CTNF 18/559,742 CTNF 84888 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/17/2026 has been entered. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 23, 24 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. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 21 objected to because of the following informalities: improper dependency . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Independent Claims 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 26, 29, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (WO-2020092941-A1) in view of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #105-e, Futurewei, “UE initiated COT for semi-static channel access,” May 19, 2021, R1-2104200 . As to claim 1, 26, 29, 30: Kwak teaches an apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one memory; and one or more processors coupled to the at least one memory and configured to and cause the apparatus to: receive from a network entity, a downlink control information (DCI) that schedules a plurality of uplink transmissions from the UE (abstract, [0032, 41], claim 1: DCI) ; determine whether one or more of the plurality of uplink transmissions are based on a channel occupancy time (COT) initiated by the UE, a COT initiated by the network entity, or a combination of COTs initiated by the UE and network entity (abstract, [0032, 41], claim 1: communicate data via the gNB based on the COT information) ; and transmit the plurality of uplink transmissions in accordance with the determination (abstract, [0032, 41], claim 1) . Kwak may not explicitly teach wherein the DCI includes an indication of whether a first uplink transmission, of the plurality of uplink transmissions, is based on the COT initiated by the UE or the COT initiated by the network entity (section 4.1, section 4.2) ; wherein the determining comprises determining whether remaining uplink transmissions, other than the first uplink transmission. are based on a same type of COT as indicated for the first uplink transmission, and wherein the DCI includes the indication for only the first uplink transmission of the plurality of uplink transmissions. However, 3GPP teaches wherein the DCI includes an indication of whether a first uplink transmission, of the plurality of uplink transmissions, is based on the COT initiated by the UE or the COT initiated by the network entity (section 4.1, section 4.2) ; wherein the determining comprises determining whether remaining uplink transmissions, other than the first uplink transmission. are based on a same type of COT as indicated for the first uplink transmission (section 4.1 In Alt-a, the UE prior to its configured transmission must determine if gNB initiated a COT at the start of gNB FFP. If UE determined that gNB initiated a COT, it will transmit all its configured UL transmissions in the gNB shared COT (gNB FFP configuration), otherwise will try to initiate its own COT using UE FFP configuration; In Alt-a, this scenario has a unified approach as all UL transmissions will be sent in the gNB FFP if the gNB started an FFP. UE has to determine if gNB initiated a COT (gNB FFP)) , and wherein the DCI includes the indication for only the first uplink transmission of the plurality of uplink transmissions (section 4.2 Observation 6: With an explicit DCI indication of the COT type (gNB/UE) the gNB can control exactly each UE behavior for each UL UE transmission in each gNB FFP) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement plurality of ULs inheriting COT-type, taught by 3GPP, into the communication system, taught by Kwak, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and improve efficiency by reducing DCI overhead. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kwak and 3GPP in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references. Moreover, it is generally considered to be within the ordinary skill in the art to adjust, vary, select or optimize the numerical parameters or values of any system absent a showing of criticality in a particular recited value. The burden of showing criticality is on Applicant. In re Mason , 87 F.2d 370, 32 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1937); Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. v. U.S. , 320 U.S. 1, 57 USPQ 471 (1943); In re Schneider , 148 F.2d 108, 65 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1945); In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955); In re Saether , 492 F.2d 849, 181 USPQ 36 (CCPA 1974); In re Antonie , 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Since 3GPP discloses DCI controlling UE behavior, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to indication for a first transmission UL, including only a single transmission UL, absent a showing of criticality by Applicant. Dependent Claims 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (WO-2020092941-A1), 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #105-e, Futurewei, “UE initiated COT for semi-static channel access,” May 19, 2021, R1-2104200 in view of Yang (US-20220264603) . As to claim 2, 27: Kwak teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Kwak may not explicitly teach However, Yang teaches wherein the plurality of uplink transmissions include at least one of: transport blocks (TBs), physical uplink initiated channel (PUSCH) repetitions ([0130, 134-136]) , sounding reference signals (SRSs) ([0329-331]) , or physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) repetitions. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement repetitions and SRS, taught by Yang, into the communication system, taught by Kwak, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and mitigate for interference and measure channel conditions. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Yang and Kwak in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5, 31, 32, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (WO-2020092941-A1), 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #105-e, Futurewei, “UE initiated COT for semi-static channel access,” May 19, 2021, R1-2104200 in view of Yang (US-20220264603), Li (US-20210185722) . As to claim 5, 31, 32, 33: Kwak teaches the apparatus of claim 4. Kwak may not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to transmit the remaining uplink transmissions based on the same type of COT as indicated for the first uplink transmission. However, Li teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to transmit the remaining uplink transmissions based on the same type of COT as indicated for the first uplink transmission ([0014- 20] continue ongoing LBT operation for subsequent PUSCHs) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement treatment of subsequent PUSCH, taught by Li, into the communication system, taught by Kwak, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable deterministic slot timing. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kwak and Li in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (WO-2020092941-A1), 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #105-e, Futurewei, “UE initiated COT for semi-static channel access,” May 19, 2021, R1-2104200 in view of Yang (US-20220264603), Li (US-20210084683) . As to claim 6: Kwak teaches the apparatus of claim 4. Kwak may not explicitly teach wherein the determine comprises determine the uplink transmissions are based on the COT initiated by the UE when: the first one of the plurality of uplink transmissions is aligned with a boundary of a fixed frame period (FPP) of the UE, and the DCI indicates a requirement for the COT initiated by the UE. However, Li teaches wherein the determine comprises determine the uplink transmissions are based on the COT initiated by the UE when: the first one of the plurality of uplink transmissions is aligned with a boundary of a fixed frame period (FPP) of the UE ([0079, 128, 181] the initiating device may perform listen-before-talk (LBT) during an observation slot before starting transmissions on an operating channel at the start of a FFP) , and the DCI indicates a requirement for the COT initiated by the UE ([102, 108-110] DCI configures LBT CAT) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement align with FFP, taught by Li, into the communications system, taught by Kwak, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable predictable UE frame timing. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kwak and Li in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (WO-2020092941-A1), 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #105-e, Futurewei, “UE initiated COT for semi-static channel access,” May 19, 2021, R1-2104200 in view of Yang (US-20220264603), Li (US-20210185722) . As to claim 7: Kwak teaches the apparatus of claim 4. Kwak may not explicitly teach wherein the determine comprises determine the uplink transmissions are based on the COT initiated by the network entity when the DCI indicates a requirement for the UE to use the COT initiated by the network entity for the first one of the plurality of uplink transmissions. However, Li teaches wherein the determine comprises determine the uplink transmissions are based on the COT initiated by the network entity when the DCI ([0013, 19, 20] DCI indicates LBT type and CP extension) indicates a requirement for the UE to use the COT initiated by the network entity for the first one of the plurality of uplink transmissions ([0026-28, 98, 99, 112] PUSCH is within gNB-initated COT) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement gNB-initiated COT, taught by Li, into the communication system, taught by Kwak, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable deterministic timing for the frames. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kwak and Li in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (WO-2020092941-A1), 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #105-e, Futurewei, “UE initiated COT for semi-static channel access,” May 19, 2021, R1-2104200 in view of Li (US-20210084683) . As to claim 8: Kwak teaches the apparatus of claim 3. Kwak may not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to determine whether the first uplink transmission, of the plurality of uplink transmissions, is based on a COT initiated by the UE or a COT initiated by the network entity according to a predefined rule when the first uplink transmission of the plurality of uplink transmissions starts after a UE fixed frame period (FFP) boundary and ends before a next idle period of the UE FFP. However, Li teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to determine whether the first uplink transmission, of the plurality of uplink transmissions, is based on a COT initiated by the UE or a COT initiated by the network entity according to a predefined rule ([0088, 128, 180] The CAT-4 LBT can be used by the UE to obtain a UE-initiated COT; CAT-2 LBT of T μs duration, where 16<=T<=25.) when the first uplink transmission of the plurality of uplink transmissions starts after a UE fixed frame period (FFP) boundary and ends before a next idle period of the UE FFP ([0079] The channel occupancy time (COT) associated with a successful LBT check for FBE operation may be no greater than 95% of the FFP, and may be followed by an idle period until the start of next FFP such that the idle period is at least the max(5% of channel occupancy time, 100 microseconds).) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement arranging PUSCH transmissions, taught by Li, into the communication system, taught by Kwak, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable predictable and determinist timing. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kwak and Li in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references. As to claim 9: Kwak teaches the apparatus of claim 8. Kwak may not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to use the COT initiated by the network entity in the first uplink transmission of the plurality of uplink transmissions when: the first uplink transmission of the plurality of uplink transmissions is within a fixed frame period (FFP) of the network entity before an idle period, the UE determines that the network entity has initiated the COT, and the UE has not initiated the FFP of the UE. However, Futurewei teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to use the COT initiated by the network entity in the first uplink transmission of the plurality of uplink transmissions when: the first uplink transmission of the plurality of uplink transmissions is within a fixed frame period (FFP) of the network entity before an idle period (section 3 If the transmission is confined within a gNB FFP before the idle period of that gNB FFP, and the UE has already determined that gNB is initiated that gNB FFP, UE assumes that the configured UL transmission corresponds to gNB-initiated COT) , the UE determines that the network entity has initiated the COT (section 4.1 he UE prior to its configured transmission must determine if gNB initiated a COT at the start of gNB FFP) , and the UE has not initiated the FFP of the UE (section 4.1 If UE determined that gNB initiated a COT, it will transmit all its configured UL transmissions in the gNB shared COT (gNB FFP configuration), otherwise will try to initiate its own COT using UE FFP configuration) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement collision avoidance, taught by Futurewei, into the communication system, taught by Kwak, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and prevent unnecessary channel access by the UE . In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kwak and Futurewei in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (WO-2020092941-A1), 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #105-e, Futurewei, “UE initiated COT for semi-static channel access,” May 19, 2021, R1-2104200, Li (US-20210084683) in view of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1#104b-e, vivo, “Enhancements for unlicensed band URLLC/IIoT,” April, 2021, R1-2102523 . As to claim 10: Kwak teaches the apparatus of claim 8. Kwak may not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: use the COT to be initiated by the UE when the following conditions are met: the UE has initiated the FFP of the UE, and at least one of the plurality of uplink transmissions is before a next idle period of the UE FFP; and remove other conflicting portions of the plurality of uplink transmissions colliding with the next idle period. However, Vivo teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: use the COT to be initiated by the UE when the following conditions are met: the UE has initiated the FFP of the UE; and at least one of the plurality of uplink transmissions is before a next idle period of the UE FFP (section 2.2 When a configured UL transmission is aligned with a UE FFP boundary and ends before the idle period of that UE FFP, it is straightforward for the UE to assume that the configured UL transmission corresponds to UE-initiated COT; Proposal 2: UE assumes that the configured UL transmissions corresponds to UE-initiated COT if it is aligned with the UE FFP boundary); and remove other conflicting portions of the plurality of uplink transmissions colliding with the next idle period (section 2.2 PUSCH segmentation takes into account idle period and any overlaps are dropped) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement remove conflicting portions, taught by vivo, into the communication system, taught by Kwak, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and protect the idle period of the UE FPP. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kwak and vivo in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (WO-2020092941-A1), 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #105-e, Futurewei, “UE initiated COT for semi-static channel access,” May 19, 2021, R1-210420 in view of Li (US-20210185722), Myung (US-20210051671) . As to claim 11: Kwak teaches the apparatus method of claim 3. Kwak may not explicitly teach further comprising wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to determine determining the uplink transmissions are based on a COT initiated by the UE. However, Myung teaches further comprising wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to determine determining the uplink transmissions are based on a COT initiated by the UE ([0149] UCI has information required to share a UE initiated COT) disregarding scheduling by the DCI ([0014, 105, 148, 149] UL transmission without a dynamic grant via PDCCH) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement UL transmission without DCI, taught by Myung, into the DCI, taught by Kwak, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce signaling overhead. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kwak and Myung in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 12, 14, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (WO-2020092941-A1), 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #105-e, Futurewei, “UE initiated COT for semi-static channel access,” May 19, 2021, R1-2104200 in view of Li (US-20210185722) . As to claim 12: Kwak teaches the apparatus of claim 3. Kwak may not explicitly teach wherein the DCI includes the indication for each one of the plurality of uplink transmissions in the UE, wherein the determine comprises determine according to one or more predefined rules associated with the DCI. However, Li teaches wherein the DCI includes the indication for each one of the plurality of uplink transmissions in the UE ([0012] UL grant indicates LBT type, DCI can schedule multiple consecutive PUSCHs) , wherein the determine comprises determine according to one or more predefined rules associated with the DCI ([0020]) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement DCI indicates UL grant, taught by Li, into the DCI, taught by Kwak, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable configuration of the UL grant according to determined rules. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kwak and Li in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references. As to claim 14: Kwak teaches the apparatus of claim 12. Kwak may not explicitly teach wherein determine according to the one or more predefined rules associated with the DCI comprises determine each of the plurality of uplink transmissions to be associated with a COT separately indicated by the DCI scheduling. However, Futurewei teaches wherein determine according to the one or more predefined rules associated with the DCI comprises determine each of the plurality of uplink transmissions to be associated with a COT separately indicated by the DCI scheduling (section 5 With an explicit DCI indication of the COT type (gNB/UE) the gNB can control exactly each UE behavior for each UL UE transmission in each gNB FFP, Support determination based on the content in the scheduling DCI whether a scheduled UL transmission is based on UE-initiated COT or sharing a gNB-initiated COT (Alt-a). The corresponding field(s) cannot be absent in DCI) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement predefined rules, taught by Futurewei, into the communication system, taught by Kwak, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and assign COT type to each UL transmission. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Futurewei and Kwak in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references. As to claim 21: Kwak teaches the apparatus of claim 3. Kwak may not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to receive, from the network entity, signaling indicating whether remaining uplink transmissions are based on the same type of COT as indicated for the first uplink transmission. However, Li teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to receive, from the network entity, signaling ([0016] indicate how to treat remaining transmission) indicating whether remaining uplink transmissions are based on the same type of COT as indicated for the first uplink transmission ([0026, 98] the beginning PUSCHs of the multiple consecutive PUSCHs are within a gNB-initiated COT, but remaining PUSCHs not, UE does CAT-4 LBT to start the multiple consecutive PUSCHs) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement reuse same type of COT, taught by Li, into the communication system, taught by Kwak, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable efficient channel resource usage. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Li and Kwak in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (WO-2020092941-A1), 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #105-e, Futurewei, “UE initiated COT for semi-static channel access,” May 19, 2021, R1-2104200, Li (US-20210185722) in view of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1#104b-e, vivo, “Enhancements for unlicensed band URLLC/IIoT,” April, 2021, R1-2102523 . As to claim 13: Kwak teaches the apparatus of claim 12. Kwak may not explicitly teach wherein determine according to the one or more predefined rules associated with the DCI comprises determine the uplink transmissions are based on a COT initiated by the UE for each uplink transmission aligned with a boundary of a fixed frame period (FFP) of the UE when the DCI indicates a requirement for the UE to initiate the UE COT. However, vivo teaches wherein determine according to the one or more predefined rules associated with the DCI comprises determine the uplink transmissions are based on a COT initiated by the UE f or each uplink transmission aligned with a boundary of a fixed frame period (FFP) of the UE (section 2.1 if the scheduled UL transmission resources are aligned with the boundary of the FFP associated to UE, UE initiates a COT and transmits the scheduled UL transmission; Proposal 1: Predetermined rules should be used for UE to determine whether a scheduled UL transmission should be transmitted according to shared gNB COT or UE-initiated COT) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement DCI to determine UL based COT, taught by vivo, into the communication system, taught by Kwak, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and determine UL transmission whether gNB COT or UE COT. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine vivo and Kwak in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references. Kwak may not explicitly teach when the DCI indicates a requirement for the UE to initiate the UE COT. However, Futurewei teaches when the DCI indicates a requirement for the UE to initiate the UE COT (section 4.1 : With an explicit DCI indication of the COT type (gNB/UE) the gNB can control exactly each UE behavior for each UL UE transmission in each gNB FFP; section 5 Support determination based on the content in the scheduling DCI whether a scheduled UL transmission is based on UE-initiated COT or sharing a gNB-initiated COT (Alt-a). The corresponding field(s) cannot be absent in DCI) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement DCI indicating UE COT, taught by Futurewei, into the communication system, taught by Kwak, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable UE COT. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Futurevei and Kwak in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (WO-2020092941-A1), 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #105-e, Futurewei, “UE initiated COT for semi-static channel access,” May 19, 2021, R1-2104200, Li (US-20210185722) in view of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1#104b-e, vivo, “Enhancements for unlicensed band URLLC/IIoT,” April, 2021, R1-2102523 . As to claim 15: Kwak teaches the apparatus of claim 12. Kwak may not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to determine whether one uplink transmission, of the plurality of uplink transmissions, that starts after a UE FFP boundary and before a next idle period of the UE FFP is based on a COT initiated by the UE or a COT initiated by the network entity according to a predefined rule. However, vivo teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to determine whether one uplink transmission, of the plurality of uplink transmissions, that starts after a UE FFP boundary (section 2.1 gNB can control the UE to share the gNB-initiated COT by simply scheduling the UL transmission resources that are not aligned with the starting boundary of the FFP associated to the UE. One symbol offset is enough) and before a next idle period of the UE FFP (section 2.2 If the transmission is confined within a gNB FFP before the idle period of that gNB FFP, and the UE has already determined that gNB is initiated that gNB FFP, UE assumes that the configured UL transmission corresponds to gNB-initiated COT) is based on a COT initiated by the UE or a COT initiated by the network entity according to a predefined rule (section 4 Predetermined rules should be used for UE to determine whether a scheduled UL transmission should be transmitted according to shared gNB COT or UE-initiated COT; section 2.1 some predetermined rules need to be defined for cross COT scheduling) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement rules for FFP boundary, taught by vivo, into the communication system, taught by Kwak, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and determine whether to use UE or BS COT. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine vivo and Kwak in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references. As to claim 16: Kwak teaches the apparatus of claim 15. Kwak may not explicitly teach wherein the determine comprises determine the plurality of uplink transmissions are based on a UE initiated COT when the UE has initiated the UE FFP. However, Futurewei teaches wherein the determine comprises determine the plurality of uplink transmissions are based on a UE initiated COT when the UE has initiated the UE FFP (section 4.1 otherwise will try to initiate its own COT using UE FFP configuration) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement UE initiated COT using UE FFP, taught by Futurewei, into the communication system, taught by Kwak, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce signaling overhead. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kwak and Futurewei in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references. As to claim 17: Kwak teaches the apparatus of claim 15. Kwak may not explicitly teach wherein the determine comprises determine one of the plurality of uplink transmissions are based on a COT initiated by the network entity when the one of the plurality of uplink transmissions is within a network FFP before a next idle period of the network FFP and when the UE has determined that the network entity has initiated the network FFP. However, Futurewei teaches wherein the determine comprises determine one of the plurality of uplink transmissions are based on a COT initiated by the network entity (section 2.2 If the transmission is confined within a gNB FFP before the idle period of that gNB FFP, and the UE has already determined that gNB is initiated that gNB FFP, UE assumes that the configured UL transmission corresponds to gNB-initiated COT) when the one of the plurality of uplink transmissions is within a network FFP before a next idle period of the network FFP (section 2.2) and when the UE has determined that the network entity has initiated the network FFP (section 2.2 If UE determined that gNB initiated a COT, it will transmit all its configured UL transmissions in the gNB shared COT (gNB FFP configuration)) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement determine network COT, taught by Futurewei, into the communication system, taught by Kwak, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce signaling overhead. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kwak and Futurewei in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references. As to claim 19: Kwak teaches the apparatus of claim 12. Kwak may not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to remove one or more of the plurality of uplink transmissions at least partially overlapping with an idle period of a UE FFP. However, vivo teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to remove one or more of the plurality of uplink transmissions at least partially overlapping with an idle period of a UE FFP (section 2.2 As shown in Figure 3, the nominal repetition 3 is split into two parts, the one overlaps with idle period is dropped, the one within FFP 2 will be transmitted by using UE-initiated COT.) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement dropping UL, taught by vivo, into the communication system, taught by Kwak, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and avoid channel conflicts. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine vivo and Kwak in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references. As to claim 20: Kwak teaches the apparatus of claim 12. Kwak may not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to initiate a COT for the plurality of uplink transmissions disregarding the COT indicated by the DCI. However, vivo teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to initiate a COT for the plurality of uplink transmissions disregarding the COT indicated by the DCI (section 2.1 some predetermined rules need to be defined for cross COT scheduling, e.g. UE ignores the indication field for cross COT scheduling and falls back to Alt-b or UE drops the UL transmission) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement initiate COT without regard to DCI, taught by vivo, into the communication system, taught by Kwak, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and allow UE to use its own COT. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kwak and vivo in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (WO-2020092941-A1), 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #105-e, Futurewei, “UE initiated COT for semi-static channel access,” May 19, 2021, R1-2104200, Li (US-20210185722) in view of Salah (US-20220225386), 3GPP TSG RAN WG1#104b-e, vivo, “Enhancements for unlicensed band URLLC/IIoT,” April, 2021, R1-2102523 . As to claim 18: Kwak teaches The apparatus of claim 12. Kwak may not explicitly teach wherein the determine comprises determine the plurality of uplink transmissions are based on a … scheduled COT when the plurality of uplink transmissions are not aligned with a UE FFP boundary. However, vivo teaches wherein the determine comprises determine the plurality of uplink transmissions are based on a … scheduled COT when the plurality of uplink transmissions are not aligned with a UE FFP boundary (section 2.1 if the scheduled UL transmission resources are aligned with the boundary of the FFP associated to UE, UE initiates a COT and transmits the scheduled UL transmission. Otherwise, UE shares the gNB-initiated COT; gNB can control the UE to share the gNB-initiated COT by simply scheduling the UL transmission resources that are not aligned with the starting boundary of the FFP associated to the UE. One symbol offset is enough.) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement determine UL transmission not aligned with UE FFP boundary, taught by vivo, into the communication system, taught by Kwak, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and schedule the UE. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine … and … in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references. Kwak may not explicitly teach most recently. However, Salah teaches most recently (The time of arrival of the DCI may determine the priorityLevel. The most recent DCI may denote a higher priority DCI ; HARQ-ACK for PDSCH 0 802 and PDSCH 1 803 may be transmitted on PUCCH 01 807 as the corresponding K1 values denote slot #4 for UCI feedback and PRI=1 may be used as the PM is from the most recent scheduling DCI). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement using most recent info, taught by Salah, into the determination, taught by vivo, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and resolve any conflicts with most recent information. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kwak and Salah in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (WO-2020092941-A1), 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #105-e, Futurewei, “UE initiated COT for semi-static channel access,” May 19, 2021, R1-2104200 in view of Li (US-20210084683) . As to claim 22: Kwak teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Kwak may not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to perform a listen-before-talk (LBT) when one of the plurality of uplink transmissions is aligned with a fixed frame period (FFP) boundary and a previous uplink transmission transmitted before the one of the plurality of uplink transmissions with a gap. However, Li teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to perform a listen-before-talk (LBT) when one of the plurality of uplink transmissions is aligned with a fixed frame period (FFP) boundary ([0079, 128, 181] the initiating device may perform listen-before-talk (LBT) during an observation slot before starting transmissions on an operating channel at the start of a FFP) and a previous uplink transmission transmitted before the one of the plurality of uplink transmissions with a gap ([0088, 109, 193, 194, 225] the gap from the start of the UL transmission to the end of previous transmission is at least 16 μs) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement FFP alignment, taught by Li, into the communication system, taught by Kwak, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable frame alignment for predictable and deterministic communication. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kwak and Li in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (WO-2020092941-A1), 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #105-e, Futurewei, “UE initiated COT for semi-static channel access,” May 19, 2021, R1-2104200 in view of Talarico (US-20200396767) . As to claim 25: Kwak teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Kwak may not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to transmit the plurality of uplink transmissions based on the COT initiated by the network entity only. However, Talarico teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to transmit the plurality of uplink transmissions based on the COT initiated by the network entity only ([0042]) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement gNB initiated COT, taught by Talarico, into the communication system, taught by Talarico, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable predictable and determinist timing and communication. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Talarico and Kwak in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (WO-2020092941-A1), 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #105-e, Futurewei, “UE initiated COT for semi-static channel access,” May 19, 2021, R1-2104200 in view of Li (US-20210185722) . As to claim 28: Kwak teaches the apparatus method of claim 26. Kwak may not explicitly teach wherein: the DCI includes an indication of whether an first uplink transmission, of the plurality of uplink transmissions, is based on a COT initiated by the UE or a COT initiated by the network entity; and the determine determining comprises determine determining whether remaining uplink transmissions are based on a same type of COT as indicated for the first uplink transmission; or the DCI includes the indication for each one of the plurality of uplink transmissions in the UE, and the determine determining comprises determine determining according to one or more predefined rules associated with the DCI. However, Li teaches wherein: the DCI includes an indication of whether an first uplink transmission, of the plurality of uplink transmissions, is based on a COT initiated by the UE or a COT initiated by the network entity ([0012, 13] DCI indicates LBT CAT type, [0026] gNB initiated COT) ; and the determine determining comprises determine determining whether remaining uplink transmissions are based on a same type of COT as indicated for the first uplink transmission ([0014- 20] continue ongoing LBT operation for subsequent PUSCHs) ; or the DCI includes the indication for each one of the plurality of uplink transmissions in the UE ([0012] UL grant indicates LBT type, DCI can schedule multiple consecutive PUSCHs) , and the determine determining comprises determine determining according to one or more predefined rules associated with the DCI ([0020]) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement gNB initiated COT and treatment of subsequent PUSCH, taught by Li, into the communication system, taught by Kwak, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable deterministic slot timing. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kwak and Li in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p. 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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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 C OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 2 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 3 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 4 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 5 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 6 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 7 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 8 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 9 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 10 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 11 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 12 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 13 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 14 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 15 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 16 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 17 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 18 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 19 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 20 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 21 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 22 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 23 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 24 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 25 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 26 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 27 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/559,742 Page 28 Art Unit: 2466
Prosecution Insights