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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 9 June 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1-17 are canceled.
Claims 18-20, 23, 24, 28-31, 33, 34 and 36 are amended.
Claims 18-37 are currently pending.
The outstanding objection to Claims 20, 23, 24, 29, 31, 34 and 36 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claims.
The outstanding provisional rejection of Claim 18 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claim.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 18-37 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 18, 19, 23, 24, 28, 30, 33 and 35.
The outstanding rejections of Claims 18-23 and 28-37 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and Claims 24-27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 18, 28 and 33.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 June 2026 with regards to the Alriksson reference have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Office notes that Applicant argues limitations that do not appear in the claims as currently drafted. Particularly, on page 9 of the response, Applicant states that Alriksson does not disclose “the claimed structured grouping framework”, which Applicant describes as follows: “signals are grouped (e.g., based on transmission time occasions); group membership determines whether SCS transmission without channel sensing is allowed, or whether LBT is used; and allowance is applied in conjunction with grouping.” It is first noted that the current claim language does not provide further detail as to how signals are grouped. The basis for determining a first or second group is “based on transmission time occasions” without any further detail as to how transmission time occasions would lead to the signal “belonging” to the first group or second group. The ultimate result of a signal “belonging” to the particular group is being transmitted as a short control signal without channel sensing or a signal subject to listen before talk. Accordingly, the claim is silent with regards to any criteria needed to satisfy “belonging” to either group, along with how the respective groups and “times of allowance” are analyzed in order to determine how the signal should be subsequently transmitted. Therefore, the Office submits that Alriksson’s disclosure at paragraphs 0042-0043, where some transmissions or types of transmissions can be sent as SCS transmissions or LBT as a fallback based on evaluated criteria reasonably reads on “examining whether a signal…belongs to a first group or a second group” and utilizing duration criteria (i.e., as disclosed in paragraphs 0014-0015) to determine how to transmit the signal as SCS or LBT (i.e., the respective groups absent other limiting language as to how the signals are grouped). Applicant’s remarks regarding the “one or more transmission time occasions of the signal” 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 this particular argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 9 June 2026 regarding the rejection of Claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states “Lee describes a beam index used for randomization of beamforming patterns, where the index is computed using functions of SSB index, system frame number (SFN), and cell ID. As described in Lee, the beam index is dynamically derived via mathematical formulas and is used to randomize beam patterns across time and cells to reduce interference. In contrast, to Lee, Claim 24 provides for assigning beam indices into two distinct sets, and associating those sets with first and second groups of signals (e.g., SCS vs. LBT behavior). Lee does not describe or suggest dividing beam indices into a first set and a second set and associating beam indices with different transmission groups as provided in Claim 24, nor does Lee describe or suggest using beam indices to control short control signal transmission behavior.” The Office respectfully disagrees and notes that the claims recite (emphasis added by the Office) “provide a first set of indices for beams associated with the first group and a second set of indices for the second group”. The claim language is silent as to how the beam indices are provided and does not require using “beam indices to control short control signal transmission behavior.” The claim language is further silent as to how one index set would be distinct from another apart from the beams being “associated with” the first or second groups (which is also not further described in the claim language so as to require a specific relationship). Therefore, the Office submits that Lee’s disclosure (at page 8, lines 15-25 and depicted in Figure 20), where unique pairs of beam indices are used for candidate SSB positions across separate cells within a particular subframe number, reasonably teaches the two sets of indices absent further limitation in the claim language. Applicant further states “Furthermore, Claim 25 provides that the first set of indices is fixed, or included in system information, or varies based on types of downlink signals. In contrast, Lee's beam index is computed dynamically per transmission instance, and is not fixed, nor configured via system information, nor tied to different signal types.” The Office respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the claim comprises three optional limitations that would further define the first set of indices. In this instance, Lee’s beam index is configured based on system information (particularly subframe numbers and cell IDs). The claim language does not further define how the beam index is configured based on system information so as to require a specific interpretation of this feature. Accordingly, the rejection of Claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 18-23 and 28-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alriksson et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0232624) in view of Niu et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20230146004), hereinafter Niu.
Regarding Claim 18, Alriksson discloses an apparatus (paragraph 0049 – network node such as eNB or gNB), comprising:
at least one processor (paragraph 0049 – the node comprises processing circuitry); and
at least one memory comprising computer program code (paragraph 0049 – memory connected to the control circuitry that executes modules in the node), the at least one memory and computer program code configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus at least to:
examine whether a signal to be transmitted by the apparatus belongs to a first group or to a second group (paragraph 0047 – a network node is subject to short control signaling criteria for its transmissions based on evaluation)
determine an allowance of time or an allowance of resources of a time period for one or more short control signals (paragraph 0014 – SCS criteria may pertain to a maximum total transmission time or a maximum single transmission duration; paragraph 0015 – SCS transmission can be configured on allocated resources, where an intended transmission can be shorter than allocated resources);
determine whether to transmit the signal as one or more short control signals based on the signal belonging to the first group or the second group and based on the allowance of time or the allowance of resources (paragraphs 0042-0043 – some transmissions or types of transmissions can be sent as SCS transmissions or LBT); and
transmit the signal either as one or more short control signals without channel sensing, or as a signal subject to listen before talk procedure (paragraphs 0042-0043 – some transmissions or types of transmissions can be sent as SCS transmissions or LBT as a fallback).
However, Alriksson does not disclose the signal belonging to a first group or to a second group based on one or more transmission time occasions. In an analogous art, Niu discloses this. Specifically, Niu discloses determining to utilize LBT for SIB or an SSB transmitted as short control signaling without LBT (paragraphs 0052-0054). The determination to do so can be based on the number of slots per SSB (M) and the number of search space slots (i.e., transmission time occasions) (as described in paragraphs 0049-0051). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alriksson and Niu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide more transmission opportunities should LBT fail (paragraph 0054 of Niu).
Regarding Claim 19, Alriksson discloses the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to:
detect a start of a transmission cycle of synchronization signal blocks or a remaining minimum system information (paragraph 0047 – determining whether SCS criteria apply in a particular SSB window);
determine which synchronization signal blocks or remaining minimum system information belong to the first group (paragraph 0047 – determining which SSBs should be transferred as SCS based on the criteria);
transmit the synchronization signal blocks or the remaining minimum system information of the first group as short control signal transmissions (paragraph 0047 – transmitting particular SSBs in the window as SCS); and
transmit the synchronization signal blocks or the remaining minimum system information that do not belong to the first group of the transmission cycle using a procedure other than a short control signal transmission procedure (paragraph 0047 – the remainer of the SSBs in the window are not transmitted as SCS; paragraphs 0042-0043 – transmissions that are not subject to SCS criteria can be transmitted as LBT as a fallback).
Regarding Claim 20, Alriksson discloses the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to:
count from the start of a transmission cycle transmitted synchronization signal blocks and/or remaining minimum system information (paragraph 0047 – for a certain number of transmissions (B), a number of the first SSBs (B1) are subject to SCS criteria);
transmit the synchronization signal blocks and/or remaining minimum system information of the first group as short control signal transmissions until an amount of counted transmissions equals a predetermined amount of transmissions (paragraph 0047 - in a given time interval, the first B1 SSBs transmissions may be subject to SCS criteria, and the remainder (B-B1) SSBs may not).
Regarding Claim 21, Alriksson discloses the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: use a pattern to determine which synchronization signal blocks or remaining minimum system information belong to the first group (paragraph 0047 – a certain number of SSB transmissions may be subject to SCS criteria while a remainder of the transmissions are not).
Regarding Claim 22, Alriksson discloses the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: change the pattern periodically (paragraph 0047 – a certain number of SSB transmissions may be subject to SCS criteria while a remainder of the transmissions are not, where the transmissions can be confined to a particular time interval (e.g., an SSB burst or particular durations in milliseconds)).
Regarding Claim 23, Alriksson discloses the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to:
use a plurality of beams for transmissions (paragraph 0012 – SCS transmissions are beam-formed);
associate at least one beam of the plurality of beams with the first group for short control signal transmissions (paragraph 0012-0013 – different SCS criteria can apply at different carrier frequencies or different carrier frequency ranges); and
associate remaining beams of the plurality of beams with the second group for a procedure other than a short control signal transmission procedure (paragraph 0012 – SCS transmissions, as well as other associated types of transmission, are beam formed in order to limit potential interference with other contending transmitters).
Regarding Claim 33, Alriksson discloses an apparatus (paragraph 0048 – radio node such as a wireless device or UE), comprising:
at least one processor (paragraph 0048 – the radio node comprises processing circuitry comprising a controller); and
at least one memory comprising computer program code (paragraph 0048 – memory connected to controller),
the at least one memory and computer program code configured, with the at least one processor (paragraph 0048 – memory connected to the controller to execute modules in the radio node), to cause the apparatus at least to:
obtain information whether a signal to be received from a network element belongs to a first group or to a second group (paragraph 0042 – the UE or radio node applies SCS criteria for a particular type of transmission based on a configuration obtained via RRC signaling)
determine an allowance of time or an allowance of resources of a time period for one or more short control signals (paragraph 0014 – SCS criteria may pertain to a maximum total transmission time or a maximum single transmission duration; paragraph 0015 – SCS transmission can be configured on allocated resources, where an intended transmission can be shorter than allocated resources);
determine whether to receive the signal as one or more short control signals based on the signal belonging to the first group or the second group and based on the allowance of time or the allowance of resources (paragraph 0014 – SCS criteria may pertain to a maximum total transmission time or a maximum single transmission duration; paragraph 0015 – SCS transmission can be configured on allocated resources, where an intended transmission can be shorter than allocated resources); and
receive the signal either as one or more short control signals without channel sensing, or as a signal subject to listen before talk procedure (paragraphs 0042-0043 – some transmissions or types of transmissions can be sent as SCS transmissions or LBT as a fallback).
However, Alriksson does not disclose the signal belonging to a first group or to a second group based on one or more transmission time occasions. In an analogous art, Niu discloses this. Specifically, Niu discloses determining to utilize LBT for SIB or an SSB transmitted as short control signaling without LBT (paragraphs 0052-0054). The determination to do so can be based on the number of slots per SSB (M) and the number of search space slots (i.e., transmission time occasions) (as described in paragraphs 0049-0051). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alriksson and Niu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide more transmission opportunities should LBT fail (paragraph 0054 of Niu).
Claim 28 is directed to a method comprising the same steps as performed by the apparatus of Claim 33. Therefore, Claim 28 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for Claim 33.
Regarding Claims 29 and 34, Alriksson discloses receiving a further indication indicating that at least some of upcoming instances of downlink signals in the second group are transmitted as short control signals (paragraph 0043 – whether or not a UE adheres to SCS criteria for a particular transmission depends on configured periodicity of the transmission; otherwise, the transmission is fallback LBT).
Regarding Claims 30 and 35, Alriksson discloses performing at least one of the following based on information on whether a given transmission instance of downlink signals or channels associated with a beam belongs to the first group or to the second group: synchronization and cell acquisition (paragraph 0045 – transmission types may comprise transmission of reference signaling (e.g., synchronization signaling); channel state information-reference symbols validation (Note: this is claimed in the alternative); channel state information and radio resource management measurements (paragraph 0045 – CSI-RS signaling); sharing of base station channel occupancy time (Note: this is claimed in the alternative), or initiation of a channel occupancy by the user equipment (Claim 30) / apparatus (Claim 35) (Note: this is claimed in the alternative).
Regarding Claims 31 and 36, Alriksson discloses determining, which instances of downlink signals and channels belong to the first or the second group based on one or more patterns (paragraph 0047 – a certain number of SSB transmissions may be subject to SCS criteria while a remainder of the transmissions are not).
Regarding Claims 32 and 37, Alriksson discloses determining that at least one of the one or more patterns changes in time (paragraph 0047 – a certain number of SSB transmissions may be subject to SCS criteria while a remainder of the transmissions are not, where the transmissions can be confined to a particular time interval (e.g., an SSB burst or particular durations in milliseconds)).
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alriksson in view of Niu, as applied to Claim 23 above, and further in view of Lee et al (WIPO Publication 2022031692), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Alriksson and Niu discloses the limitations of Claim 23, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose provid(ing) a first set of indices for beams associated with the first group and a second set of indices for the second group. In an analogous art, Lee discloses this. Specifically, Lee discloses maintaining beam indexes in each cell corresponding to subframe numbers (page 8, lines 15-25 and Figure 20). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alriksson / Niu and Lee. One would have been motivated to do so in order to randomize SSB transmission such that the interference footprint can be randomized (see page 4, lines 12-14 of Lee).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Alriksson, Niu and Lee discloses the first set of indices is fixed or included in a system information (page 8, lines 15-25 and Figure 20 of Lee – the beam index is fixed for a certain cell) or is different for different types of downlink signals (Note: this is claimed in the alternative). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Alriksson, Niu and Lee. One would have been motivated to do so in order to randomize SSB transmission such that the interference footprint can be randomized (see page 4, lines 12-14 of Lee).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alriksson in view of Niu and Lee as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Ryu et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0247477), hereinafter Ryu. The combination of Alriksson, Niu and Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 25, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose determin(ing) grouping of beams based on channel occupancy ratios measured on different beams. In an analogous art, Ryu discloses this. Specifically, Ryu discloses grouping beams together based on a channel occupancy ratio (CR) measured on respective channels (paragraphs 0029, 0031 and 0040). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alriksson/Niu/Lee with Ryu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce congestion or reduce/prevent consumption of an amount of available resources by a UE that would adversely impact other devices (see paragraph 0032) of Ryu.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alriksson in view of Niu, as applied to Claim 18 above, and further in view of Ryu. The combination of Alriksson and Niu discloses the limitations of Claim 18, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose determin(ing) grouping of beams based on downlink signal types. In an analogous art, Ryu discloses this. Specifically, Ryu discloses a UE selecting respective beam groups based on respective sets of properties associated with each of the beam groups (e.g., parameters related to different channels like PSFCH, PSCCH or PSSCH) (paragraph 0160 and Figure 12). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alriksson with Ryu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce congestion or reduce/prevent consumption of an amount of available resources by a UE that would adversely impact other devices (see paragraph 0032) of Ryu.
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 ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights