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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Amendment
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-12, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (US20200351669), in view of Sun et al (US20230309117).
Regarding claim 1, the cited reference Xu discloses a method for channel occupancy time (COT) sharing (¶0007 discloses a wireless communication method…the method includes: controlling a first user equipment to perform sidelink communication with a second user equipment using unlicensed band resource; and transmitting information indicating MCOT of unlicensed band resource occupied by the first user equipment to the second user equipment, to share the MCOT with the second user equipment), comprising: receiving, by a second terminal device, a resource indication transmitted by a first terminal device, and determining, by the second terminal device according to the resource indication, at least one transmission resource indicated by the first terminal device; performing, by the second terminal device, listen before talk (LBT) according to the at least one transmission resource indicated (¶0117 discloses the eNB transmits the configuration information of the unlicensed resource pool for the remote UE to the relay UE through the RRC signaling. The relay UE completely forwards the configuration information of the unlicensed resource pool for the remote UE to the remote UE through the RRCResourceConfig signaling. If the remote UE selects an unlicensed resource pool according to the configuration of the resource pool, the remote UE performs LBT to access the unlicensed resource and ¶0148 disclosesthat the UE performs LBT to access the unlicensed resource based on theconfiguration information). Xu further discloses in ¶0102 that if LBT is performed successfully, the remote UE occupies the unlicensed band. However, Xu does not explicitly teach sharing a COT to the first terminal device in the case where the LBT performed by the second terminal device succeeds; wherein performing, by the second terminal device, the LBT according to the at least one transmission resource indicated, further comprises: performing, by the second terminal device, the LBT on at least one resource block (RB) set where the at least one transmission resource indicated is located.
In an analogous art Sun teaches sharing a COT to the first terminal device in the case where the LBT performed by the second terminal device succeeds (¶0073 discloses that the concept of channel occupancy time (COT) sharing has been introduced such that a COT on a particular subband (e.g., RB set) acquired by a transmitter device (e.g., UE) via a passing LBT procedure on that subband may be shared with another device (e.g., UE)); wherein performing, by the second terminal device, the LBT according to the at least one transmission resource indicated, further comprises: performing, by the second terminal device, the LBT on at least one resource block (RB) set where the at least one transmission resource indicated is located (¶0079 discloses that the second UE discussed above (e.g., a transmitting/initiator UE) may perform a LBT procedure to reserve an RB set for the duration of a COT in order to transmit a PSCCH/PSSCH to the first UE discussed above (e.g., receiving/responding UE) using one or more of the sidelink sub-channels defined within the reserved/occupied RB set).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Sun to improve network efficiency, reliability, and allow multiple user equipment (UE) devices to coordinate resources when a channel is occupied or available.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Xu and Sun discloses all limitations of claim 1. Xu further discloses the at least one transmission resource indicated comprises: at least one transmission resource indicated by the first terminal device via sidelink control information (SCI) (¶0127 discloses the relay UE may select a resource from the resource pool for the remote UE, and notify the remote UE of the configuration of the unlicensed resource in the sidelink communication through PSCCH SCI 2A).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Xu and Sun discloses all limitations of claim 2. Xu further discloses the SCI comprises first SCI, wherein the first SCI is carried in a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) (¶0131 discloses that the relay UE may notify the remote UE of the configuration of the unlicensed resource in the sidelink communication
through, for example, PSCCH SCI 0).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Xu and Sun discloses all limitations of claim 1. Xu further discloses performing, by the second terminal device, the LBT according to the at least one transmission resource indicated, comprises: performing, by the second terminal device, the LBT according to at least one of the at least one transmission resource indicated (¶0071 discloses that according to the configuration of the unlicensed resource, the relay UE or remote UE performs LBT to access the unlicensed resource).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Xu and Sun discloses all limitations of claim 1. Xu further discloses wherein the second terminal device is a receiving terminal of the first terminal device (See Fig. 24).
Regarding claim 11, the cited reference Xu discloses a terminal device, comprising: a transceiver; a processor coupled to the transceiver; and a memory storing a computer program(See Fig. 9 include a processor, a memory, and wireless communication interface) which, when executed by the processor, causes the terminal device to perform substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is drawn to the terminal device performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 2. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, the cited reference Xu discloses a terminal device, comprising: a transceiver; a processor coupled to the transceiver; and a memory storing a computer program which (See Fig. 9 include a processor, a memory, and wireless communication interface) which, when executed by the processor, causes the terminal device to perform substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the
same rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is drawn to a system performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 2. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is drawn to a system performing substantially the same
features of the method of claim 4. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 4.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (US20200351669), in view of Pratas et al (US20240259823), in further view of STEFANATOS et al (US20240008085).
Regarding claim 1, the cited reference Xu discloses a method for channel occupancy time (COT) sharing (¶0007 discloses a wireless communication method…the method includes: controlling a first user equipment to perform sidelink communication with a second user equipment using unlicensed band resource; and transmitting information indicating MCOT of unlicensed band resource occupied by the first user equipment to the second user equipment, to share the MCOT with the second user equipment), comprising: receiving, by a second terminal device, a resource indication transmitted by a first terminal device, and determining, by the second terminal device according to the resource indication, at least one transmission resource indicated by the first terminal device; performing, by the second terminal device, listen before talk (LBT) according to the at least one transmission resource indicated (¶0117 discloses the eNB transmits the configuration information of the unlicensed resource pool for the remote UE to the relay UE through the RRC signaling. The relay UE completely forwards the configuration information of the unlicensed resource pool for the remote UE to the remote UE through the RRCResourceConfig signaling. If the remote UE selects an unlicensed resource pool according to the configuration of the resource pool, the remote UE performs LBT to access the unlicensed resource and ¶0148 discloses that the UE performs LBT to access the unlicensed resource based on the configuration information). Xu further discloses in ¶0102 that if LBT is performed successfully, the remote UE occupies the unlicensed band. However, Xu does not explicitly teach sharing a COT to the first terminal device in the case where the LBT performed by the second terminal device succeeds; wherein performing, by the second terminal device, the LBT according to the at least one transmission resource indicated, further comprises: performing, by the second terminal device, the LBT on at least one resource block (RB) set where the at least one transmission resource indicated is located.
In analogous arts:
Pratas teaches sharing a COT to the first terminal device in the case where the LBT performed by the second terminal device succeeds (¶0111 discloses that the device 301 may perform a LBT Type 1 procedure for a duration of CW 710. Due to the success of the LBT Type 1 procedure… the device 301 may determine to share the COT with at least the device 302).
STEFANATOS teaches wherein performing, by the second terminal device, the LBT according to the at least one transmission resource indicated, further comprises: performing, by the second terminal device, the LBT on at least one resource block (RB) set where the at least one transmission resource indicated is located (¶0166 discloses that the unlicensed spectrum may be split up into a plurality of RB sets, (e.g., each spanning roughly 20 MHz of bandwidth) including a plurality of RBs 1502. As shown in the example illustrated in FIG. 15 , the unlicensed spectrum may be divided into four different RB sets, including RB set 0, RB set 1, RB set 2, and RB set 3 … to communicate using the unlicensed spectrum, a wireless device may perform a LBT procedure to sense which RB sets are available for communication. As shown in FIG. 15, RB set 1 and RB set 2 have passed the LBT procedure and are available for us by the wireless device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Pratas and STEFANATOS to improve network efficiency, reliability, and allow multiple user equipment (UE) devices to coordinate resources when a channel is occupied or available.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Xu, Pratas, and STEFANATOS discloses all limitations of claim 1. Pratas further discloses wherein sharing, by the second terminal device, the COT to the first terminal device in the case where the LBT performed by the second terminal device succeeds, comprises: sharing, by the second terminal device, the COT to the first terminal device through a PSCCH or a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) in the case where the LBT performed by the second terminal device succeeds (¶0111 discloses that the device 301 may perform a LBT Type 1 procedure for a duration of CW 710. Due to the success of the LBT Type 1 procedure… the device 301 may determine to share the COT with at least the device 302 where ¶0066 discloses that the device 301 shares the COT with the device 302, and in some cases with the device 303. Therefore, the devices 301 and/or 302 may initiate transmissions during the COT … to share the COT with the devices 302 and/or 303, the device 301 may transmit COT sharing information to the devices 302 and/or 303, to inform (e.g., via control signaling) them about the duration of the COT and other information about the COT).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Xu, Pratas, and STEFANATOS discloses all limitations of claim 1. Pratas further discloses wherein the PSCCH or the PSSCH satisfies one of: the PSCCH or the PSSCH being located in a same RB set as the at least one transmission resource indicated (See Figs. 7A-7F).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Xu, Pratas, and STEFANATOS discloses alllimitations of claim 15. Pratas and XU further disclose wherein the computer program executedby the processor to cause the terminal device to perform channel access according to the COT shared by the other terminal device is executed by the processor to cause the terminal device to perform at least one of: performing channel access through type 2 LBT in the case where the terminal device receives from the other terminal device a sharing indication indicating COT sharing; or performing channel access through type 1 LBT or performing no LBT in the case where the terminal device does not receive from the other terminal device the sharing indication indicating COT sharing (Pratas discloses in ¶0099, ¶0100, and Fig. 6 that the device 301 performs a LBT Type 1 procedure during a CW 610 and determines a COT 602 to be shared with at least the device 302 on a shared radio frequency band… the device 302 may perform a LBT Type 2B procedure (if the time gap 660 is equal to 16 μs) or a LBT Type 2C procedure (if the time gap 660 is less than 16 μs) and then perform the transmission 620 based on the result of the channel access procedure. Xu discloses in Fig 30 and ¶0173 that within the MCOT, the UE at the receiving side may perform type-2 LBT to access the unlicensed channel to transmit a discovery response message. Alternatively, the UE at the receiving side may not perform LBT to access the unlicensed channel to transmit the discovery response message).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Xu, Pratas, and STEFANATOS discloses all limitations of claim 15. Pratas and XU further disclose wherein the computer program executed by the processor to cause the terminal device to perform channel access according to the COT shared by the other terminal device is executed by the processor to cause the terminal device to perform: determining, according to a sharing indication indicating COT sharing from the other terminal device, to perform channel access through type 1 LBT, or to perform channel access through type 2 LBT, or to perform no LBT (Pratas discloses in ¶0099, ¶0100, and Fig. 6 that the device 301 performs a LBT Type 1 procedure during a CW 610 and determines a COT 602 to be shared with at least the device 302 on a shared radio frequency band… the device 302 may perform a LBT Type 2B procedure (if the time gap 660 is equal to 16 μs) or a LBT Type 2C procedure (if the time gap 660 is less than 16 μs) and then perform the transmission 620 based on the result of the channel access procedure. Xu discloses in Fig 30 and ¶0173 that within the MCOT, the UE at the receiving side may perform type-2 LBT to access the unlicensed channel to transmit a discovery response message. Alternatively, the UE at the receiving side may not perform LBT to access the unlicensed channel to transmit the discovery response message).
PNG
media_image1.png
336
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
252
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 3, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (US20200351669), in view of Sun et al (US20230309117), in further view of Han et al (US20230209644).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Xu and Sun discloses all limitations of claim 2. However, the combination does not explicitly teach the at least one transmission resource indicated comprises: at least one transmission resource for a same transport block (TB) indicated by the first terminal device via the SCI; or at least one transmission resource for different TBs indicated by the first terminal device via the SCI.
In an analogous art Han teaches the at least one transmission resource indicatedcomprises: at least one transmission resource for a same transport block (TB) indicated by thefirst terminal device via the SCI; or at least one transmission resource for different TBs indicated by the first terminal device via the SCI (¶0138 discloses that NR V2X Mode-2 is where a UE autonomously selects the resource for sidelink transmission from a set of resources configured by the network. For NR V2X Mode-2, a Tx UE can indicate reserved sidelink resource(s) for same TB or different TB via a SCI).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Han to ensure predictable resource allocation, reduces redundant encoding/decoding steps and make scheduling generation more efficient, which is especially beneficial in high-throughput and low-latency scenarios.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is drawn to the terminal device performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 3. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is drawn to the terminal device performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 3. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 3.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (US20200351669), in view of Sun et al (US20230309117), in further view of Huang et al (US20230064680).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Xu and Sun discloses all limitations of claim 1. However, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein besides that the second terminal device indicates COT sharing to the first terminal device, the second terminal device further performs at least one of: indicating a remaining COT duration to the first terminal device; or indicating a channel access priority class to the first terminal device.
In an analogous art Huang teaches wherein besides that the second terminal device indicates COT sharing to the first terminal device, the second terminal device further performs at least one of: indicating a remaining COT duration to the first terminal device; or indicating a channel access priority class to the first terminal device (¶0639 discloses that the COT sharing information may comprise remaining COT duration… CAPC for the COT (CAPC is channel access priority class)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Huang where COT duration and CAPC(Channel Access Priority Class) are key for managing access to shared unlicensed spectrum, especially in sidelink communications.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELILLAH ELMEJJARMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1656. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yemane Mesfin can be reached on (571)272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Informationregarding 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.
Respectfully submitted,
/ABDELILLAH ELMEJJARMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights