DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 15 and 17-18 were cancelled. Claims 1-14 and 16 are present for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/16/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
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.
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 claim at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, hereinafter referred to as Zhang et al. (US 20240215064 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zhang, in view of Fu (US 20240407000 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fu.
Regarding claim 1:
Zhang discloses a method of performing an uplink (UL) transmission by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (a method of performing PUSCH transmission by UE [0048]), the method comprising:
receiving information related to a sensing beam used by a base station (BS) to initiate a channel occupancy time (COT) (receiving control information which is associated with channel occupancy {CO} initiated by base station [0047], wherein CO is associated with beam (in case that CO can be shared, transmitting PUSCH transmission corresponding with a reception beam [0013]);
determining whether COT sharing of the COT is available (UE shares remaining CO [0042]).
based on the COT sharing being not available, sensing a channel corresponding to the UL transmission based on a Type 1 channel access procedure (CAP) (when cannot share remaining CO initiated by BS, performing a LBT-Cat4 procedure [0061]), and based on the channel being sensed as idle, performing the UL transmission (and based on channel being sensed to be idle, transmitting on channel [0004]); and
based on the COT sharing being available, sensing the channel based on a Type 2 CAP (UE shares remaining CO and uses LBT Cat2 to access the channel [0042]), and based on the channel being sensed as idle, performing the UL transmission within the COT (and based on channel being sensed to be idle, transmitting on channel [0004] within the duration in time and location in frequency domain of remaining CO initiated by the BS [0042]).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose determining whether COT sharing of the COT is available based on a quasi co- location (QCL) relationship between the sensing beam and the UL transmission.
Fu, from the same field of endeavor, teaches determining whether COT sharing of the COT is available based on a quasi co-location (QCL) relationship between the sensing beam and the UL transmission (QCL relationship between transmission beams being associated with sensing beam [0050]).
Also, Fu teaches perform a listen before talk (LBT) detection on one sensing beam corresponding to a channel occupy time [0062] and sharing the channel occupy time corresponding to the sensing beam by the plurality of transmission beams for transmitting data [0126].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to perform UL transmission within the COT based on determining whether COT sharing is available and performing the channel access procedure; thus enhancing PUSCH transmission while improving spatial selectivity and improving the channel detection efficiency – Fu [0034].
Regarding claim 2:
Zhang in view of Fu discloses all features of claim 1, and –
Zhang further discloses it is determined that the COT sharing is available (determining when UE shares remaining CO [0042]). In addition, Fu teaches RS related to the UL transmission (sounding reference signal [0051]) and QCL relationship between transmission beams being associated with sensing beam [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to determine COT sharing is available based on QCL relationship between transmission beams and sensing beams, wherein beams are associated with downlink and uplink reference signals; thus enhancing PUSCH transmission carried on COT, while improving spatial selectivity and improving the channel detection efficiency – Fu [0034].
Regarding claim 3:
Zhang in view of Fu discloses all features of claim 1, and –
Zhang further discloses the information related to the sensing beam includes at least one of a synchronization signal block (SSB) index, a channel state information-reference signal (CSI-RS) index, or a sounding resource indicator (SRI) (sounding reference index [0051]).
Regarding claim 4:
Zhang in view of Fu discloses all features of claim 1, and –
Zhang further discloses the information related to the sensing beam is included in a group common-physical downlink control channel (GC- PDCCH) (control information is received in a group common-physical downlink control channel {GC-PDCCH} [0010]).
Regarding claim 5:
Zhang in view of Fu discloses all features of claim 1, and –
Zhang further discloses the Type 1 CAP is performed based on backoff (LBT procedure, e.g., LBT Cat1, is performed with random back-off [0004]), and the Type 2 CAP is performed without backoff (LBT procedure, e.g., LBT Cat2, is performed without random back-off [0004]).
Regarding claim 6:
Zhang in view of Fu discloses all features of claim 1, and –
Zhang further discloses receiving information indicating to perform the Type 1 CAP before the UL transmission (after performing a LBT-Cat4 procedure, transmitting PUSCH transmission [0074]) wherein based on the COT sharing being not available, the Type 1 CAP is performed based on the information indicating to perform the Type 1 CAP (when cannot share remaining CO initiated by BS, performing a LBT-Cat4 procedure [0061]), and wherein based on the COT sharing being available, the information indicating to perform the Type 1 CAP is ignored, and the Type 2 CAP is performed (UE shares remaining CO and uses LBT Cat2 to access the channel [0042]).
Regarding claim 7:
Zhang in view of Fu discloses all features of claim 1, and –
Zhang further discloses it is determined whether the COT sharing is available by further considering that time resources and frequency resources of the UL transmission are included in time resources and frequency resources of a downlink (DL) transmission performed in the COT (part of initiated CO is used to transmit a downlink transmission to UE, and rest part of initiated CO, which is not occupied {remaining CO}, can be shared with UE, wherein CO indicates a time-frequency resource [0042]).
Regarding claim 8:
Claim 8 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 1 above, except that Zhang [in claim 8] is in a device claim format, and Zhang also discloses a user equipment (UE) for performing an uplink (UL) transmission in a wireless communication system (UE in Fig.3), the UE comprising: at least one transceiver (receiver and transmitter, elements 501, 503 in Fig.5); at least one processor (processor, element 505 in Fig.5); and at least one memory (non-transitory computer readable memory, elements 507, 503 in Fig.5) operably coupled to the at least one processor, and storing instructions which when executed, cause the at least one processor to perform claimed operations.
Regarding claims 9-14:
Claims 9-14 are rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claims 2-7 above, respectively, except that claims 9-14 are in a device claim format.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 1 above, except that claim 16 is recited from the perspective of a base station (BS in Fig.3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMQUYEN THAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7245. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and videoconferencing 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, Ayman A. Abaza be reached on 571-270-0422. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000
/C.Q.T./
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights