DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 7/15/2026.
In the amendment, Applicant:
amended claims 1-3, 9-13, 15, and 16, and
cancelled claims 4-6.
Claims 1-3 and 7-16 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, see section II on page 7, filed 7/15/2026, with respect to the objection to the title of the specification and they are persuasive. Examiner has withdrawn the objection to the title of the specification.
Examiner has fully considered Applicant's arguments, see section III on page 7, filed 7/15/2026, with respect to the objection to claims but they are not persuasive.
Applicant indicated that the claims had been amended as suggested in the previous office action. However, line 5 of claims 3 and 13 still include the phrase “the all beams”. These objections are therefore maintained herein.
Examiner has fully considered Applicant's arguments, see section IV on pages 7-9, filed 7/15/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) but they are not persuasive. Some of the previous rejections have been overcome by Applicant’s amendments. In particular, the previous rejections of claims 1, 3, 6, 11, and 13 have been withdrawn. However, amended claims 9, 10, 15, and 16 are still indefinite for reasons articulated in the rejections below.
Examiner has fully considered Applicant's arguments, see section V on pages 9-11, filed 7/15/2026, with respect to the but they are not persuasive.
On page 9, Applicant summarizes the prior art used in the previous office action and the amendments. Next, on pages 9-10, Applicant recites a portion of claim 1 and asserts that Bhamri only discloses performing a short LBT if a cap is between a range of time durations. On pages 10-11, Applicant argues that Bhamri discloses determining when to “initiate multiple COTs” and not determining when to perform LBT.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bhamri discloses managing a “common COT for a device across all beams based on a directional LBT”. In this scheme, an LBT is performed (sensing the channel to determine if it is clear) and if successful, the device is considered to “occupy” the channel for the duration of a channel occupancy time (COT). For example, see [0054], which indicates that “if a device is scheduled to transmit on a first beam in an unlicensed band, then it is expected and/or required to initiate a COT based on successful LBT on a first beam”. This COT is assumed to continue (“the channel may remain occupied”) and no new LBT is required as long as certain conditions are met (see [0054]). One of these conditions (for not requiring a new LBT) is “2) if there is a second transmission on the second beam before the expiry of the maximum allowed transmission gap between two transmission on different beams” [0054]. That is, LBT is not required if the maximum allowed transmission gap is not exceeded and, conversely, if the maximum allowed transmission gap is exceeded (expires), an LBT is performed (to initiate another COT).
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 13, and 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 5 of claims 3 and 13, “the all beams” should be changed to “all the beams”.
Claims 17-20 (non-elected) are not indicated in the claims in the amendment filed 7/15/2026. These claims and their current status (cancelled?) should be listed in the next amendment for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9, 10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 9 and 15: the phrase “if transmission within the COT is to be resumed by using the first maximum gap, when the gap between the two neighboring transmissions is greater than or equal to the first maximum gap, performing the Cat 2 LBT before the last transmission is performed” is unclear.
It appears that the intended meaning of this claim may be that if the transmission is to be resumed at a time such that the maximum gap will be exceeded, performing Cat 2 LBT before the transmission. However, the phrases “to be resumed by using the first maximum gap” is confusing and should be reworded.
Regarding claims 10 and 16: the phrase “if the transmission within the COT is not resumed by using the first gap, performing the last transmission within the COT” is unclear.
That is, resuming the transmission within the COT appears to include or be performing the last transmission within the COT. It is not clear how if the transmission is not to be resumed, the transmission is still performed. Since this claim now indicates “without performing the Cat 2 LBT”, perhaps the intended meaning is that the a transmission is to be resumed at a time such that the gap between neighboring transmissions is less than the maximum gap?
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 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bhamri et al (US 2023/0403055).
Regarding claim 1: Bhamri discloses a method for transmission resuming, applied to a first device, wherein the method comprises:
when a gap between two neighboring transmissions within Channel Occupancy Time (COT) is greater than or equal to a first maximum gap, performing Category 2 Listen Before Talk (Cat 2 LBT) before a last transmission of the two neighboring transmissions is performed (disclosed throughout; see [0054], for example, which discloses that “there may be a common COT for a device across all beams based on a directional LBT”; in this scheme, an LBT is performed (sensing the channel to determine if it is clear) and if successful, the device is considered to “occupy” the channel for the duration of a channel occupancy time (COT); for example, see [0054], which indicates that “if a device is scheduled to transmit on a first beam in an unlicensed band, then it is expected and/or required to initiate a COT based on successful LBT on a first beam”; this COT is assumed to continue (“the channel may remain occupied”) and no new LBT is required as long as certain conditions are met (see [0054]); one of these conditions (for not requiring a new LBT) is “2) if there is a second transmission on the second beam before the expiry of the maximum allowed transmission gap between two transmission on different beams” [0054]; that is, LBT is not required if the maximum allowed transmission gap is not exceeded and, conversely, if the maximum allowed transmission gap is exceeded (expires), an LBT is performed (to initiate another COT)); wherein the first maximum gap is a maximum gap, in which none of beams has data transmission, within the COT (disclosed throughout; as indicated above, [0054] indicates at least a first maximum gap (i.e. “maximum allowed transmission gap between two transmission on different beams”; see also [0050], for example, which indicates “the transmission gap for any of beam-specific COT may be considered only if there is no on-going transmission on any of the beams”); and
resuming the last transmission based on a performing result of the Cat 2 LBT (disclosed throughout; see [0048], for example, which indicates “Upon success of the directional LBT on second beam, the transmitter may start transmission on the second beam but within the same COT duration”).
Regarding claim 11: Bhamri discloses a first device, comprising a processor (see processor 202 of Figure 2, for example), a memory (see memory 204 of Figure 2, for example) and a transceiver (see transmitter 210 and receiver 212 of Figure 2 and [0045], for example),
wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, and the processor is configured to call the transceiver to run the computer program stored in the memory, to perform operations of (disclosed throughout; see [0039]-[0040], for example):
when a gap between two neighboring transmissions within Channel Occupancy Time (COT) is greater than or equal to a first maximum gap, performing Category 2 Listen Before Talk (Cat 2 LBT) before a last transmission of the two neighboring transmissions is performed (disclosed throughout; see [0054], for example, which discloses that “there may be a common COT for a device across all beams based on a directional LBT”; in this scheme, an LBT is performed (sensing the channel to determine if it is clear) and if successful, the device is considered to “occupy” the channel for the duration of a channel occupancy time (COT); for example, see [0054], which indicates that “if a device is scheduled to transmit on a first beam in an unlicensed band, then it is expected and/or required to initiate a COT based on successful LBT on a first beam”; this COT is assumed to continue (“the channel may remain occupied”) and no new LBT is required as long as certain conditions are met (see [0054]); one of these conditions (for not requiring a new LBT) is “2) if there is a second transmission on the second beam before the expiry of the maximum allowed transmission gap between two transmission on different beams” [0054]; that is, LBT is not required if the maximum allowed transmission gap is not exceeded and, conversely, if the maximum allowed transmission gap is exceeded (expires), an LBT is performed (to initiate another COT)); wherein the first maximum gap is a maximum gap, in which none of beams has data transmission, within the COT (disclosed throughout; as indicated above, [0054] indicates at least a first maximum gap (i.e. “maximum allowed transmission gap between two transmission on different beams”; see also [0050], for example, which indicates “the transmission gap for any of beam-specific COT may be considered only if there is no on-going transmission on any of the beams”); and
resuming the last transmission based on a performing result of the Cat 2 LBT (disclosed throughout; see [0048], for example, which indicates “Upon success of the directional LBT on second beam, the transmitter may start transmission on the second beam but within the same COT duration”).
Regarding claims 2 and 12: Bhamri discloses the limitations wherein the when a gap between two neighboring transmissions within COT is greater than or equal to a first gap, performing Cat 2 LBT before a last transmission of the two neighboring transmissions is performed comprises: when a second gap is greater than or equal to the first maximum gap, performing the Cat 2 LBT before the last transmission is performed (disclosed throughout; see [0054], for example, which discloses that “there may be a common COT for a device across all beams based on a directional LBT”; further, Bhamri discloses two different transmission gaps for managing the COT; for example, in [0054], Bhamri discloses “Further, once the first transmission is done on the first beam in the COT, then the channel may remain occupied ( e.g., provided COT has not yet expired) and a user equipment ("UE") is not required, expected, and/or configured to initiate more than one COT at a given time in following two conditions: 1) if there is second transmission on the first beam that starts before the expiry of a maximum allowed transmission gap between two transmissions on a same beam; or 2) if there is a second transmission on the second beam before the expiry of the maximum allowed transmission gap between two transmission on different beams.”; further, as indicated in the example of Figure 4 and [0056], if the gap is greater than or equal to 16µs, a short LBT (Category 2 as indicated in [0052]) is performed; as indicated in [0056], “Basically, the transmitter device is required to perform LBT (e.g., CCA) on a given beam only once within the same COT, unless the gap between any two consecutive transmissions is more than certain time duration, for example 25 µs, in which case long LBT is done, otherwise a short LBT if the gap is between range of time duration, for example between 16 µs and 25 µs…In general, the transmitter device is required to perform LBT (e.g., CCA) on a given beam only once within the same COT unless the gap between any two consecutive transmissions is longer than a first predetermined duration (e.g., 25 microseconds in 5-7 GHz, or 13 microseconds beyond 52.6 GHz) in which case a long LBT is done, or unless the gap between any two consecutive transmissions is longer than a second predetermined duration (e.g., 16 microseconds in 5-7 GHz, or 3 microseconds beyond 52.6 GHz) and shorter than a third predetermined duration ( e.g., 25 microseconds in 5-7 GHz, or 13 microseconds beyond 52.6 GHz) in which case a short LBT is done.” ); wherein the second gap is a gap, in which none of the beams has data transmission, between the two neighboring transmissions (disclosed throughout; see [0050], for example, which indicates “the transmission gap for any of beam-specific COT may be considered only if there is no on-going transmission on any of the beams”).
Regarding claims 3 and 13: Bhamri discloses the limitations that the performing the Cat 2 LBT comprises: performing the Cat 2 LBT by a beam of which coverage contains coverage of all the beams; or performing the Cat 2 LBT by each of the all beams (disclosed throughout; see [0056], for example, which describes performing an LBT “on beam 1” and “on beam 2”; further, Bhamri discloses an “omni-directional LBT” throughout, which covers all the beams (see [0053], for example)).
Regarding claim 7: Bhamri discloses the limitation that a beam of the first device for performing the Cat 2 LBT is the same as a beam of the first device for initiating a detection of the COT, and/or, a beam used by the first device for performing the Cat 2 LBT is determined by the first device (disclosed throughout; as indicated in [0054], the gap to which the maximum allowed transmission gap is compared may be “between two transmissions on a same beam”; further, as indicated in [0056], when this gap “is longer than a second predetermined duration…a short LBT is done”).
Regarding claims 8 and 14: Bhamri discloses that the two neighboring transmissions comprise two neighboring transmissions of the first device (disclosed throughout; see [0054], [0056], and Figure 4, for example, which discloses that the two transmissions are from the same first device).
Regarding claims 9 and 15: Bhamri discloses that the when a gap between two neighboring transmissions within COT is greater than or equal to a first maximum gap, performing Cat 2 LBT before a last transmission of the two neighboring transmissions is performed, comprises: if transmission within the COT is to be resumed by using the first maximum gap, when the gap between the two neighboring transmissions is greater than or equal to the first maximum gap, performing the Cat 2 LBT before the last transmission is performed (disclosed throughout; see [0054], for example, which discloses that “there may be a common COT for a device across all beams based on a directional LBT”; further, Bhamri discloses two different transmission gaps for managing the COT; for example, in [0054], Bhamri discloses “Further, once the first transmission is done on the first beam in the COT, then the channel may remain occupied ( e.g., provided COT has not yet expired) and a user equipment ("UE") is not required, expected, and/or configured to initiate more than one COT at a given time in following two conditions: 1) if there is second transmission on the first beam that starts before the expiry of a maximum allowed transmission gap between two transmissions on a same beam; or 2) if there is a second transmission on the second beam before the expiry of the maximum allowed transmission gap between two transmission on different beams.”; further, as indicated in the example of Figure 4 and [0056], if the gap is greater than or equal to 16µs, a short LBT (Category 2 as indicated in [0052]) is performed; as indicated in [0056], “Basically, the transmitter device is required to perform LBT (e.g., CCA) on a given beam only once within the same COT, unless the gap between any two consecutive transmissions is more than certain time duration, for example 25 µs, in which case long LBT is done, otherwise a short LBT if the gap is between range of time duration, for example between 16 µs and 25 µs…In general, the transmitter device is required to perform LBT (e.g., CCA) on a given beam only once within the same COT unless the gap between any two consecutive transmissions is longer than a first predetermined duration (e.g., 25 microseconds in 5-7 GHz, or 13 microseconds beyond 52.6 GHz) in which case a long LBT is done, or unless the gap between any two consecutive transmissions is longer than a second predetermined duration (e.g., 16 microseconds in 5-7 GHz, or 3 microseconds beyond 52.6 GHz) and shorter than a third predetermined duration ( e.g., 25 microseconds in 5-7 GHz, or 13 microseconds beyond 52.6 GHz) in which case a short LBT is done.”).
Regarding claims 10 and 16: Bhamri discloses that if the transmission within the COT is not to be resumed by using the first maximum gap, performing the last transmission within the COT without performing the Cat 2 LBT (disclosed throughout; see [0056], for example, which indicates “Following transmission 2 on beam 2, the device can simply start transmission 3 on beam 1 as the LBT was done beam 1 already before transmission 1 (e.g., provided the gap between two transmissions is within the regulatory requirements). Similarly, transmission 4 on beam 2 can start without LBT.”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert C Scheibel whose telephone number is (571)272-3169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Hassan A Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
Robert C. Scheibel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 August 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights