DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to the application filed 27 February 2024 as a continuation of 17/038,742 filed 30 September 2020 and claiming benefit of provisional application 62/908,473 filed 30 September 2019, wherein claims 1-24 are pending and ready for examination.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 31 July 2024, 28 March 2025, and 7 January 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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)(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 1-3, 6, 9-11, 14, 17-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ye et al. (US 2019/0098661 A1), hereafter referred Ye.
Regarding claim 1, Ye teaches a method comprising:
based on listen-before-talk (LBT) failures for a first cell satisfying an LBT failure recovery parameter, sending, by a wireless device via a second cell different from the first cell, an uplink signal associated with an LBT failure recovery procedure for the first cell (Ye, Fig. 6, [0073]-[0080]; In this example the selected number of times is 2. After the UE receives the PDDCH from the eNodeB, the UE generates a PRACH preamble based on the PDCCH order and tries to transmit the PRACH preamble to the eNodeB. The UE performs a LBT process to determine if the unlicensed frequency band is available prior to transmission. The LBT process for the first attempt results in failure on the SCell. Had the second attempt resulted in an LBT failure, the UE is configured to fallback to using the PCell based on a fallback condition which can include a selected number of LBT failures among others).
Regarding claim 9, Ye teaches a wireless device comprising:
one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device (Ye, Fig. 8, [0091]-[0093]; the application circuitry can include processors coupled with and include memory configured to execute instructions stored in memory to enable various applications to run on the UE device) to:
based on listen-before-talk (LBT) failures for a first cell satisfying an LBT failure recovery parameter, send, via a second cell different from the first cell, an uplink signal associated with an LBT failure recovery procedure for the first cell (Ye, Fig. 6, [0073]-[0080]; In this example the selected number of times is 2. After the UE receives the PDDCH from the eNodeB, the UE generates a PRACH preamble based on the PDCCH order and tries to transmit the PRACH preamble to the eNodeB. The UE performs a LBT process to determine if the unlicensed frequency band is available prior to transmission. The LBT process for the first attempt results in failure on the SCell. Had the second attempt resulted in an LBT failure, the UE is configured to fallback to using the PCell based on a fallback condition which can include a selected number of LBT failures among others).
Regarding claim 17, Ye teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed (Ye, Fig. 8, [0091]-[0093]; the application circuitry can include processors coupled with and include memory configured to execute instructions stored in memory to enable various applications to run on the UE device), cause:
based on listen-before-talk (LBT) failures for a first cell satisfying an LBT failure recovery parameter, sending, by a wireless device via a second cell different from the first cell, an uplink signal associated with an LBT failure recovery procedure for the first cell (Ye, Fig. 6, [0073]-[0080]; In this example the selected number of times is 2. After the UE receives the PDDCH from the eNodeB, the UE generates a PRACH preamble based on the PDCCH order and tries to transmit the PRACH preamble to the eNodeB. The UE performs a LBT process to determine if the unlicensed frequency band is available prior to transmission. The LBT process for the first attempt results in failure on the SCell. Had the second attempt resulted in an LBT failure, the UE is configured to fallback to using the PCell based on a fallback condition which can include a selected number of LBT failures among others).
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 18, Ye teaches the method of claim 1, the wireless device of claim 9, and the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17 above. Further, Ye teaches wherein the uplink signal comprises at least one of:
a random access preamble; a scheduling request; or an LBT medium access control (MAC) control element (Ye, Fig. 6, [0073]-[0080]; In this example the selected number of times is 2. After the UE receives the PDDCH from the eNodeB, the UE generates a PRACH preamble based on the PDCCH order and tries to transmit the PRACH preamble to the eNodeB. The UE performs a LBT process to determine if the unlicensed frequency band is available prior to transmission. The LBT process for the first attempt results in failure on the SCell. Had the second attempt resulted in an LBT failure, the UE is configured to fallback to using the PCell based on a fallback condition which can include a selected number of LBT failures among others).
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 19, Ye teaches the method of claim 1, the wireless device of claim 9, and the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17 above. Further, Ye teaches wherein the LBT failure recovery parameter is a threshold quantity of LBT failures, and wherein the LBT failures for the first cell satisfying the LBT failure recovery parameter comprises a quantity of the LBT failures for the first cell satisfying the threshold quantity (Ye, Fig. 6, [0073]-[0080]; In this example the selected number of times is 2. After the UE receives the PDDCH from the eNodeB, the UE generates a PRACH preamble based on the PDCCH order and tries to transmit the PRACH preamble to the eNodeB. The UE performs a LBT process to determine if the unlicensed frequency band is available prior to transmission. The LBT process for the first attempt results in failure on the SCell. Had the second attempt resulted in an LBT failure, the UE is configured to fallback to using the PCell based on a fallback condition which can include a selected number of LBT failures among others).
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 22, Ye teaches the method of claim 1, the wireless device of claim 9, and the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17 above. Further, Ye teaches further comprising:
based on the LBT failures for the first cell satisfying the LBT failure recovery parameter, cancelling a random access procedure associated with the first cell (Ye, [0025]-[0027] and [0073]-[0080]; the UE follows a random access procedure where if the LBT indicates that the unlicensed frequency band is unavailable, transmission of the PRACH preamble is blocked and then using licensed frequencies as a fallback which would be on a different cell).
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 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.
Claims 4, 5, 8, 12, 13, 16, 20, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye as applied to claims 1, 9, and 17 above, and further in view of Babaei et al. (US 2020/0275485 A1), hereafter referred Babaei.
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 20, Ye teaches the method of claim 1, the wireless device of claim 9, and the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17 above. Ye does not expressly teach further comprising cancelling the LBT failure recovery procedure based on at least one of:
receiving, during the LBT failure recovery procedure, LBT failure recovery reconfiguration parameters for the first cell; receiving, during the LBT failure recovery procedure, downlink information indicating bandwidth part (BWP) switching for the first cell; deactivating the first cell during the LBT failure recovery procedure; or receiving, by a medium access control (MAC) layer of the wireless device from a radio resource control (RRC) layer of the wireless device and during the LBT failure recovery procedure, a request to reset the MAC layer.
However, Babaei teaches further comprising cancelling the LBT failure recovery procedure based on at least one of:
receiving, during the LBT failure recovery procedure, LBT failure recovery reconfiguration parameters for the first cell; receiving, during the LBT failure recovery procedure, downlink information indicating bandwidth part (BWP) switching for the first cell; deactivating the first cell during the LBT failure recovery procedure; or receiving, by a medium access control (MAC) layer of the wireless device from a radio resource control (RRC) layer of the wireless device and during the LBT failure recovery procedure, a request to reset the MAC layer (Babaei, [0432]; firstActiveDownlinkBWP-Id if configured for an SpCell may contain the ID of the DL BWP to be activated upon performing the reconfiguration in which it is received).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Ye to include the above recited limitations as taught by Babaei in order to enable cell and bandwidth part activation/deactivation and switching in multicarrier communication systems (Babaei, [0041]).
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 21, Ye teaches the method of claim 1, the wireless device of claim 9, and the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17 above. Ye does not expressly teach further comprising:
determining a quantity of LBT failures for the first cell; and setting, based on cancelling the LBT failure recovery procedure, the quantity of LBT failures to zero.
However, Babaei teaches further comprising:
determining a quantity of LBT failures for the first cell; and setting, based on cancelling the LBT failure recovery procedure, the quantity of LBT failures to zero (Babaei, [0494]-[0497]; the wireless device may perform a listen before talk procedure where the wireless device may increment a counter in response to a listen before talk corresponding to the grant in the plurality of grants failing, where the wireless device may switch from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part in response to the counter reaching a first value and the counter may then be reset to a second value e.g. zero in response to the switching).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Ye to include the above recited limitations as taught by Babaei in order to enable cell and bandwidth part activation/deactivation and switching in multicarrier communication systems (Babaei, [0041]).
Regarding claims 8, 16, and 24, Ye teaches the method of claim 1, the wireless device of claim 9, and the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17 above. Ye does not expressly teach further comprising:
incrementing, based on a determination of an LBT failure of the first cell, an LBT counter of the first cell; and
setting, based on cancelling the LBT failure recovery procedure, the LBT counter to zero.
However, Babaei teaches further comprising:
incrementing, based on a determination of an LBT failure of the first cell, an LBT counter of the first cell; and setting, based on cancelling the LBT failure recovery procedure, the LBT counter to zero (Babaei, [0494]-[0497]; the wireless device may perform a listen before talk procedure where the wireless device may increment a counter in response to a listen before talk corresponding to the grant in the plurality of grants failing, where the wireless device may switch from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part in response to the counter reaching a first value and the counter may then be reset to a second value e.g. zero in response to the switching).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Ye to include the above recited limitations as taught by Babaei in order to enable cell and bandwidth part activation/deactivation and switching in multicarrier communication systems (Babaei, [0041]).
Claims 7, 15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye as applied to claims 1, 9, and 17 above, and further in view of Babaei further in view of Qualcomm, “Procedure and format for beam index indication MAC CE”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #107, R2-1911504 (released on August 26-30, 2019), hereafter referred Qualcomm.
Regarding claims 7, 15, and 23, Ye teaches the method of claim 1, the wireless device of claim 9, and the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17 above.
Ye does not expressly teach causing transmission of an LBT medium access control (MAC) control element (LBT MAC CE) for the LBT failure recovery procedure.
However, Babaei teaches causing transmission of an LBT medium access control (MAC) control element (LBT MAC CE) for the LBT failure recovery procedure (Babaei, [0198] [0480]-[0489]; wireless device may perform a listen before talk recovery procedure before transmitting the second packet which may comprise multiplexing one or more logical channels and MAC CEs to create a MAC PDU, where the wireless device may determine channel access priority for LBT operation of the logical channels and MAC CEs and the logical channels and MAC CEs are multiplexed according to their associated channel access priority).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Ye to include the above recited limitations as taught by Babaei in order to enable cell and bandwidth part activation/deactivation and switching in multicarrier communication systems (Babaei, [0041]).
Ye in view of Babaei does not expressly teach further comprising:
initiating a beam failure recovery procedure for the first cell;
causing transmission of a beam failure recovery MAC control element (BFR MAC CE) for the beam failure recovery procedure; and
sending a MAC protocol data unit (MAC PDU) comprising a the BFR MAC CE and the LBT MAC CE, wherein the BFR MAC CE precedes the LBT MAC CE in the MAC PDU.
However, Qualcomm teaches further comprising:
initiating a beam failure recovery procedure for the first cell (Qualcomm, Section 2; there are two steps on the BFR request for SCell, where the first step is to inform the network that beam failure occurred on some SCells in case of UE declaring beam failure and the second step is to use one new MAC CE to report the failed SCells information as well as the new beam information to network);
causing transmission of a beam failure recovery MAC control element (BFR MAC CE) for the beam failure recovery procedure (Qualcomm, Section 2; when beam failure reporting is triggered, the beam index indication MAC CE could be generated when uplink resources become available to send it to network and the UE can send this beam index indication MAC CE over this uplink resource); and
sending a MAC protocol data unit (MAC PDU) comprising a the BFR MAC CE and the LBT MAC CE, wherein the BFR MAC CE precedes the LBT MAC CE in the MAC PDU (Qualcomm, Section 2; if BFR is triggered in both SpCell and SCell, UE should first perform RACH based BFR for SPCell then finish BFR procedure for SCell where the beam index indication MAC CE should give a high priority when it is multiplexed into a MAC PDU together with other data, where its priority should be lower than C-RNTI MAC CE but higher than the rest of MAC CEs and data for other logical channels).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Ye in view of Babaei to include the above recited limitations as taught by Qualcomm in order to reduce the overall latency of the BFR procedure (Qualcomm, Section 2, paragraph 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODRICK MAK whose telephone number is (571)270-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Noel Beharry can be reached at 571-270-5630. 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.
/R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights