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 .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 0710/2024.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are currently presenting for examination.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 13 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected.
This action has been made NON-FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over non-patent literature (ETSI TS 138 213 V16.8.0 (2022-01)), (hereinafter, "NPL-TS") in view of non-patent literature (3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #107-e, R1-2110827), (hereinafter, "NPL-R1").
Regarding claim 1, NPL-TS teaches a method of transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) in a band by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (NPL-TS, pages 48-50, section 8.3, PUSCH scheduled by RAR UL grant), the method comprising: receiving a random access response (RAR) uplink (UL) grant for scheduling the PUSCH (NPL-TS, page 50, 2nd paragraph, “…a RAR UL grant in a corresponding RAR message using…”, 3rd paragraph, “if a UE receives a PDSCH with a RAR message”); and transmitting the PUSCH based on the RAR UL grant (NPL-TS, page 50, 2nd paragraph, “A UE transmits a transport block in a PUSCH scheduled by a RAR UL grant in a corresponding RAR message…”, 3rd paragraph, “With reference to slots for a PUSCH transmission scheduled by a RAR UL grant, if a UE receives a PDSCH with a RAR message ending in slot n for a corresponding PRACH transmission from the UE, the UE transmits the PUSCH in slot…”), wherein based on the SIB including a parameter indicating that a channel access procedure (CAP) is to be applied (NPL-TS, page 47, table 8.2-1, and page 46, last paragraph, “The “ChannelAccess-CPext” field indicates a channel access type and CP extension for operation with shared spectrum channel access …”), the number of bits in a field for indicating a channel access type included in the RAR UL grant is 2 (NPL-TS, page 47, table 8.2-1, the “ChannelAccess-CPext” field will be 2 bits for operation with shared spectrum channel access), and wherein based on the SIB not including the parameter, the number of bits in the field for indicating a channel access type included in the RAR UL grant is 0 (NPL-TS, page 47, table 8.2-1, the ChannelAccess-CPext field will be 0 bit for operation without shared spectrum channel access).
NPL-TS does not teaches transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) in a band of 52.6 GHz or higher by a UE, and receiving a system information block (SIB).
NPL-R1 from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: a band of 52.6 GHz or higher (NPL-R1, section 2.2, “Proposal 7: Configure DBTW length in SIB1 for operation with shared spectrum in 52.6GHz to 71GHz…”), and receiving a system information block (SIB) (NPL-R1, section 2.2, “After UE acquires SIB1…”, and “Proposal 8: Use of LBT should be indicated in SIB1 to help UE determine the existence of “ChannelAccess-CPext” field in DCI format 1-0/0-0 scrambled with TC-RNTI and in RAR UL grant”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of NPL-R1 into NPL-TS, since NPL-TS suggests a technique for operation with shared spectrum, and NPL-R1 suggests the beneficial way of operation with shared spectrum in 52.6GHz to 71GHz thus provide extremely wide channels in the analogous art of communication.
Regarding claim 2, NPL-TS and NPL-R1 teach the method of claim 1, and NPL-TS further teach wherein based on the SIB not including the parameter, the RAR UL grant includes the same fields as included in an RAR UL grant for a spectrum other than a shared spectrum (NPL-TS, page 47, table 8.2-1, the “ChannelAccess-CPext” field will be 0 bit for operation without shared spectrum channel access, and the “PUSCH frequency resource allocation” field will be 14 bits for operation without shared spectrum channel access. That is, the 2 bits will be assigned to the “PUSCH frequency resource allocation” field for non-shared spectrum channel access, and the total bits for the “PUSCH frequency resource allocation” and “ChannelAccess-CPext” fields are 14 bits).
Regarding claim 3, NPL-TS and NPL-R1 teach the method of claim 1, and NPL-TS further teach wherein based on the SIB not including the parameter, the RAR UL grant does not include the field for indicating a channel access type (NPL-TS, page 47, table 8.2-1, the “ChannelAccess-CPext” field will be 0 bit for operation without shared spectrum channel access).
Regarding claim 4, NPL-TS and NPL-R1 teach the method of claim 1, and NPL-TS further teach wherein a sum of the number of bits in the field for indicating a channel access type and the number of bits in a field for frequency resource allocation of the PUSCH, based on the SIB including the parameter is equal to a sum of the number of bits in the field for indicating a channel access type and the number of bits in the field for frequency resource allocation of the PUSCH, based on the SIB not including the parameter (NPL-TS, page 47, table 8.2-1, the “ChannelAccess-CPext” field will be 0 bit for operation without shared spectrum channel access, and the “PUSCH frequency resource allocation” field will be 14 bits for operation without shared spectrum channel access; and the “ChannelAccess-CPext” field will be 2 bits for operation with shared spectrum channel access, and the “PUSCH frequency resource allocation” field will be 12 bits for operation with shared spectrum channel access. The total bits for the “PUSCH frequency resource allocation” and “ChannelAccess-CPext” fields are 14 bits).
Regarding claim 5, NPL-TS and NPL-R1 teach the method of claim 1, and NPL-TS further teach wherein regardless of whether the SIB includes the parameter, a sum of the number of bits in the field for indicating a channel access type and the number of bits in a field for frequency resource allocation of the PUSCH is a fixed value of 14 (NPL-TS, page 47, table 8.2-1, the “ChannelAccess-CPext” field will be 0 bit for operation without shared spectrum channel access, and the “PUSCH frequency resource allocation” field will be 14 bits for operation without shared spectrum channel access; and the “ChannelAccess-CPext” field will be 2 bits for operation with shared spectrum channel access, and the “PUSCH frequency resource allocation” field will be 12 bits for operation with shared spectrum channel access. The total bits for the “PUSCH frequency resource allocation” and “ChannelAccess-CPext” fields are 14 bits).
Regarding claim 7, NPL-TS and NPL-R1 teach the limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, NPL-TS and NPL-R1 teach the limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, NPL-TS and NPL-R1 teach the limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 10, NPL-TS and NPL-R1 teach the limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 11, NPL-TS and NPL-R1 teach the limitations as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, NPL-TS and NPL-R1 teach the limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over non-patent literature (ETSI TS 138 213 V16.8.0 (2022-01)), (hereinafter, "NPL-TS") in view of non-patent literature (3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #107-e, R1-2110827), (hereinafter, "NPL-R1") and US_20230164833_A1_Kusashima.
Regarding claim 6, NPL-TS and NPL-R1 teach the method of claim 1, and NPL-TS further teach wherein based on the SIB not including the parameter, the PUSCH is transmitted without a CAP (NPL-TS, page 47, table 8.2-1, the ChannelAccess-CPext field will be 0 bit for operation without shared spectrum channel access; and page 50, 3rd paragraph, “A UE transmits a transport block in a PUSCH scheduled by a RAR UL grant in a corresponding RAR message…”. No LBT performed for operation without shared spectrum channel access).
NPL-TS and NPL-R1 do not teach wherein based on the SIB including the parameter, the PUSCH is transmitted after application of a CAP based on the field for indicating a channel access type.
Kusashima from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein based on the SIB including the parameter, the PUSCH is transmitted after application of a CAP based on the field for indicating a channel access type (Kusashima paragraph 289, “… the base station device 20 notifies of the ChannelAccess-CPext field or ChannelAccess-CPext-CAPC field and the LBT category, the contention window size adjustment method, and/or the contention window size in association with each other. After receiving the uplink grant, the terminal device 40 performs the LBT before PUSCH transmission by using the LBT category indicated in the ChannelAccess-CPext field or ChannelAccess-CPext-CAPC field”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Kusashima into NPL-TS and NPL-R1, since NPL-TS and NPL-R1 suggests a technique for a ChannelAccess-CPext field indicates a channel access type and CP extension for operation with shared spectrum, and Kusashima suggests the beneficial way of the terminal device performs the LBT before PUSCH transmission by using the LBT category indicated in the ChannelAccess-CPext field so that the UE performs LBT according to the ChannelAccess-CPext field for determining whether or not the channel 3is clear before PUSCH transmission to avoid interference (Kusashima paragraph 75) in the analogous art of communication.
Regarding claim 12, NPL-TS, NPL-R1 and Kusashima teach the limitations as set forth in claim 6.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The reference US_20230107490_A1_ABDELGHAFFAR, teaches the UE may receive a PDSCH carrying a SIB1; the UE may receive a PDSCH based at least in part on a PUSCH transmission scheduled by a random access response (RAR) uplink grant or a corresponding PUSCH retransmission.; and three higher operating bands have been identified as frequency range designations FR4a or FR4-l (52.6 GHz - 71 GHz), FR4 (52.6 GHz -114.25 GHz), and FR5 (114.25 GHz - 300 GHz) (ABDELGHAFFAR paragraphs 41, 89, 100).
The reference US_20230254896_A1_Guo, teaches a 2-bit field in SIB-1 may be used in LBE mode and FBE mode to indicate an LBT type, a cyclic prefix extension, a channel access priority class indication (Guo paragraph 65).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEIBIN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
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 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.
/W.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights