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 claim(s) 1-30 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection..
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, 13, 16, 28, 10, 15, 25 & 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #104b-e 2103326, et al (FROM IDS) in view of Niu et al. (US 2023/0101279 A1).
Regarding claim 1 & 13, 3GPP discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), method of wireless communication performed by a base station, the methods comprising:
Receiving/transmitting, from a base station (BS) in a first fixed frame period (FFP) (see FFP period for UE to receive from gNB, page 1), downlink communication information (DCI) (see DCI page 3), wherein the DCI indicates a scheduled uplink (UL) (see UE-initated COT, and scheduled UL transmission, page 3) communication in a second FFP subsequent to the first FFP (next gNBs FFP period, page 3);
monitoring for a downlink (DL) signal in the second FFP (see detection, page 6); and
transmitting/receiving, to the BS based on the monitoring and a first parameter (see page 8, “cg-RetransmissionTimer is not configured, a symbol overlapping with idle period of a FFP associated to PUSCH transmission”) indicating whether the scheduled UL communication is associated with a BS channel occupancy time (COT) or a UE COT, the scheduled UL communication (see “When UE detects a DL burst from gNB, it needs to determine whether the DL burst is transmitted according to a gNB COT or a shared UE COT. The following behaviour can be considered. 1) If UE determines that the DL burst belongs to a gNB COT, it can share the gNB COT and perform UL transmission in the remaining gNB COT duration.”; page 3, bottom);
3GPP does not specifically disclose however Niu discloses receiving, from the BS, a second parameter indicating whether the UE is enabled to initiate a UE channel occupancy time (COT) (see [0101] of Niu, wherein UE is “receiving a system information block” further containing DCI and enabled TCI state for determining COT as indicated by DCI message);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of 3GPP in view of Niu. Doing so would conform to well-known conventions in the art.
Regarding claims 16 & 28; 3GPP discloses a user equipment (UE) and base station, comprising:
a transceiver (discloses a UE and gnB with transmission and recepton capabilities thus a transceiver would be present page 4); and
a processor in communication with the transceiver and configured to (discloses a UE and gnB with and processor would be absolutely expected page 4):
cause the transceiver to receive, from a base station (BS) in a first fixed frame period (FFP) (see GNB FFP, page 4), downlink communication information (DCI) (see “DCI” page 4), wherein the DCI indicates a scheduled uplink (UL) communication in a second FFP subsequent to the first FFP (see next gNB’s FFP, page 3); monitor (see detects page 3) for a downlink (DL) (see “detects a DL”, page 3) signal in the second FFP; and
cause the transceiver to transmit, to the BS based on the monitoring and a first parameter (see cg-RetransmissionTimer is not configured, a symbol overlapping with idle period of a FFP associated to PUSCH transmission, page 8) indicating whether the scheduled UL communication is associated with a BS channel occupancy time (COT) or a UE COT, the scheduled UL communication (see “When UE detects a DL burst from gNB, it needs to determine whether the DL burst is transmitted according to a gNB COT or a shared UE COT. The following behaviour can be considered. 1) If UE determines that the DL burst belongs to a gNB COT, it can share the gNB COT and perform UL transmission in the remaining gNB COT duration.”; page 3, bottom);
3GPP does not specifically disclose however Niu discloses receiving, from the BS, a second parameter indicating whether the UE is enabled to initiate a UE channel occupancy time (COT) (see [0101] of Niu, wherein UE is “receiving a system information block” further containing DCI and enabled TCI state for determining COT as indicated by DCI message);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of 3GPP in view of Niu. Doing so would conform to well-known conventions in the art.
Regarding claims 10, 15, 25 & 30, 3GPP discloses wherein the first parameter comprises a rule for determining whether to transmit the scheduled UL communication in the BS COT or the UE COT (see rules, bottom of page 4).
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) 2, 9, 14, 16 & 29, 3 & 18, 4 & 19, 6-7, 21-22 & 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP in view of Niu et al. in further view of Salah (US 2022/0225386 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 14, 16 & 29, 3GPP does not specifically disclose however Salah discloses wherein: the DCI includes the first parameter, and the first parameter indicates at least one of: the UE to share the BS COT in the second FFP; or the UE to initiate the UE COT in the second FFP (see [0022], “signal FFP parameters of the UE COT that it is sharing its COT to other UEs to determine when network node 125 is supposed to end the sharing. Under the proposed scheme, UE 110 may determine implicitly that network node 125 is sharing another UE COT in an event that network node 125 is transmitting in its own FFP idle periods.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of 3GPP and Niu with that of Salah. Doing so would conform to well-known conventions within the field of invention.
Regarding claims 3 & 18, 3GPP does not however Salah discloses wherein: the first parameter indicates the UE to share the BS COT, and the transmitting the scheduled UL communication comprises: transmitting, in response to detecting the DL signal in the second FFP, the scheduled UL communication in the BS COT (see page 9, “Proposal 10: Clarify that for scheduled UL, the FFP/channel where a UL (each UL repetition in case of repetition) is scheduled can be same or different from the FFP/channel where an associated UL grant is transmitted.”).
Regarding claims 4 & 19, 3GPP does not however Salah discloses wherein: the first parameter indicates the UE to share the BS COT, and the transmitting the scheduled UL communication comprises: transmitting, in response to failing to detect the DL signal in the second FFP, the scheduled UL communication in the UE COT (see pages 8-9, “Proposal 6: For a scheduled UL transmission, the COT initiator determination is based on the content in the scheduling DCI. If the content is absent, the determination is based on the rules applied for configured UL transmissions.”).
Regarding claims 6 & 21, 3GPP does not however Salah discloses wherein: the first parameter indicates the UE to initiate the UE COT, and the transmitting the scheduled UL communication comprises: transmitting the scheduled UL communication in the UE COT (see scheduled UL transmission, page 8, bottom).
Regarding claims 7 & 22, 3GPP does not however Salah discloses wherein: the first parameter indicates the UE to initiate the UE COT, and the transmitting the scheduled UL communication comprises: transmitting, in response to detecting the DL signal, the scheduled UL communication in the BS COT (see page 9, “A responding device can still transmit in the shared COT even if its transmission collides with the idle period of FFP configured for the responding device.”).
Regarding claims 9 & 24, 3GPP does not however Salah discloses wherein, wherein: the first parameter indicates the UE to initiate the UE COT, and the transmitting the scheduled UL communication comprises: transmitting, in response to failing to detect the DL signal, the scheduled UL communication in the UE COT (scheduled UL, page 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8, 11-12, 20, 23, 26-27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bagheri et al. (US 2023/0319885 A1)
Awadin et al. (US 2022/0377790 A1)
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 K. WILFORD SHAHEED whose telephone number is (469) 295-9175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 am-6pm; CST; ALT Friday. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The examiner’s Supervisor, Jinsong Hu, can be reached at (571)272-3965, where attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful.
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.
/KHALID W SHAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights