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.
DETAILED ACTION
1. The application of Li et al. for the "COMMUNICATION METHOD AND APPARATUS" filed 05/31/2024 has been examined. This application is a Continuation of PCT/CN2022/134777, filed 11/28/2022 and claims foreign priority to 202111461301.0, filed 12/02/2021 in China. Responsive to the restriction requirement filed on 06/23/2026, affirmation of the election has been made by applicant, and a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-6, 13-18. Claims 7-12 are withdrawn from further consideration by the Examiner, 37 C.F.R.' 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-6, 13-18 are pending in the present application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claim 2 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “competitive resource selection” on line 2. The term "competitive resource selection” is not defined by the claim, does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what constitutes such a “competitive resource selection” are or what is involved in determining the resource selection related to the target beam comprises. Appropriate correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103 and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
7. Claims 1-2, 4, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayesteh et al. (US#11,178,691) in view of Dallal et al. (US#11,576,061).
Regarding claims 1, 13, the references disclose a system and method for increasing coverage and improve transmission performance in wireless communication system, according to the essential features of the claim. Bayesteh et al. (US#11,178,691) discloses a communication method, wherein the method is applied to a first communication apparatus, and the method comprises: obtaining a first time-frequency resource and one or more first beam, wherein the one or more first beam is used for sensing (Fig. 6; Col. 27 line 53 to Col. 28, line 14: Step 610 involves a sensing agent receiving configuration information for configuring transmission of a sensing reference signal (SeRS) to be transmitted by the sensing agent during a transmission resource of a first transmit receive point (TRP)."; Col. 26, lines 29-47: "SeRS can be designed in a similar fashion to the manner of demodulated reference signal (DMRS) design in uplink with orthogonal or semi-orthogonal reference signal (RS) sequences and/or orthogonal or semi-orthogonal time/frequency resources. Design of the SeRS may also pertain to beamforming configuration as discussed above); sending the one or more first beam on the first time-frequency resource (Col. 2, lines 31-33: UE transmits the SeRS on a first beam); determining a target beam based on a reflected beam of the one or more first beam, wherein the target beam corresponds to a first beam on which the reflected beam is received, the first beam comprised in the one or more first beam (Figs. 4-5, para Col. 23, lines 40-53: active sensing via beam sweeping implies that the UE receives a reflected (transmit) beam on a corresponding receive beam which is the target beam); and determining a second time-frequency resource based on the target beam (Figs. 5-6; Col. 26, lines 29-47: "An aspect of the design process can also include having different SeRS ports for neighboring sensing agents (time/frequency scheduling of SeRS signals). Design of the SeRS may also pertain to power control and beamforming configuration as discussed above."; Col. 27, lines 33-44: "In sense-before-talk, the UE can first sense the frequency band to see if the UE detects the sensing signal. Then the UE can select the frequency band, transmission bandwidth and beamforming to make sure the receiver is not impacted by the sensing signal transmission).
Bayesteh reference does not disclose expressly using time-frequency resource. However, a UE may wirelessly transmit information to a TRP in an uplink communication over a particular frequency (or range of frequencies) for a particular duration of time. The frequency and time duration are examples of resources, typically referred to as time-frequency resources, and are well known in the art. In the same field of endeavor, Dallal et al. (US#11,576,061) teaches in Fig. 2 a diagram illustrated an example of a frame structure for use in a radio access network, in which the resource grid 204 may be used to schematically represent time-frequency resources for a given antenna port (Figs. 2-3; Col. 12, lines 4-27: the time-frequency resource at which the UE 310 is to transmit the sensing signal and/or receive the sensing signal when the UE 310 is triggered to perform sensing).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Dallal’s resource assignment or grant of time-frequency resources into Bayesteh’s sensing in half duplex networks with the motivation being to provide a method and system for increasing coverage and improve transmission performance in wireless communication system.
Regarding claims 2, 14, Bayesteh et al. in view of Dallal et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above, Bayesteh et al. further teach wherein the target beam is used for competitive resource selection (Col. 27, lines 34-49).
Regarding claim 4, 15, Bayesteh et al. in view of Dallal et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above, Bayesteh et al. further teach wherein he one or more first beam is a pre-configured beam (Col. 23, lines 12-39 & Col. 25, lines 3-24).
.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 3, 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5-6, 17-18 depend on the objected claims above.
9. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein the obtaining a first
time-frequency resource comprises: listening to first information in a first time window, wherein the first information is used for determining an occupied third time-frequency resource, wherein the first time-frequency resource does not comprise the occupied third time-frequency resource, as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Ren et al. (US#2025/0202568) is cited to show sensing beam determination for target zone coverage.
The Yasukawa et al. (US#11,419,112) shows user device.
The Tan et al. (US#10,288,725) apparatus and method for performing passive sensing.
The Zhang et al. (US#11,102,631) shows resource selection method in V2X comm..
The Seol et al. (US#10,305,660) shows method and apparatus for allocating resource.
The Yao et al. (US#12,665,645) shows signal transmission method and apparatus.
The Xia et al. (US#2024/0236898) shows signal sending/receiving methods, comm. node.
The Myung et al. (US#2024/0429992) shows method for carrying out channel access procedure and device therefor.
11. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
13. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
07/30/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights