, gNB may transmit PDCCH during gNB-initiated COT; 0330-0331, gNB may transmit or restrict group common and/or unicast DCI during UE-initiated COT, thus may transmit different DCI formats/numbers of bits).
For claim 11, Chien teaches claim 1, Chien further teaches: wherein the first COT type is a network entity-acquired COT type, and wherein the second COT type is a user-equipment (UE)-acquired COT type (see at least 0166, COT types may be gNB-initiated or UE-initiated).
Claim 18 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 1 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 21 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 4 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 23 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 8 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 31 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 1 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 34 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 4 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 37 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium substantially similar to the method of claim 1 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 40 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium substantially similar to the method of claim 4 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
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 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.
Claim 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 19, 20, 22, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien (US 2023/0146487) in view of Cao et al. (US 2021/0376888).
For claim 2, Chien teaches claim 1, but not explicitly: wherein the first DL control signal is transmitted based on a first scrambling identity different from a second scrambling identity, and wherein the transmitting the one or more DL control signals comprises: transmitting, based on the second scrambling identity and during the first COT, a third DL control signal to the second UE. Cao from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0334, PDCCH may be scrambled with group identifier MU-PDCCH RNTI, and may comprise UE-specific data e.g. DMRS configurations further scrambled by UE specific C-RNTIs; multiple UEs may descramble their respective DMRS configuration). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Cao to the system of claim 1, so PDCCH in the gNB-initiated COT (first DL control signal) comprises data scrambled with common identity e.g. MU-PDCCH RNTI, and UE-specific data scrambled with other identities e.g. UE-specific C-RNTIs, including data (third DL control signal) for high priority UE (second UE), as suggested by Cao. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by implementing common and UE-specific data scrambling and descrambling (Cao 0334).
For claim 3, Chien, Cao teaches claim 2, Chien, Cao further teaches: wherein the transmitting the second DL control signal comprises transmitting the second DL control signal based on the second scrambling identity (Chien see at least 0235, group-common DCI may configure COT type. Cao see at least 0334, PDCCH may be scrambled with group identifier MU-PDCCH RNTI, and may comprise UE-specific data e.g. DMRS configurations further scrambled by UE specific C-RNTIs). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Cao to the system of claim 2, so PDCCH in the UE-initiated COT (second DL control signal) comprises data scrambled with an identity e.g. UE-specific data scrambled with other identities e.g. UE-specific C-RNTIs, as suggested by Cao. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by implementing common and UE-specific data scrambling and descrambling (Cao 0334).
For claim 5, Chien teaches claim 1, Chien further teaches: wherein the transmitting the first DL control signal comprises transmitting the first DL control signal based on a first UE-type configuration (see at least 0212, gNB may configure COT type based on UE traffic e.g. for UE having higher priority traffic, UE-initiated COT is configured, thus PDCCH in gNB-initiated COT may be based on a COT configuration for low-priority traffic UE), but not explicitly: wherein the transmitting the one or more DL control signals comprises: transmitting a third DL control signal to the second UE, wherein the first DL control signal and the third DL control signal are transmitted in a same monitoring occasion. Cao from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0334, PDCCH may be scrambled with group identifier MU-PDCCH RNTI, and may comprise UE-specific data e.g. DMRS configurations further scrambled by UE specific C-RNTIs; multiple UEs may descramble their respective DMRS configuration). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Cao to the system of claim 1, so PDCCH in the gNB-initiated COT (first DL control signal) comprises UE-specific data scrambled with other identities e.g. UE-specific C-RNTIs, including data (third DL control signal) for high priority UE (second UE), as suggested by Cao. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by implementing common and UE-specific data scrambling and descrambling (Cao 0334).
For claim 6, Chien teaches claim 1, but not explicitly: wherein the transmitting the first DL control signal comprises transmitting the first DL control signal based on a first radio network identifier, and wherein transmitting the second DL control signal comprises transmitting the second DL control signal based on a second radio network identifier different from the first radio network identifier. Cao from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0334, PDCCH may be scrambled with group identifier MU-PDCCH RNTI, and may comprise UE-specific data e.g. DMRS configurations further scrambled by UE specific C-RNTIs). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Cao to the system of claim 1, so the PDCCH in the gNB-initiated COT (first DL control signal) comprises data scrambled with common identity e.g. MU-PDCCH RNTI, and PDCCH in the UE-initiated COT (second DL control signal) comprises UE-specific data scrambled with UE-specific identities e.g. C-RNTIs, as suggested by Cao. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by implementing common and UE-specific data scrambling and descrambling (Cao 0334).
For claim 10, Chien teaches claim 1, but not explicitly: wherein the transmitting the first DL control signal comprises transmitting a first group-common physical downlink control channel (GC-PDCCH) communication, and wherein the transmitting the second DL control signal comprises transmitting a second GC-PDCCH communication. Cao from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0334, GC-PDCCH may be scrambled with group identifier MU-PDCCH RNTI, and may comprise UE-specific data e.g. DMRS configurations further scrambled by UE specific C-RNTIs; see at least 0279, 0281, GC-PDCCH may carry SFI, MIMO information). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Cao to the system of claim 1, so PDCCHs may comprise GC-PDCCH with data scrambled with common identity e.g. MU-PDCCH RNTI, and UE-specific data scrambled with other identities e.g. UE-specific C-RNTIs, as suggested by Cao. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by implementing common and UE-specific data via GC-PDCCH e.g. DMRS, SFI, MIMO configurations (Cao 0334, 0279, 0281).
Claim 19 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 2 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 20 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 3 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 22 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 6 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 32 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 2 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 33 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 3 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 35 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 5 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 36 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 6 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 38 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium substantially similar to the method of claim 2 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 39 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium substantially similar to the method of claim 3 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 41 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium substantially similar to the method of claim 5 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 42 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium substantially similar to the method of claim 6 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 43 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 5 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 9, 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien (US 2023/0146487) in view of Pierson et al. (US 2017/0034135).
For claim 9, Chien teaches claim 1, but not explicitly: wherein the transmitting the first DL control signal comprises transmitting the first DL control signal based on a first cyclic redundancy check (CRC) polynomial, and wherein transmitting the second DL control signal comprises transmitting the second DL control signal based on a second CRC polynomial different from the first CRC polynomial. Pierson from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0040, claim 2, a CRC polynomial may dynamically change over time at transmitting and receiving ends). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Pierson to the system of claim 1, so the CRC polynomial changes over time, and the second PDCCH is transmitted with a changed CRC polynomial different than the first PDCCH, as suggested by Pierson. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by implementing changing CRC polynomials for secure transmission (Pierson 0031, 0043).
Claim 24 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 9 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
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 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 SIREN WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-0687. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7-4. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 571-272-3940. 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.
/Siren Wei/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2467