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 .
Authorization for Internet Communication
To expedite prosecution, filing a written authorization for internet communication is recommended. Doing so permits USPTO to communicate using email to schedule interviews and/or discuss other aspects of the application. Without the written authorization in place, USPTO cannot respond to email communications. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP 502.03.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 13 and 20 is/are objected because of the following informalities (or vagueness):
Independent claims 1, 13 and 20 all recite determining energy in "a channel" that is "one of" a first or second channel, each tied to its own EDT -- then claims transmitting "in response to the determined signal energy satisfying a criteria related to the first EDT or the second EDT". It is not stated whether the "criteria" must corresponds to whichever channel was actually measured, or whether either EDT could apply regardless of which channel was selected. This ambiguity is significant because dependent claims 6 and 18 later add the missing correlation explicitly ("the determined signal energy in the first channel being below the first EDT or … in the second channel being below the second EDT") -- the fact that this clarification is needed in a dependent claim suggests the independent claims standing alone does not clearly delineate which EDT is the relevant threshold for a given measured channel.
"Criteria" is grammatically plural of "criterion," yet is consistently paired with the singular article "a". This is likely minor claim-drafting/informality issue.
Appropriate clarification/correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 11-15 and 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2017/0086226) in view of Damnjanovic et al. (US 2021/0400730, “Damnjanovic”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Wang unless otherwise mentioned.
Wang comprises the following features:
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 1, a method, at an access node, for sharing a spectrum, comprising:
determining signal energy in a channel of the spectrum by the access node ([0031] “a BSS is configured to use at least one communication channel, including a primary channel and, in some embodiments, one or more secondary channels.”, and [0073 and Fig. 5] “At S510, an OBSS_PD level associated with a primary channel is determined and/or stored. The OBSS_PD level may be determined based on a predetermined transmission power level.”),
wherein the channel is one of at least two channels including a first channel and a second channel ([0076 and Fig. 5] “At S540, whether to check the availability of a secondary channel is determined.”), the first channel being associated with a first energy detection threshold (EDT) ([0075 and Fig. 5] “At S530, a primary channel CCA process is performed in order to determine whether the primary channel is available. The primary channel CCA process can be performed based on a CCA-CS scheme using the OBSS_PD level. The primary channel CCA process can be performed based on a CCA-ED scheme using the primary CCA-ED level.”), and the second channel being associated with a second EDT that is different from the first EDT ([0078 and Fig. 5] “At S550, a secondary channel CCA process is performed in order to determine whether the secondary channel is available. The secondary channel CCA process can be performed based on a CCA-CS scheme using the secondary channel CCA-CS level.”); and
transmitting a signal belonging to a traffic type over the channel of the spectrum in response to the determined signal energy satisfying a criteria related to the first EDT or the second EDT ([0079 and Fig. 5] “At S560, which communication resources are currently available is determined. S560 may include determining whether the station successfully obtains a TXOP for using the primary channel.”, and [0042] “If the reception power level is less than the primary CCA threshold for CCA-CS scheme, the channel contention control module 252 determines that the primary channel is available, and thus the station 210 obtains a TXOP for using the primary channel.” Note that “a signal belonging to a traffic type” will be discussed in view of Damnjanovic.).
It is noted that while disclosing two channel with two thresholds, Wang does not specifically teach about a traffic type. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Damnjanovic as follows;
transmitting a signal belonging to a traffic type ([Damnjanovic, 0090] “UE 115h may be preparing for ultra-reliability, low-latency communications (URLLC) transmission, which carries a higher traffic priority. Upon detecting this access trigger condition, the transmitting node, UE 115h, may trigger dynamically relaxing the ED threshold.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Wang by using the features of Damnjanovic in order to effectively enhance traffic communications such that “an energy detection (ED) procedure for access to the shared communication channel according to an ED threshold of a plurality of candidate ED thresholds corresponding to the access trigger condition” [Damnjanovic, 0007].
Regarding claim 13, it is an access node claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations, “a processor in communication with a storage, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions” (See Fig. 2 for 230 “Processor” and 242 “Program Instructions”), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, it is a non-transitory CRM claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations, “non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions” ([0055 and Fig. 2] “the memory 240 includes a non-transitory computer readable medium,”), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claims 2 and 14, the method of claim 1 and the access node of claim 13, respectively, wherein the traffic type is one of at least two traffic types including a first traffic type and a second traffic type, the first traffic type having a higher quality of service (QoS) requirement than the second traffic type ([Damnjanovic, 0090] “UE 115h may be preparing for ultra-reliability, low-latency communications (URLLC) transmission, which carries a higher traffic priority.”, and [Damnjanovic, 0091] “UE 115a identifies the access trigger condition of low priority traffic and selects the strengthened ED threshold” Damnjanovic’s URLLC with higher traffic priority which is equal to ‘higher QoS’ versus low-priority traffic classification – each mapped to a different, distinct ED threshold – reads on claim 2’s requirement of “at least two traffic types”.).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, the method of claim 1 and the access node of claim 13, respectively, wherein the first EDT is different from the second EDT in that the first EDT is less than the second EDT ([Damnjanovic, 0090] “−X dBm, within the set of candidate ED thresholds (e.g., −X dBm {−60 dBm, −62 dBm, −64 dBm, etc. }).”, and [Damnjanovic, 0091] “−Y dBm (e.g., −Y dBm {−80 dBm, −82 dBm, −84 dBm, etc. })”).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, the method of claim 1 and the access node of claim 13, respectively, wherein determining signal energy in the channel of the spectrum comprises: performing spectrum sensing to detect signal energy in the first channel or the second channel ([Damnjanovic, 0046] “UE 115 or base station 105 may perform a listen before talk (LBT) procedure such as a clear channel assessment (CCA) prior to communicating in order to determine whether the shared channel is available.”).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, the method of claim 1 and the access node of claim 13, respectively, wherein the criteria related to the first EDT or the second EDT comprises the determined signal energy in the first channel being below the first EDT or the determined signal energy in the second channel being below the second EDT ([0030] “determine whether a reception power level of a received secondary channel signal exceeds the secondary channel CCA threshold.”).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, the method of claim 1 and the access node of claim 13, respectively, the method further comprising: determining that the signal belonging to the traffic type is to be transmitted prior to determining signal energy in the channel of the spectrum ([Damnjanovic, 0081 and Fig. 4] “At block 400, a transmitter node identifies information for transmission on a shared communication channel.”).
Regarding claim 11, the method of claim 1, wherein determining signal energy in the channel of the spectrum comprises:
detecting energy in the first channel; and detecting energy in the second channel in response to the detected energy in the first channel being greater than the first EDT (See Fig. 5 for S530, S540 and S550. The flow chart depicted in Fig. 5 shows performing CCA on the primary channel at S530 and performing CCA on the secondary channel at 550 if necessary as shown at S540.);
wherein transmitting the signal belonging to the traffic type over the channel comprises: transmitting the signal belonging to the traffic type over the second channel in response to the detected energy in the second channel being less than or equal to the first EDT (See S560.).
Regarding claim 12, the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the signal belonging to the traffic type further comprising: determining a channel occupancy period (COP) based on the traffic type; and transmitting the signal belonging to the traffic type over the channel of the spectrum within the COP ([Damnjanovic, 0095] “The access trigger condition may further relate to current channel conditions that effect the error rate of the node's previous transmissions. For example, if UE 115h has successfully obtained access to the shared medium for transmission, but the error rate for such transmissions exceeded a threshold error rate, UE 115h may select a strengthened ED threshold from the set of candidate ED thresholds. The strengthened ED threshold may result in an decreased error rate on subsequent transmission by backing off when interfering signals are detected at the strengthened ED threshold that may not have been detected at the ED threshold previously used by UE 115h. Such an example aspect may further relate to the allowed COT size. Where the allowed COT size is below a certain length, UE 115h may select the strengthened ED threshold”).
Claim(s) 4, 10 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2017/0086226) in view of Damnjanovic et al. (US 2021/0400730, “Damnjanovic”) and further in view of John Wilson et al. (US 2022/0038915, “Wilson”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Wang unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, it is noted that while disclosing two channel with two thresholds, Wang does not specifically teach about two different traffic types for channels. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Wilson as follows;
the method of claim 2 and the access node of claim 13, respectively, wherein the first channel is configured for the first traffic type, and the second channel is configured for the second traffic type ([Wilson, 0161] “the first priority of the shared channel or shared signal transmission is associated with a first traffic type or a first channel type based on the set of priority rules. In some aspects, the second priority of the potential shared channel or shared signal transmission is associated with a second traffic type or a second channel type based on the set of priority rules”, and [Wilson, 0136] “the first and second priorities of the shared and potential shared transmissions, may be associated with a first traffic type or a first channel type (e.g., URLLC traffic), and a second traffic or channel type (e.g., non URLLC, or eMBB traffic), respectively.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Wang by using the features of Wilson in order to support user devices with different capabilities such that “beamforming techniques may be utilized for transmissions or receptions, and a user equipment (UE) may support communications according to various quasi co-location (QCL) (e.g., spatial) parameters.” [Wilson, 0005].
Regarding claim 10, the method of claim 1, the method further comprising: receiving at least one configuration signal to provide configurations for sharing the spectrum, each configuration signal being received via Radio Resource Control (RRC) signalling, Downlink Control Information (DCI) signalling, or Medium Access Control-Control Element (MAC-CE) signalling ([Wilson, 0084] “the Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol layer may provide establishment, configuration, and maintenance of an RRC connection between a UE 115 and a base station 105 or core network 130 supporting radio bearers for user plane data.”).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Wilson are the same as for claim 4.
Claim(s) 8-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2017/0086226) in view of Damnjanovic et al. (US 2021/0400730, “Damnjanovic”) and further in view of Sengupta et al. (US 2025/0016783, “Sengupta”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Wang unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 8, it is noted that while disclosing two channel with two thresholds, Wang does not specifically teach about a pilot signal. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Sengupta as follows;
the method of claim 1, the method further comprising: transmitting at least one pilot signal along with the signal over the channel of the spectrum, wherein each of the at least one pilot signal indicates the traffic type of the signal ([Sengupta, 0158] “to indicate DMRS antenna ports to UEs for Ultra Reliable Low-Latency Communications (URLLC) transmissions in DL and UL”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Wang by using the features of Sengupta in order to effectively control wireless devices such that “A described technique performed by a user equipment (UE) includes receiving configuration information that determines a bit-width value for an antenna port indication field of a downlink control information (DCI) format” [Sengupta, 0004].
Regarding claim 9, the method of claim 8, wherein each of the at least one pilot signal is a reference signal or a demodulation reference signal (DMRS), which is pre-defined or preconfigured ([Sengupta, 0186] “A technique for DMRS antenna port indication for NR URLLC can include transmitting, receiving, or using a configuration of an antenna port indication field in a DCI message.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry H. Kim whose telephone number and email address are as follows; 571-272-5009, harry.kim2@uspto.gov.
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 Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from www.uspto.gov. For questions or assistance, 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.
/HARRY H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights