DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the amendment filed on 6 July 2026, having claims 1-6.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 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 § 112
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “performing, on the channel, an uplink (UL) transmission to the access network node; and receiving, the DL transmission from, the access network node, within the channel occupancy” in lines 4-6. The limitation is NOT supported by the original specification. While the specification mentions that uplink transmissions may be performed, the specification never expressly discloses that the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission are performed within the same channel occupancy. The new matter must be deleted from the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “receiving, on the channel, an uplink (UL) transmission from a user equipment (UE), wherein a channel occupancy of the channel is shared by the access network node; and performing the DL transmission to the UE within the channel occupancy” in lines 4-6. While the specification mentions that uplink transmissions may be performed, the specification never expressly discloses that the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission are performed within the same channel occupancy. The new matter must be deleted from the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “perform, on the channel, an uplink (UL) transmission to the access network node; and receive, the DL transmission from, the access network node, within the channel occupancy” in lines 7-10. The limitation is NOT supported by the original specification. While the specification mentions that uplink transmissions may be performed, the specification never expressly discloses that the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission are performed within the same channel occupancy. The new matter must be deleted from the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “receive, on the channel, an uplink (UL) transmission from a user equipment (UE), wherein a channel occupancy of the channel is shared by the access network node; and perform the DL transmission to the UE within the channel occupancy” in lines 5-8. While the specification mentions that uplink transmissions may be performed, the specification never expressly discloses that the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission are performed within the same channel occupancy. The new matter must be deleted from the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harada et al. (US 2018/0115983 A1) (reference disclosed by applicant).
For claims 1 and 5, Harada discloses sensing a channel to be idle, wherein a channel occupancy is shared by an access network node which has sensed the channel to be idle for a downlink (DL) transmission ([0042-0043] an eNB (network node) determines a channel to be idle after performing LBT but does not make a downlink transmission, then the UE performs LBT on the shared channel and determines that the channel is idle);
performing, on the channel, an uplink (UL) transmission to the access network node ([0046] UE performs LBT on the channel and then an uplink transmission); and
receiving, the DL transmission from, the access network node, within the channel occupancy ([0045] the UE receives DCI (downlink transmission) from the base station in subframe N in the same channel).
For claim 2, Harada discloses receiving, from the access network, information indicating the DL transmission, wherein the information is transmitted by a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) ([0123] the DCI (downlink information) is received in a PDCCH).
For claims 4 and 6, Harada discloses sensing a channel to be idle for a downlink (DL) transmission ([0042-0043] an eNB (network node) determines a channel to be idle after performing LBT but does not make a downlink transmission),
receiving, on the channel, an uplink (UL) transmission from a user equipment (UE), wherein a channel occupancy of the channel is shared by the access network node ([0046] UE performs LBT on the channel and then an uplink transmission after [0043] the UE performs LBT on the shared channel and determines that the channel is idle); and
performing the DL transmission to the UE within the channel occupancy ([0045] the base station transmits DCI (downlink transmission) to the UE in subframe N in the same channel).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (US 2018/0115983 A1) (reference disclosed by applicant) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2019/0268883 A1).
For claim 3, Harada does not expressly disclose the information is configured to support a minimum transmission granularity of 2 symbols.
Zhang, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches the information is configured to support a minimum transmission granularity of 2 symbols ([0074] a time unit may be a mini-slot or symbol, and the minimum time for the DCI comprising the information is 2 time units or symbols). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the same DCI format as taught by Zhang in the communication network of Harada to transmit downlink control information to the UE.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM ET.
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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights