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 Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 02/02/26 has been entered.
Claims 30-40 and 42-49 are pending.
Claim 41 has been canceled.
Claims 1-29 were previously canceled.
Claims 30-49 were previously added.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
Objection to claim 40.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 30-31, 33, 35-36, 39, 41, 42, 44, and 45-46, 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20220377813 A1) in view of Rastegardoost (US 20230239081 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Wang discloses a terminal device [fig. 15, par. 0334, fig. 49, 14] comprising:
at least one processor [fig. 15 no. 1501, 13, fig. 49 no. 4901, fig. 14 no. 1402]; and
at least one memory [fig. 15 no. 1502, 03, 08, fig. 49 no. 4901 (inherent), fig. 14 no. 1402 (inherent)] storing instructions [fig. 5] that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the terminal device at least to perform:
receiving, at the terminal device and from a network device, a configuration of at least two candidate configured grant physical uplink shared channel (CG PUSCH) resources for a transmission from the terminal device to the network device (The UE (i.e., first device) receives from the BS (i.e., network device) UL signal transmission resource info (i.e., config) that comprises at least one of time, freq, and LBT info of the UL signal (i.e., at least 2 candidate CG PUSCH resources for transmission) [par. 0155, fig. 5 no. 501]);
selecting, from the at least two candidate resources, a target resource for the transmission based on an availability of a channel occupancy time (COT) initiated by the network device for the transmission (Based on COT, the UE determines (i.e., selects) a freq resource for sending (i.e., transmission) the UL signal [par. 0156-158, fig. 5 no. 502]), and
performing the transmission based on the selected target resource (The UE sends the UL signal using the determined resource [par. 0159, fig. 5 no. 503]).
Although Wang discloses wherein one of the at least two candidate resources is configured with one or more parameters, as discussed above, Wang does not explicitly disclose comprising at least one of the following: transmit power control, or modulation and coding scheme. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Rastegardoost.
In the same field of endeavor, Rastegardoost discloses:
comprising at least one of the following:
transmit power control [par. 0187], or
modulation and coding scheme [par. 0187].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with Rastegardoost. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of providing configuration info for scheduling PUSCHs via DL DCI [Rastegardoost Abstract].
Regarding claim 45, it is substantially similar to claim 30, except is in method claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 42, it is substantially similar to claim 30, except is from the perspective of the second device, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Wang further discloses a network device [fig. 15, par. 0334] comprising: at least one processor [fig. 15 no. 1501, 13]; and at least one memory [fig. 15 no. 1502, 03, 08] storing instructions [fig. 5].
Regarding claims 31 and 46, Wang and Rastegardoost disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Wang further discloses wherein one of the at least two candidate resources is configured with one or more parameters comprising at least one of the following:
time-domain resource allocation [par. 0155],
frequency-domain resource allocation [par. 0155], or
an indication whether to be used inside the COT or outside the COT (When the UL signal is outside the COT, the UE uses an LBT sub-band based on the UL signal transmission resource info (i.e., indication to be used when outside COT) [par. 0155, 157]).
Regarding claims 33 and 48, Wang and Rastegardoost disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Wang further discloses wherein selecting the target resource comprises:
in accordance with a determination that the COT is available, selecting the target resource from a first set of candidate resources in the at least two candidate resources, the first set of candidate resources being configured for performing the transmission within the COT (The LBT sub-band is determined based on whether the UL signal is within the COT [par. 0155, 157], where the LBT is part of the info sent from the BS (i.e., generating the config knowing the COT) [par. 0157]).
Regarding claim 35, Wang and Rastegardoost disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Wang further discloses wherein selecting the target resource from the first set of candidate resources comprises:
selecting, from the first set of candidate resources, a first candidate resource as the target resource, the first candidate resource being associated with a predetermined time window within which no listen before talk procedure is required [par. 0167-168].
Regarding claims 36 and 49, Wang and Rastegardoost disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Wang further discloses wherein selecting the target resource comprises:
in accordance with a determination that the COT is unavailable, selecting the target resource from a second set of candidate resources in the at least two candidate resources, the second set of candidate resources being configured for performing the transmission outside the COT (The LBT sub-band is determined based on whether the UL signal is outside the COT [par. 0155, 157], where the LBT is part of the info sent from the BS (i.e., generating the config knowing the COT) [par. 0157]).
Regarding claim 39, Wang and Rastegardoost disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Wang further discloses wherein performing the transmission comprises:
determining, based on the target resource, whether a listen before talk procedure is required for performing the transmission [par. 0167-168]; and
in accordance with a determination that no listen before talk procedure is required, perform the transmission on resources indicated in the target resource [par. 0167-168].
Regarding claim 44, it is substantially similar to claims 33 and 36, except is from the perspective of the network device, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Wang further discloses generating the configuration based on the first and the second candidate resource (The LBT sub-band is determined based on whether the UL signal is inside or outside the COT [par. 0155, 157], where the LBT is part of the info sent from the BS (i.e., generating the config knowing the COT) [par. 0157]).
Regarding claim 41, Wang and Rastegardoost disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Wang further discloses:
wherein the first device comprises a terminal device and the second device comprises a network device (UE and BS [fig. 18]).
Claims 32, 47, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Rastegardoost as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20220312422 A1).
Regarding claims 32, 47, and 43, Wang and Rastegardoost disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Wang discloses wherein the terminal device is caused to perform: obtaining, from the configuration, as discussed above, Wang and Rastegardoost do not explicitly disclose a reference resource configuration associated with the at least two candidate resources and at least one offset value, the at least one offset value associated with one or more parameters included in the at least two candidate resources; and determining the at least two candidate resources based on the reference resource configuration and the at least one offset value. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Lee.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses:
a reference resource configuration associated with the at least two candidate resources and at least one offset value, the at least one offset value associated with one or more parameters included in the at least two candidate resources (A reference threshold related to an offset value is used to select the number of resources (at least two candidate) [par. 0210]); and
determining the at least two candidate resources based on the reference resource configuration and the at least one offset value (The resources are determined [par. 0225]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang and Rastegardoost with Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of resource selection in a SL communication system [Lee par. 0206].
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Rastegardoost as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Tang (US 20200267523 A1).
Regarding claim 34, Wang and Rastegardoost disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Wang discloses wherein selecting the target resource from the first set of candidate resources comprises, as discussed above, Wang and Rastegardoost do not explicitly disclose selecting the target resource from the first set of candidate resources based on a size of data to be transmitted. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Tang.
In the same field of endeavor, Tang discloses:
selecting the target resource from the first set of candidate resources based on a size of data to be transmitted (Resource is selected based on PBSs required for data packet size (i.e., size of data to be transmitted) [par. 0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang and Rastegardoost with Tang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of efficiently allocating resources [Tang par. 0004].
Claims 37-38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Rastegardoost as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Sun (US 20200154471 A1, cited by Applicant of Record).
Regarding claim 37, Wang and Rastegardoost disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Wang discloses wherein selecting the target resource from the second set of candidate resources comprises: … ; and … associated with a first subset of candidate resources in the second set of candidate resources … , selecting, from the first subset of the candidate resources, a first candidate resource as the target resource, as discussed above, Wang and Rastegardoost do not explicitly disclose obtaining a result of a channel energy measurement for a channel between the first and the second devices; and in accordance with a determination that an energy detection threshold … exceeds the result of the channel energy measurement … the first candidate resource having a minimum energy detection threshold. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Sun.
In the same field of endeavor, Sun discloses:
obtaining a result of a channel energy measurement for a channel between the terminal and the network devices [par. 0033, 69, 81]; and
in accordance with a determination that an energy detection threshold … exceeds the result of the channel energy measurement … the first candidate resource having a minimum energy detection threshold [par. 0033, 69, 81].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang and Rastegardoost with Sun. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of communicating in a shared/unlicensed spectrum while meeting latency, reliability, security, and scalability requirements [Sun Abstract, par. 0004-05].
Regarding claim 38, Wang and Rastegardoost disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Wang discloses wherein selecting the target resource from the second set of candidate resources comprises: … of the second set of candidate resources … , selecting, from the second set of candidate resources, a second candidate resource as the target resource, the second candidate resource, as discussed above, Wang and Rastegardoost do not explicitly disclose in accordance with a determination that respective energy detection thresholds … lower than the result of the channel energy measurement, … having a maximum energy detection threshold. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Sun.
In the same field of endeavor, Sun discloses:
in accordance with a determination that respective energy detection thresholds … lower than the result of the channel energy measurement [par. 0033, 69, 81], … having a maximum energy detection threshold [par. 0033, 69, 81].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang and Rastegardoost with Sun. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of communicating in a shared/unlicensed spectrum while meeting latency, reliability, security, and scalability requirements [Sun Abstract, par. 0004-05].
Regarding claim 40, Wang and Rastegardoost disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Wang discloses wherein the terminal device is caused to perform: in accordance with a determination that the listen before talk procedure is required … ; performing the listen before talk procedure … ; in accordance with a determination that the listen before talk procedure is successful, perform the transmission on resources indicated in the target resource, as discussed above, Wang and Rastegardoost do not explicitly disclose determining an energy detection threshold for the listen before talk procedure based on the target resource; performing the listen before talk procedure based on the energy detection threshold. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Sun.
In the same field of endeavor, Sun discloses:
determining an energy detection threshold for the listen before talk procedure based on the target resource [par. 0033, 69];
performing the listen before talk procedure based on the energy detection threshold [par. 0033, 69].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang and Rastegardoost with Sun. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of communicating in a shared/unlicensed spectrum while meeting latency, reliability, security, and scalability requirements [Sun Abstract, par. 0004-05].
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 Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465