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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/05/2024 ware filed after the filing date of the instant application on 11/13/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 25-27, 29-38 and 40-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stefanatos et al (US 2024/0008085 A1), hereinafter, “Stefanatos”.
Regarding claim 25, Stefanatos discloses: A first device (fig 3, UE 315a equivalent to “first device”, para [0088]), comprising: at least one processor (para [0010], where, “a first user equipment (UE) comprises a memory and at least one processor operatively coupled to the memory”); and
at least one memory including computer program code (para [0010], where, “a first user equipment (UE) comprises a memory and at least one processor operatively coupled to the memory”);
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device (para [0010], where, “a first user equipment (UE) comprises a memory and at least one processor operatively coupled to the memory and configure”) to: determine a channel occupancy time to be shared by the first device and at least one second device for transmissions on a shared radio frequency band (para [0045], where, “a user equipment device initiating or acquiring a channel occupancy time (COT) in a shared radio frequency band”, where, “the initiating UE may perform a clear channel assessment (CCA) or a category 4 (CAT4) listen-before-talk (LBT) in the shared radio frequency band to contend or acquire the COT”);
select a first time slot during the channel occupancy time for a transmission (fig 15, para [0169], where, “the concept of channel occupancy time (COT) sharing has been introduced such that a COT on a particular subband (e.g., RB set) acquired by a transmitter device (e.g., UE) via a passing LBT procedure on that subband may be shared with another device”); and
perform the transmission in the first time slot by extending the transmission to a first guard period of the first time slot or to a second guard period of a second time slot prior to the first time slot during the channel occupancy time (fig 15, para [0167], where, “a UE, may transmit in the intra-cell guard band 1504 if both RB sets on either side of the intra-cell guard band are allocated to the UE. Likewise, in some cases, a UE may also receive transmissions within the intra-cell guard band 1504 if the UE is a high-capability UE”).
Regarding claim 36, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 25 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 25 in order to define the corresponding packet transmission using channel occupation time, and the rejection to claim 25 is applied hereto.
Regarding claims 26 and 37, Stefanatos discloses: wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to (fig 5, processor 502 and Memory 504, para [0105]), with the at least one processor (fig 5, Processor 502, para [0105]), cause the first device to perform the transmission (para [0010], where, “a first user equipment (UE) comprises a memory and at least one processor operatively coupled to the memory”); by one of the following: extending an end point of the transmission towards a first point within the first guard period such that a first time gap between the first point and a start point of a following transmission is within a time gap limit for a type of channel access procedure (fig 15, para [0167], where, “a UE, may transmit in the intra-cell guard band 1504 if both RB sets on either side of the intra-cell guard band (equivalent to “first guard period”) are allocated to the UE), and extending a start point of the transmission towards a second point within the second guard period such that a second time gap between the second point and an end point of a preceding transmission is within the time gap limit (fig 15, para [0167], where, a UE, may transmit in the intra-cell guard band 1504 between RB set 1 and RB set 2 (equivalent to “second guard period”) on either side of the intra-cell guard band are allocated to the UE).
Regarding claims 27 and 38, Stefanatos discloses: wherein the following transmission is determined to be performed by a second device of the at least one second device in a time slot following the first time slot during the channel occupancy time (fig 15, para [0167], where, a UE, may transmit in the intra-cell guard band 1504 between RB set 1 and RB set 2 (equivalent to “second guard period”) on either side of the intra-cell guard band are allocated to the UE), and the first time gap (fig 15, para [0167], where, “a UE, may transmit in the intra-cell guard band 1504 if both RB sets on either side of the intra-cell guard band (equivalent to “first guard period”)) enables the second device to perform the type of channel access procedure (fig 15, para [0167], where, a UE, may transmit in the intra-cell guard band 1504 between RB set 1 and RB set 2 (equivalent to “second guard period”)).
Regarding claims 29 and 40, Stefanatos discloses: wherein the first device is a device initiating a channel access procedure to obtain the channel occupancy time (para [0010], where, “a first user equipment (UE) comprises a memory and at least one processor operatively coupled to the memory”, fig 5); and wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to ( fig 5, processor 502 and Memory 504), with the at least one processor, cause the first device to perform the transmission by extending the transmission to the first guard period of the first time slot (fig 15, para [0167], where, “a UE, may transmit in the intra-cell guard band 1504 if both RB sets on either side of the intra-cell guard band (equivalent to “first guard period”)).
Regarding claims 30, 34 and 41, Stefanatos discloses: wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor (para [0010], where, “a first user equipment (UE) comprises a memory and at least one processor operatively coupled to the memory”, fig 5); further cause the first device (fig 3, UE 315a) to: determine that an extension of a transmission to a guard period of a time slot during the channel occupancy time is allowed (fig 15, para [0166]) based on at least one of the following: a resource configuration for the channel occupancy time indicating that the extension is allowed (fig 4A and B, para [0090], where, “a PSSCH transmission, or a PSCCH/PSSCH transmission” equivalent to “extension is allowed”); a determination that the first device and a second device of the at least one second device are under a same synchronization source (fig 9, para [0138], “The processor 1020 may process (e.g., encode and symbol map) the data and control information to obtain data symbols and control symbols, respectively. The transmit processor 1020 may also generate reference symbols, such as for the primary synchronization signal (PSS), secondary synchronization signal (SSS)”); a congestion level in the shared radio frequency band being above a congestion threshold, where, ; or a priority of the transmission to be performed by the second device of the at least one second device being higher than a priority threshold (para [0079], where, “the LBT results in a failure when signal energy measured from the channel exceeds the threshold”, [0080], where, “The first-stage SCI may include at least one of a priority, PSSCH resource assignment, resource reservation period (if enabled), PSSCH DMRS pattern (if more than one pattern is configured), a second-stage SCI format (e.g., size of second-stage SCI)”).
Regarding claims 31 and 42, Stefanatos discloses: wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to with the at least one processor, further cause the first device to (fig 5, para [0010], where, “a first user equipment (UE) comprises a memory and at least one processor operatively coupled to the memory”): transmit, to a second device of the at least one second device, at least one of the following: a first indication to indicate that an extension of a transmission to a guard period of a time slot during the channel occupancy time (fig 15, para [0167], where, a UE, may transmit in the intra-cell guard band 1504 between RB set 1 and RB set 2 (equivalent to “second guard period”) on either side of the intra-cell guard band are allocated to the UE), and the first time gap (fig 15, para [0167], where, “a UE, may transmit in the intra-cell guard band 1504 if both RB sets on either side of the intra-cell guard band (equivalent to “first guard period”) is enabled by the first device or by the second device ; or a second indication to indicate that the extension of the transmission to the guard period of the time slot during the channel occupancy time is enabled in at least one time slot of the channel occupancy time (fig 15, para [0167], where, a UE, may transmit in the intra-cell guard band 1504 between RB set 1 and RB set 2 (equivalent to “second guard period”)).
Regarding claims 32 and 43, Stefanatos discloses: wherein the channel occupancy time is obtained by a second device of the at least one second device (fig 3, UE 315b equivalent to “second device”, para [0086]), and the first device is a device with which the second device shares the channel occupancy time, and wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to perform the transmission (fig 5, Processor 502 and Memory 504, par a[0105]) by: extending the transmission to the first guard period of the first time slot, to enable a further second device of the at least one second device to perform a transmission during the channel occupancy time through the type of the channel access procedure (fig 15, para [0167], where, a UE, may transmit in the intra-cell guard band 1504 between RB set 1 and RB set 2 (equivalent to “second guard period”)).
[[or extending the transmission to the second guard period of the second time slot, to enable the first device to perform a transmission during the channel occupancy time through a type of the channel access procedure, or]]
Regarding claims 33 and 44, Stefanatos discloses: wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor (fig 5, processor 502 and Memory 504, para [0105]), further cause the first device (fig 3, UE 315a), to: receive, from the second device (fig 3, UE 315b), at least one of the following: a first indication to indicate that an extension of a transmission to a guard period of a time slot during the channel occupancy time is enabled by the first device or by the second device (fig 15, para [0167], where, a UE, may transmit in the intra-cell guard band 1504 between RB set 1 and RB set 2 (equivalent to “second guard period”)), and a second indication to indicate that the extension of the transmission to the guard period of the time slot during the channel occupancy time is enabled in at least one time slot of the channel occupancy time (para [0193], where, “the indication specifying the one or more feedback slots may be obtained from a serving base station, or within SCI from the second UE that initiated the COT, or from pre-configuration information in the UE”).
Regarding claim 35, Stefanatos discloses: wherein the transmission comprises a transmission for a physical sidelink shared control channel or a transmission for a physical sidelink feedback control channel (fig 14, para [0160]-[0151], where, “the supported periods are 0/1/2/4, where means no PSFCH. In certain aspects, PSFCH transmission timing may be determined to be the first slot with PSFCH resources after reception of a PSSCH and after MinTimeGapPSFCH (e.g., a time value) after PSSCH. In some cases, the parameter M.sub.PRB,set.sup.PSFCH may defines a set of PRBs for PSFCH in a slot. As discussed above, this set of PRBs may be split between N.sub.PSSCH.sup.PSFCH (e.g., the number of PSSCH slots corresponding to the PSFCH slot) and N.sub.subch PSSCH (e.g., the number of PSSCH sub-channels) in a slot”).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 28 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanatos et al (US 2024/0008085 A1), hereinafter, “Stefanatos” in view of Lin et al (US 2025/0185066 A1), hereinafter, “Lin”.
Regarding claims 28 and 39, Stefanatos does not explicitly teach: wherein the type of channel access procedure comprises a Type 2B channel access procedure or a Type 2C channel access procedure.
Lin teaches: wherein the type of channel access procedure comprises a Type 2B channel access procedure or a Type 2C channel access procedure (Lin: para [0047], where, “However, depending on the system sub-carrier spacing (SCS) for SL communication, these GP symbols (transmission gaps) could be too large as the required channel idle time is only 25 micro second for the Type 2A channel access procedure and 16 micro second only for the Type 2B/2C”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use “wherein the type of channel access procedure comprises a Type 2B channel access procedure or a Type 2C channel access procedure” as taught by Lin into Stefanatos in order avoid the unlicensed channel being taken over by other devices operating in the same spectrum band due to excessive channel idle time (Lin: para [0028]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAM U AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-9561. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fry, 7:00 AM-6:00 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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/NIZAM U AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461