CTNF 18/771,898 CTNF 98886 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on July 26, 2024 and May 12, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDSs have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is invited to point out any particular reference(s) in the IDS that they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this Office Action. It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff ’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Specification 06-16 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. 06-13 AIA The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains a phrase that can be implied. In particular, the abstract recites “ Example embodiments of the present disclosure relate to a method, apparatus, and computer readable storage medium for resource exclusion.” The Examiner suggests the Applicant to either re-word or remove this phrase . Correction is required. See § MPEP 608.01(b). Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,581,535 . Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the features of claims 1-20 of recited in the instant application are transparently found in the Application U.S. Patent No. 12,581,535 with obvious wording variations; they are substantially similar in scope The independent claims 1, 8, and 15 of the current application can be read on the limitations of the independent claims 1, 6, and 11 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,581,535 . For example, The instant application U.S. Patent No. 12,581,535 . 1 . An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: determine at least one resource block (RB) set, a consistent listen before talking (LBT) failure being detected for the at least one RB set; and determine the number of available candidate resources within a time window, the available candidate resources excluding candidate resources on the at least one RB set within the time window. 1 . An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: detect, at a lower layer of the apparatus, a listen before talking (LBT) failure for at least one resource block (RB) set within a time window; report, by the lower layer to a medium access control (MAC) entity of the apparatus, the LBT failure, wherein the MAC entity is an entity of a higher layer compared with the lower layer; determine, by the MAC entity, that a consistent LBT failure for an RB set of the at least one RB set is detected within the time window; transmit, by the MAC entity to the lower layer, a parameter indicating the RB set where the consistent LBT failure has been detected; and determine, by the lower layer of the apparatus, a number of available candidate resources by excluding candidate resources associated with the RB set indicated by the parameter. The limitations of claims 2, 9, and 16 of the current application can be read on the limitations of the dependent claim 2 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,581,535 . The limitations of claims 3, 10, and 17 of the current application can be read on the limitations of the dependent claim 3 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,581,535 . The limitations of claims 4, 15, and 18 of the current application can be read on the limitations of the dependent claim 4 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,581,535 . The limitations of claim 5, 12, and 19 of the current application can be read on the limitations of the dependent claim 5 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,581,535 . The limitations of claims 6 and 13 of the current application can be read on the limitations of the independent claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,581,535 . The limitations of claim 7, 14, and 20 of the current application can be read on the limitations of the independent claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,581,535 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim (s) 1, 8, 12, 15, and 19 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 12 depends from independent claim 8. Claim 12 recites the limitation “ wherein determining the first candidate resource as the available candidate resource within the time window… ” However, there is no antecedent basis for “ the first candidate resource " in Claim 8. A review of the claim hierarchy indicates that “a first candidate resource” is introduced for the first time in claim 9. Therefore, the reference to “the first candidate resource” in claim 12 is indefinite because it lacks a proper antecedent basis. Claim 19 depends from independent claim 15. Claim 19 recites the limitation “ the first candidate resource. ” However, there is no antecedent basis for “ the first candidate resource " in Claim 15. A review of the claim hierarchy indicates that “a first candidate resource” is introduced for the first time in claim 16. Therefore, the reference to “the first candidate resource” in claim 19 is indefinite because it lacks a proper antecedent basis. Claim 1, 8, and 15 recite: “ determine (or determining) at least one resource block (RB) set, a consistent listen before talking (LBT) failure being detected for the at least one RB set; ” The grammatical structure of the phrase “ a consistent listen before talking (LBT) failure being detected ” creates an ambiguity regarding the scope of the claims. It is unclear whether the claim requires: (i) the apparatus/method to perform the detection of the consistent LBT failure, or (ii) the LBT failure detection to be a pre-existing condition or an environmental state of the RB set that is determined by the apparatus/method. Because the phrase uses a passive participial construction (“ being detected ”) without a clear structural or functional link to the determining step, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be clearly determined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alfarhan et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240298350, hereinafter “Alfarhan”) . Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Alfarhan unless otherwise mentioned. With respect to independent claims: Regarding claim 1 , Alfarhan teaches An apparatus (Fig. 1B and para [0030]: WTRU 102) comprising: at least one processor (Fig. 1B and para [0030]: a processor 118) ; and at least one memory (Fig. 1B and para [0030]: non-removable memory 130, removable memory 132) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (para [0217]: It is understood that the entities performing the processes described herein may be logical entities that may be implemented in the form of software (e.g., computer-executable instructions) stored in a memory of, and executing on a processor of, a mobile device, network node or computer system.) , cause the apparatus at least to: determine at least one resource block (RB) set, a consistent listen before talking (LBT) failure being detected for the at least one RB set (para [0003]: Systems, methods, and instrumentalities are disclosed herein for handling consistent sidelink (SL) listen-before-talk (LBT) failures (CSLF) . A wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) may perform a listen before talk (LBT) procedure associated with a sidelink (SL) bandwidth. The SL bandwidth may include a resource block (RB) set. The WTRU may determine a CSLF associated with the RB set of the SL bandwidth based on the LBT procedure .) ; and determine the number of available candidate resources within a time window, the available candidate resources excluding candidate resources on the at least one RB set within the time window (para [0189]: A WTRU may maintain multiple LBT procedures on different resource sets (e.g., maintain multiple CSLF processes simultaneously). When selecting a resource set following a CSLF, the WTRU may select the resource set based on the CSLF status (e.g., the CSLF status on each of the resource sets) . For example, following a CSLF on a first resource set, the WTRU may select a second resource set. The second resource set may be a resource set on which an LBT procedure performed results in the least number of LBT failures (e.g., the smallest CSLF counter or a zero value for the CSLF counter) among the resource sets.) (para [0190]: A WTRU may refrain from selecting a resource set (e.g., exclude the resource set from the selection) for a period of time ( interpreted as “within a time window” ) after a CSLF is declared on that resource set.) (para [0200]: A WTRU may exclude resource(s) associated with a triggered CSLF . For example, a WTRU may exclude a set of resources (e.g., a carrier, a BWP, a periodic resource reservation, a resource pool, a subset of resources associated with LBT, etc) for selection and/or transmission following a CSLF, an LBT failure, or a number of LBT failures, which may occur on that set of resources. A WTRU may (e.g., in response) exclude such set of resources, e.g., for a period of time. Such period of time may be configured or preconfigured. A WTRU may be configured or preconfigured with a different period of time associated with one or a combination of more than one of the following: a LBT type performed that resulted in a CSLF; a number of (e.g., currently available) resources sets (e.g., a number of carriers); SL measurement(s) associated with the set of resources, which may be performed when a CSLF was triggered; a CBR value on the set of resources; or priority of data for transmission at the WTRU. A WTRU may exclude a set of resources by performing one of the following actions, or combination of more than one of the following actions: excluding the resources as possible available resources in resource selection; excluding the resources from the set of available resources determined by sensing; stopping performing sensing on the resources; excluding a carrier from the carriers that may be used for carrier (re)selection, and/or for performing (re)selection of resources that have been reserved (or carriers that have been selected) for future transmissions and/or resources that were reserved/selected prior to a CSLF; or flushing the SL HARQ buffer, which may be associated with a SL process for the affected SL resources.) . Regarding claim 8 , it is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus Claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1. Regarding claim 15 , it is a non-transitory computer readable medium (para [0216]: The processes described herein may be implemented in a computer program, software, and/or firmware incorporated in a computer-readable medium for execution by a computer and/or processor.) claim corresponding to the Claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1. With respect to dependent claims: Regarding Claim 2 , Alfarhan teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the at least one processor further cause the apparatus to: based on at least one first condition being met, determine, from the candidate resources on the at least one RB set, a first candidate resource as an available candidate resource within the time window (para [0202]: A WTRU may reconsider (e.g., prematurely, which may be prior to the completion of a time duration of a timer) the excluded resources ( interpreted as “determine, from the candidate resources on the at least one RB set, a first candidate resource as an available candidate resource …” ), e.g., based on an occurrence of a specific event . For example, the WTRU may cancel or stop the prohibit timer described herein in response to an occurrence of an event. Such event may be associated with a reception of a SL control and/or data transmission (e.g., from another WTRU), which may be associated with resources. Such event may include a reception of an indication (e.g., an explicit or implicit indication, such as a scheduling DCI scheduling a SL transmission or reception of an SCI from another WTRU). Such event may include the WTRU determining that a measurement (e.g., CBR, RSSI, etc.) associated with affected resources meets a specific condition (e.g., RSSI below a threshold, e.g., for a period of time ( interpreted as “based on at least one first condition being met” )) . Regarding Claim 4 , Alfarhan teaches The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the at least one memory and the at least one processor cause the apparatus to: based on at least one second condition being met, select at least one RB set from the at least one RB set; and determine the first candidate resource on the at least one selected RB set as the available candidate resource within the time window (para [0202]: A WTRU may reconsider (e.g., prematurely, which may be prior to the completion of a time duration of a timer) the excluded resources , e.g., based on an occurrence of a specific event . For example, the WTRU may cancel or stop the prohibit timer described herein in response to an occurrence of an event. Such event may be associated with a reception of a SL control and/or data transmission (e.g., from another WTRU), which may be associated with resources. Such event may include a reception of an indication (e.g., an explicit or implicit indication, such as a scheduling DCI scheduling a SL transmission or reception of an SCI from another WTRU). Such event may include the WTRU determining that a measurement (e.g., CBR, RSSI, etc.) associated with affected resources meets a specific condition (e.g., RSSI below a threshold, e.g., for a period of time ( interpreted as “based on at least one first condition being met” )) , wherein the at least one second condition comprises at least one of: a condition that a channel busy ratio (CBR) of the at least one selected RB set is equal to or lower than a threshold CBR (para [0202]: Such event may include the WTRU determining that a measurement (e.g., CBR , RSSI, etc.) associated with affected resources meets a specific condition ( e.g., RSSI below a threshold , e.g., for a period of time ) .), … Examiner’s note: Alfarhan explicitly recites CBR as one of the key candidate metrics evaluated to determine whether excluded resources should be reintroduced as available options. Alfarhan further provides a literal directional example using RSSI (“below a threshold”). Therefore, this directly corresponds to the claimed feature “a condition that a channel busy ratio (CBR) of the at least one selected RB set is equal to or lower than a threshold CBR”. Regarding Claim 5 , Alfarhan teaches The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the at least one memory and the at least one processor cause the apparatus to: in response to determining that the candidate resources on the at least one RB set are allowed to be included into available candidate resources within the time window (para [0202]: A WTRU may reconsider (e.g., prematurely, which may be prior to the completion of a time duration of a timer) the excluded resources , e.g., based on an occurrence of a specific event. For example, the WTRU may cancel or stop the prohibit timer described herein in response to an occurrence of an event ( interpreted as “in response to determining that the candidate resources on the at least one RB set are allowed to be included into available candidate resources within the time window” because the excluded resources can be “reconsidered” for resource selection by the canceling or stopping the prohibit timer ).) , determine, based on the at least one first condition being met, the first candidate resource from the candidate resources on the at least one RB set as the available candidate resource within the time window (para [0200]: A WTRU may be configured or preconfigured with a different period of time associated with one or a combination of more than one of the following : a LBT type performed that resulted in a CSLF; a number of (e.g., currently available) resources sets (e.g., a number of carriers); SL measurement(s) associated with the set of resources, which may be performed when a CSLF was triggered; a CBR value on the set of resources; or priority of data for transmission at the WTRU. A WTRU may exclude a set of resources by performing one of the following actions, or combination of more than one of the following actions: excluding the resources as possible available resources in resource selection; excluding the resources from the set of available resources determined by sensing; stopping performing sensing on the resources; excluding a carrier from the carriers that may be used for carrier (re)selection, and/or for performing (re)selection of resources that have been reserved (or carriers that have been selected) for future transmissions and/or resources that were reserved/selected prior to a CSLF; or flushing the SL HARQ buffer, which may be associated with a SL process for the affected SL resources.) . (Examiner’s note: Alfarhan explicitly teaches that the timer cancellation and resource reconsideration are executed in response to a specific event/condition being met (e.g., a channel measurement meeting a threshold condition). This directly corresponds to the claimed sequence of determining the available candidate resource “based on the at least one first condition being met.” ) Regarding Claim 6 , Alfarhan teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the candidate resources on the at least one RB set in a time period within the time window are excluded from the available candidate resources within the time window (para [0190]: A WTRU may refrain from selecting a resource set (e.g., exclude the resource set from the selection) for a period of time after a CSLF is declared on that resource set.) (para [0200]: A WTRU may exclude resource(s) associated with a triggered CSLF. For example, a WTRU may exclude a set of resources (e.g., a carrier, a BWP, a periodic resource reservation, a resource pool, a subset of resources associated with LBT, etc) for selection and/or transmission following a CSLF, an LBT failure, or a number of LBT failures, which may occur on that set of resources. A WTRU may (e.g., in response) exclude such set of resources, e.g., for a period of time.) . Regarding Claim 7 , Alfarhan teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the candidate resources on the at least one RB set are excluded from a set of available candidate resources within the time window (para [0200]: A WTRU may exclude resource(s) associated with a triggered CSLF. For example, a WTRU may exclude a set of resources (e.g., a carrier, a BWP, a periodic resource reservation, a resource pool, a subset of resources associated with LBT, etc) for selection and/or transmission following a CSLF, an LBT failure , or a number of LBT failures, which may occur on that set of resources. A WTRU may (e.g., in response) exclude such set of resources, e.g., for a period of time . … excluding the resources as possible available resources in resource selection; excluding the resources from the set of available resources determined by sensing ) . Regarding claims 9 and 16 , Claims 9 and 16, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 2, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 2. Regarding claims 11 and 18 , Claims 10 and 17, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 4, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 4. Regarding claims 12 and 19 , Claims 12 and 19, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 5, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 5. Regarding claim 13 , Claim 13, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 6, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 6. Regarding claims 14 and 20 , Claims 14 and 20, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 7, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 7 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alfarhan and in view of Hui et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230319878, hereinafter “Hui”) . Regarding Claim 3 , Alfarhan teaches The apparatus of claim 2, Alfarhan fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one first condition comprises at least one of: a condition that the number of available candidate resources is equal to or smaller than a threshold number, or a condition that a reference threshold strength for excluding a candidate from the available candidate resources is equal to or higher than a threshold strength. In analogous art, Hui teaches: wherein the at least one first condition comprises at least one of: a condition that the number of available candidate resources is equal to or smaller than a threshold number (Fig. 26 (steps 2680-2685) and para [0292]: The condition may be the total amount of the remaining candidate resources in the candidate resource set satisfying (e.g., above, higher than, greater than, more than, higher than or equal to, greater than or equal to, more than or equal to, larger than or equal to, etc.) X percent (e.g., as indicated by a higher layer parameter sl-TxPercentageList) of the candidate resources in the candidate resource set before performing the first exclusion and/or the second exclusion 2680 . The wireless device 2710 may increase the RSRP threshold used to exclude the third resources with a value Y and iteratively re-perform the initialization, the first exclusion, and/or the second exclusion 2685,) , or a condition that a reference threshold strength for excluding a candidate from the available candidate resources is equal to or higher than a threshold strength (para [0288]: The wireless device may exclude the third resources from the candidate resource set based on a reference signal received power (RSRP) of the third resources satisfying (e.g., above, higher than, greater than, etc.) an RSRP threshold 2677 (e.g., indicated by a higher layer parameter sl-ThresPSSCH-RSRP-List).) . As discussed above, Alfarhan teaches that a WTRU may exclude resources associated with an LBT failure/CSLF from available resource (see para [0200] of Alfarhan), but may reconsider or stop the exclusion based on a specific conditions or event (see para [0202] of Alfarhan). However, Alfarhan does not explicitly detail the exact threshold mathematical conditions for this reconsideration. Hui explicitly discloses a detailed resource evaluation and sensing-based exclusion mechanism in a candidate resource set (see para [0288] of Hui). It teaches that resources are excluded based on a Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) measurement being higher an RSRP threshold (see condition (b) discussed in para [0290] of Hui). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to combine the teachings of Alfarhan and Hui, and apply the standard resource selection loop criteria-wherein an exclusion threshold (RSRP) is dynamically adjusted “equal to or higher than a threshold strength”-in order to prevent resource starvation and ensure sufficient transmission opportunities eve after severe LBT failures. Regarding claims 10 and 17 , Claims 10 and 17, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 3, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 3. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON JUN CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1695. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 08:00 - 17:00. 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, Derrick W Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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. /WON JUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2411 /DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/771,898 Page 2 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/771,898 Page 3 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/771,898 Page 4 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/771,898 Page 5 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/771,898 Page 6 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/771,898 Page 7 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/771,898 Page 8 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/771,898 Page 9 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/771,898 Page 10 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/771,898 Page 11 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/771,898 Page 12 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/771,898 Page 13 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/771,898 Page 14 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/771,898 Page 15 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/771,898 Page 16 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/771,898 Page 17 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/771,898 Page 18 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/771,898 Page 19 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/771,898 Page 20 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/771,898 Page 21 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/771,898 Page 22 Art Unit: 2411
Prosecution Insights