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 03/15/24, 04/04/25, 09/09/25 and 09/11/25 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-17 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/08/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention Group l corresponding to claims 1-13 and 18-19 in the reply filed on 04/08/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Applicant respectfully submits that the claims across Groups I and II are directed to closely related aspects of the same disclosed consistent LBT failures occur on an unlicensed band and failure processing operation … Accordingly, the claimed subject matter reflects closely related and unified aspects of the same framework rather than independent or distinct inventions. Applicant respectfully submits that search and examination of all claims does not impose the serious search or examination burden required to justify restriction under 35 U.S.C.§ 121, as both groups are directed to sidelink (SL) failure handling in unlicensed bands and would reasonably be expected to be classified and searched within the same or closely related technical fields (See Page 9 of the Applicant’s Arguments filed on 04/08/26).
This is not found persuasive because as previously indicated in pages 5-7 of the previous requirement for restriction filed on 02/12/26, each of the different Invention Groups include additional features and limitations not present in the other Invention Groups and would result in different field of searches (i.e. see pages 5-6 of requirement for restriction filed on 02/12/26) and the guidelines set forth by MPEP 808.02 clearly indicates that a different field of search where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other inventions e.g. … employing different search queries would constitute as a serious burden (i.e. see pages 6-7 of requirement for restriction filed on 02/12/26).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozturk et al. (US Patent Publication 2021/0321314 herein after referenced as Ozturk).
Regarding claim 1, Ozturk discloses:
A consistent listen before talk (LBT) failure processing method, comprising: when consistent LBT failures occur on aat least one of following: (Ozturk, Fig. 9 & [0130] discloses UE 30, at 911, continues to detect consistent LBT failures (i.e. reads on consistent LBT failure processing method, comprising: when consistent LBT failures occur) on all the available BWPs (i.e. reads on on a band) with configured uplink resources. In response, to the continued LBT failures detected at 911, UE 30 (i.e. reads on by a first terminal) would declare a link failure and report the link failure (i.e. reads on performing, a first failure processing operation, wherein the first failure processing operation comprises at least one of following reporting the consistent LBT failures) on the master node (i.e. reads on to a network side device); Ozturk, [0007] discloses a current bandwidth part BWP; Ozturk, [0042] discloses consistent listen before talk LBT failures; Ozturk, [0047] discloses a UE may also be referred to as … a terminal. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “performing a sidelink (SL) radio link failure (RLF) operation on an SL corresponding to the unlicensed band;” and “suspending the SL corresponding to the unlicensed band; or performing SL transmission on a resource of a licensed band.”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Ozturk discloses in one embodiment that a UE detects consistent LBT failures on a bandwidth part BWP but fails to explicitly recite in the same embodiment that said BWP corresponds to an unlicensed band and therefore fails to disclose “when consistent LBT failures occur on an unlicensed band”.
In a different embodiment, Ozturk discloses:
when consistent LBT failures occur on an unlicensed band (Ozturk, [0060] discloses In an unlicensed frequency portion (i.e. reads on unlicensed band) of the shared radio frequency spectrum band, UEs 115 or base stations 105 may traditionally perform a medium-sensing procedure to contend for access to the frequency spectrum. For example, UE 115 or base station 105 may perform a listen before talk LBT procedure (i.e. reads on an LBT) such as a clear channel assessment CCA prior to communicating in order to determine whether the shared channel is available; Ozturk, Fig. 9 & [0130] discloses UE 30, at 911, continues to detect consistent LBT failures (i.e. reads on when consistent LBT failures occur) on all the available BWPs (i.e. reads on on an unlicensed band) with configured uplink resources. In response, to the continued LBT failures detected at 911, UE 30 would declare a link failure and report the link failure on the master node; Ozturk, [0137] discloses Skilled artisans will also readily recognize that the order or combination of components, methods, or interactions that are described herein are merely examples and that the components, methods, or interactions of the various aspects of the present disclosure may be combined or performed in ways other than those illustrated and described herein. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the combination of the cited teachings together as a whole that BWP where LBT failures are detected is part of the unlicensed shared spectrum).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Ozturk to incorporate the teachings of the different embodiments for the purpose of conforming to the intent of the invention to modify and combine the various different embodiment (Ozturk, [0137]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of an embodiment of performing an LBT procedure on a bandwidth part BWP to detect consistent LBT failures as taught by Ozturk) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of a similar embodiment of performing an LBT procedure on a bandwidth part BWP to detect consistent LBT failures with additional and/or alternative features and functionalities of the other embodiments as taught by Ozturk) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of an embodiment of performing an LBT procedure on a bandwidth part BWP to detect consistent LBT failures (i.e. as taught by Ozturk) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 2, Ozturk discloses:
The method according to claim 1, (see claim 1).
(EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in a contingent limitation format directed towards limitations contingent on a selection of a non-selected alternative option recited in the preceding limitations (i.e. see claim 1) and as such are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “wherein the SL RLF operation comprises at least one of following: resetting a media access control (MAC) entity corresponding to the SL; or resetting or releasing a layer 2 entity corresponding to the SL”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03, Section C that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 3, Ozturk discloses:
The method according to claim 2, (see claim 2).
(EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in a contingent limitation format directed towards limitations contingent on a selection of a non-selected alternative option recited in the preceding limitations (i.e. see claim 1) and as such are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “wherein when a transmission manner of the SL is unicast transmission, the SL RLF operation further comprises at least one of following: releasing a data radio bearer (DRB) corresponding to the SL; releasing a signaling radio bearer (SRB) corresponding to the SL; deleting configuration information of the SL; releasing a PC5-radio resource control (RRC) connection corresponding to the SL; releasing a PC5-S connection corresponding to the SL; reporting an SL RLF to the network side device; or reporting, to the network side device, that a reason for the SL RLF is the consistent LBT failures”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03, Section C that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 4, Ozturk discloses:
The method according to claim 1, (see claim 1).
wherein that the consistent LBT failures occur on the unlicensed band comprises any one of following that: when a plurality of available resources exist on the unlicensed band, the consistent LBT failures occur on one of the plurality of available resources; when a plurality of available resources exist on the unlicensed band, the consistent LBT failures occur on each of the plurality of available resources; and when only one available resource exists on the unlicensed band, the consistent LBT failures occur on the one available resource (Ozturk, [0139] discloses A second aspect, based on the first aspect, wherein the executing the failure recover procedure includes selecting, by the UE, in response to the LBT failure state, a next one or more BWPs of a system bandwidth of the shared communication spectrum having configured uplink resources; Ozturk, Fig. 9 & [0130] discloses UE 30, at 911, continues to detect consistent LBT failures on all the available BWPs with configured uplink resources. In response, to the continued LBT failures detected at 911, UE 30 would declare a link failure and report the link failure on the master node; Ozturk, [0060] discloses In an unlicensed frequency portion of the shared radio frequency spectrum band, UEs 115 or base stations 105 may traditionally perform a medium-sensing procedure to contend for access to the frequency spectrum. For example, UE 115 or base station 105 may perform a listen before talk LBT procedure such as a clear channel assessment CCA prior to communicating in order to determine whether the shared channel is available).
Regarding claim 5, Ozturk discloses:
The method according to claim 1, (see claim 1).
wherein the reporting the consistent LBT failures to a network side device comprises at least one of following: reporting, to the network side device, information about a resource on which the consistent LBT failures occur; (Ozturk, [0113] discloses As noted above, the LBT failure report identifies the LBT failures according to cell ID and BWP corresponding to each LBT failure. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “reporting occurrence time of the consistent LBT failures to the network side device; or” and “or, the reporting the consistent LBT failures to a network side device comprises: reporting the consistent LBT failures to the network side device, and requesting a transmission resource from the network side device.”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 6, Ozturk discloses:
The method according to claim 1, (see claim 1).
(EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in a contingent limitation format directed towards limitations contingent on a selection of a non-selected alternative option recited in the preceding limitations (i.e. see claim 1) and as such are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “wherein the suspending the SL corresponding to the unlicensed band comprises at least one of following: when no other available resource used to perform the SL transmission exists, suspending the SL; or when a service transmitted through the SL is a first service, suspending the SL.”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03, Section C that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 7, Ozturk discloses:
The method according to claim 1, (see claim 1).
(EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in a contingent limitation format directed towards limitations contingent on a selection of a non-selected alternative option recited in the preceding limitations (i.e. see claim 1) and as such are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “wherein the suspending the SL corresponding to the unlicensed band comprises: suspending at least a part of services on the SL; or suspending at least a part of data radio bearers (DRBs) that carries at least a part of services on the SL; wherein after the at least a part of DRBs are suspended, the first terminal performs at least one of following operations: maintaining or resetting a sending status variable and a receiving status variable of a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer of the at least a part of DRBs; maintaining or resetting a sending status variable and a receiving status variable of a radio link control (RLC) layer of the at least a part of DRBs; or stopping or resetting a status that is of a media access control (MAC) layer of the at least a part of DRBs and that is related to sending”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03, Section C that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 8, Ozturk discloses:
The method according to claim 1, (see claim 1).
(EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in a contingent limitation format directed towards limitations contingent on a selection of a non-selected alternative option recited in the preceding limitations (i.e. see claim 1) and as such are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “wherein when the first failure processing operation comprises the suspending the SL corresponding to the unlicensed band, a suspension parameter of the suspending the SL comprises at least one of following: a length of a first suspension timer; a threshold value of a suspension attempt counter; or a resumption condition of a suspension operation”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03, Section C that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 9, Ozturk discloses:
The method according to claim 8, (see claim 8).
(EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in a contingent limitation format directed towards limitations contingent on a selection of a non-selected alternative option recited in the preceding limitations (i.e. see claim 1) and as such are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “wherein the method further comprises: after the SL corresponding to the unlicensed band is suspended, starting, by the first terminal, the first suspension timer; and after the first suspension timer expires, performing, by the first terminal, LBT, wherein when the LBT fails, a value of the suspension attempt counter is increased by 1”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03, Section C that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 10, Ozturk discloses:
The method according to claim 9, (see claim 9).
(EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in a contingent limitation format directed towards limitations contingent on a selection of a non-selected alternative option recited in the preceding limitations (i.e. see claim 1 and claim 9) and as such are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “wherein when the value of the suspension attempt counter is less than the threshold value, the method further comprises: restarting, by the first terminal, the first suspension timer, and continuing to perform the LBT after the first suspension timer expires, wherein when the LBT fails each time, the value of the suspension attempt counter is increased by 1; when the value of the suspension attempt counter is greater than or equal to the threshold value, the method further comprises: releasing, by the first terminal, the SL; or performing, by the first terminal, the SL RLF operation on the SL”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03, Section C that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 11, Ozturk discloses:
The method according to claim 1, (see claim 1).
(EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in a contingent limitation format directed towards limitations contingent on a selection of a non-selected alternative option recited in the preceding limitations (i.e. see claim 1) and as such are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “wherein when the first failure processing operation comprises the suspending the SL corresponding to the unlicensed band, after the performing, by a first terminal, a first failure processing operation, the method further comprises: continuously or periodically listening to, by the first terminal, the unlicensed band; and when at least one available resource exists on the unlicensed band, resuming, by the first terminal, the at least one available resource; or when no available resource is detected through listening on the unlicensed band in a target duration, releasing, by the first terminal, the SL or performing the SL RLF operation on the SL”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03, Section C that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 12, Ozturk discloses:
The method according to claim 1, (see claim 1).
wherein before the performing, by a first terminal, a first failure processing operation, the method further comprises: determining, by the first terminal, the first failure processing operation based on first information, wherein the first information is configured by the network side device or predefined (Ozturk, [0108] discloses At 600, UE 30 receives a SIB message from target cell 32 with relevant random access information. Without a recent connection to target cell 32, the SIB message provides UE 30 with indication of the initial BWP configured for target cell 32 as well as the LBT parameters for performing and observing LBT procedures; Ozturk, [0095]-[0096] discloses The execution environment of LBT logic 1002 provides UE 30/115 with the functionality to conduct various types of LBT procedures for security access to shared communication spectrum for conducting uplink transmissions. Upon detecting LBT failures, UE 30/115, under control of controller/processor 280, executes LBT failure monitoring 1003, stored in memory 282. The execution environment of LBT failure monitoring 1003 provides the functionality to UE 30/115 to monitor both uplink and downlink LBT failures for a consistency of failures. When, within the execution environment of LBT failure monitoring 1003, UE 30/115 observes multiple uplink and downlink LBT failures over a period of time within the current BWP, UE 30/115 will determine an LBT failure state, according to the functionality of LBT failure monitoring 1003 and discloses At block 302, the UE executes a failure recovery procedure in response to the LBT failure state, wherein the failure recovery procedure includes one or more of: completion of the handover and report of the LBT failure state; Ozturk, [0125] discloses In the various aspects illustrated and described with respect FIGS. 3-8, UE 30 obtains or selects a BWP and LBT parameters to attempt access and monitor LBT failures. It should be noted that, in the various aspects of the present disclosures, the BWP and LBT parameter configurations may be different depending on the type of access being attempted by UE 30. For example, the LBT parameters may be different for handover, connection resumption, re-establishment, or setup).
Regarding claim 18, Ozturk discloses:
A first terminal, comprising a processor, a memory, and a program or instructions stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein when the program or the instructions are executed by the processor, (Ozturk, [0089] discloses The controllers/processors 240 and 280 may direct the operation at the base station 105 and the UE 115, respectively. The controller/processor 240 and/or other processors and modules at the base station 105 may perform or direct the execution of various processes for the techniques described herein. The controllers/processor 280 and/or other processors and modules at the UE 115 may also perform or direct the execution of the functional blocks illustrated in FIGS. 3, 5, and 7, and/or other processes for the techniques described herein. The memories 242 and 282 may store data and program codes for the base station 105 and the UE 115, respectively).
steps of the consistent LBT failure processing method according to claim 1 are implemented (see claim 1).
Claim(s) 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozturk et al. (US Patent Publication 2021/0321314 herein after referenced as Ozturk) in view of Wang et al. (US Patent Publication 2022/0346174 herein after referenced as Wang).
Regarding claim 13, Ozturk discloses:
A consistent listen before talk (LBT) failure processing method, comprising: (Ozturk, Fig. 9 & [0130] discloses UE 30, at 911, continues to detect consistent LBT failures (i.e. reads on consistent LBT failure processing method, comprising:) on all the available BWPs with configured uplink resources. In response, to the continued LBT failures detected at 911, UE 30 would declare a link failure and report the link failure on the master node; Ozturk, [0007] discloses a current bandwidth part BWP; Ozturk, [0042] discloses consistent listen before talk LBT failures).
configuring, by a network side device, first information for a first terminal, (Ozturk, [0108] discloses At 600, UE 30 receives a SIB message from target cell 32 (i.e. reads on by a network side device) with relevant random access information. Without a recent connection to target cell 32, the SIB message provides UE 30 (i.e. reads on for a first terminal) with indication of the initial BWP configured for target cell 32 as well as the LBT parameters (i.e. reads on configuring first information) for performing and observing LBT procedures).
at least one of following:
reporting the consistent LBT failures to the network side device; (Ozturk, [0060] discloses In an unlicensed frequency portion (i.e. reads on unlicensed band) of the shared radio frequency spectrum band, UEs 115 or base stations 105 may traditionally perform a medium-sensing procedure to contend for access to the frequency spectrum. For example, UE 115 or base station 105 may perform a listen before talk LBT procedure (i.e. reads on an LBT) such as a clear channel assessment CCA prior to communicating in order to determine whether the shared channel is available; Ozturk, Fig. 9 & [0130] discloses UE 30, at 911, continues to detect consistent LBT failures (i.e. reads on when consistent LBT failures occur) on all the available BWPs (i.e. reads on on an unlicensed band) with configured uplink resources. In response, to the continued LBT failures detected at 911, UE 30 would declare a link failure and report the link failure (i.e. reads on a first failure processing operation performed and reads on wherein the first failure processing operation comprises at least one of following: reporting the consistent LBT failures) on the master node (i.e. reads on to the network side device); Ozturk, [0137] discloses Skilled artisans will also readily recognize that the order or combination of components, methods, or interactions that are described herein are merely examples and that the components, methods, or interactions of the various aspects of the present disclosure may be combined or performed in ways other than those illustrated and described herein. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the combination of the cited teachings together as a whole that BWP where LBT failures are detected is part of the unlicensed shared spectrum. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “performing a sidelink (SL) radio link failure (RLF) operation on an SL corresponding to the unlicensed band;” and “suspending the SL corresponding to the unlicensed band; or performing SL transmission on a resource of a licensed band.”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Ozturk discloses receiving LBT parameters from a network node and reporting to the network node when consistent LBT failures occur on an unlicensed band but fails to explicitly recite that said received LBT parameters includes information that indicates that reporting is to be performed when consisted LBT failures occur and therefore fails to disclose “wherein the first information indicates a first failure processing operation performed when consistent LBT failures occur on an unlicensed band,”.
In a related field of endeavor, Wang discloses:
wherein the first information indicates a first failure processing operation performed when consistent LBT failures occur on an unlicensed band, (Wang, [0104] discloses The configuration itself may comprise (i.e. reads on wherein the first information indicates) a configuration of one or more of the following parameters: a trigger for transmitting a report message e.g., periodic, event-triggered, etc; where transmission of the report message is event-triggered, the details of the trigger event e.g., a number of detected LBT failures or detected consistent LBT failures, a threshold for channel occupancy, etc; a mechanism for transmitting the report message e.g., radio resources to be used for transmitting the report message, a physical channel on which the report message should be transmitted, etc; information to be included in the report message e.g., LBT statistics, requested mitigation actions, etc; one or more mitigation actions to take (i.e. reads on a first failure processing operation performed) upon detection of consistent LBT failure (i.e. reads on when consistent LBT failures occur on an unlicensed band), e.g., a preconfigured BWP/cell to switch to; Wang, [0099] discloses According to embodiments of the disclosure, a UE utilizing unlicensed spectrum (i.e. reads on unlicensed band) e.g., served by an NR-U system transmits a report message comprising an indication of one or more LBT failures experienced by the UE to a network node, such as its serving base stations e.g., gNBs; Wang, [0103] discloses The configuration message may be transmitted by the network node via dedicated signalling for the wireless device e.g., via RRC signalling or broadcast e.g., via system information).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Ozturk to incorporate the teachings of Wang for the purpose of providing the system with a means to inform and configure the UE with one or more mitigation actions to take upon detection of consistent LBT failure (Wang, [0104]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with added functionalities and various different alternatives in design, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of receiving LBT parameters from a network node and reporting to the network node when consistent LBT failures occur on an unlicensed band as taught by Ozturk) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of receiving LBT parameters from a network node and reporting to the network node when consistent LBT failures occur on an unlicensed band, wherein the LBT parameters includes various configuration information such as actions to take when transmitting the report to the network as taught by Wang) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of receiving LBT parameters from a network node and reporting to the network node when consistent LBT failures occur on an unlicensed band (i.e. as taught by both Ozturk & Wang) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 19, Ozturk in view of Wang discloses:
A network side device, comprising a processor, a memory, and a program or instructions stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein when the program or the instructions are executed by the processor, (Ozturk, [0089] discloses The controllers/processors 240 and 280 may direct the operation at the base station 105 and the UE 115, respectively. The controller/processor 240 and/or other processors and modules at the base station 105 may perform or direct the execution of various processes for the techniques described herein. The controllers/processor 280 and/or other processors and modules at the UE 115 may also perform or direct the execution of the functional blocks illustrated in FIGS. 3, 5, and 7, and/or other processes for the techniques described herein. The memories 242 and 282 may store data and program codes for the base station 105 and the UE 115, respectively).
steps of the consistent LBT failure processing method according to claim 13 are implemented (see claim 13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y MAPA whose telephone number is (571)270-5540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday: 10 AM - 8 PM 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, Anthony Addy can be reached at (571) 272 - 7795. 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.
/MICHAEL Y MAPA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights