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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 13, 2026
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2,4-6,9-10,12-14,17-18,20 and 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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 1, 2, 4-6, 9-10, 12-14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US2021/0195639, Kim hereafter) in view of Myung et al. (US 2020/0344819, Myung hereafter).
RE claims 1 and 9, Kim discloses a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) and method performed by said WRTU comprising: a processor (user equipment, Fig 14) configured to: determine a maximum number of listen before talk (LBT) failures value (Paragraph 218 discloses, in the context of a UE in a dual connectivity situation, that “if it fails to perform UL LBT on a carrier configured as pScell among LAA Scells during T1 ms (e.g., T1=100) or if it fails to continuously transmit PUSCH (or PUCCH/SRS) N times due to the failure of LBT, an event of a radio link failure (RLF) is triggered. If the RLF is reported to a PCell, UL transmission may not be configured in LAA Scell.” This disclosure indicates a maximum number of LBT failures is determined by some mechanism for the LBT); perform a plurality of LBT procedures associated with a first bandwidth part (BWP) of a serving cell (Paragraph 218, LBT is performed when attempting to transmit a PUSCH or PUCCH/SRS); determine that a number of LBT failures corresponding to the maximum number of LBT failures value has been detected for the serving cell; and declare radio link failure (RLF) based on the determination that the number of LBT failures corresponding to the maximum number of LBT failures value has been detected for the serving cell (Paragraph 218, LBT is triggered and reported to a PCell when there are N continuous LBT failures).
Kim does not explicitly disclose that the LBT is performed for a BWP of the serving cell.
However, Myung teaches LBT performed for a BWP of a serving cell (Paragraph 358-359 teaches , when the a count or timer value is reached for persistent LBT failure on a current BWP, the UE itself performs a switch to another BWP. This is a pre-agreed or configured BWP that may have been another BWP configured before switching or an initial/default BWP.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of the WRTU and method of Kim with the teachings of Myung since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 2 and 10, Kim in view of Myung discloses the WTRU of claim 1 and method of claim 9 as set forth above. Note that Kim further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to send, to a base station, information that indicates that the number of LBT failures corresponding to the determined maximum number of LBT failures value has been detected for the serving cell (Paragraph 218, LBT is triggered and reported to a PCell when there are N continuous LBT failures).
Kim does not explicitly disclose that the LBT is performed for a BWP of the serving cell.
However, Myung teaches LBT performed for a BWP of a serving cell (Paragraph 358-359 teaches , when the a count or timer value is reached for persistent LBT failure on a current BWP, the UE itself performs a switch to another BWP. This is a pre-agreed or configured BWP that may have been another BWP configured before switching or an initial/default BWP.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of the WRTU and method of Kim with the teachings of Myung since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 4 and 12, Kim in view of Myung discloses the WRTU of claim 1 and the method of claim 9 as set forth above. Note that Myung further teaches wherein the serving cell comprises a plurality of BWPs and the BWP is an initial BWP of the plurality of BWPs (Paragraph 358-359 discloses detecting a persistent LBT failure based upon a timer or count value. This is following a directive from the gNB to switch to a given inactive BWP, LBT is then performed at that new BWP and the persistent failure is tracked and acted upon if it occurs. As indicated by the disclosure of 358-359, LBT is performed on the BWP switched to following the failed attempts on a previous BWP. This further has the effect where the gNB may recognize without ambiguity whether the UE has not succeeded in LBT or has not received a switching indication of the BWP.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of the WRTU and method of Kim with the teachings of Myung since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 5 and 13, Kim in view of Myung discloses the WRTU of claim 1 and the method of claim 9 as set forth above. Note that Myung further teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine that the number of LBT failures corresponding to the maximum number of LBT failures value has been detected for the BWP of the serving cell based on a counter that counts a number of LBT failures associated with the BWP of the serving cell (Paragraph 358- 359 discloses detecting a persistent LBT failure based upon a timer or count value.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of the WRTU and method of Kim with the teachings of Myung since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 6 and 14, Kim in view of Myung discloses the WRTU of claim 5 and the method of claim 13 as set forth above. Note that Myung further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to increment the counter based on a LBT failure of the number of LBT failures associated with the BWP of the serving cell (Paragraph 358-359 discloses detecting a persistent LBT failure based upon a timer or count value. The act of “incrementing” is inherent to maintaining a “count”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of the WRTU and method of Kim with the teachings of Myung since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 20, Kim in view of Myung discloses the WRTU of claim 1 and the method of claim 9 as set forth above. Note that Myung further teaches wherein the number of LBT failures associated with the BWP of the serving cell is determined based on a timer (Paragraph 358-359 discloses detecting a persistent LBT failure based upon a timer or count value.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of the WRTU and method of Kim with the teachings of Myung since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 18 and 23 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
RE claim 17, prior arts do not explicitly disclose, teach or suggest that after performing an autonomous switch from a first BWP to a second BWP after a maximum number of LBT failures have occurred on the first BWP, determining that a maximum number of LBT failures have also occurred on the second BWP and as a result declaring radio link failure (RLF).
RE claims 18 and 23, the claims depend upon claim 17 and thereby include the allowable matter set forth above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al. (US 2022/0110153): Paragraphs 66-68 and 84-85 discloses detection of persistent BWP listen before talk failure in a near identical manner to that of the instant application. If a first BWP reaches a maximum number of continuous LBT failures as determined by a counter or timer on an active BWP, it performs a switch to another BWP and resets the counter or timer and the process begins again. If a number of BWP switches reaches a threshold number, then RLF is declared. This reference fails to anticipate the claimed invention as it has an earliest effective filing date that occurs after the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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 D 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.
/James P Duffy/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461