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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 13, 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Independent Claims
Claim(s) 1, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talarico (US-20200396767) in view of Simpson (US-20050130713), Gan (US-20200015179).
As to claim 1, 13, 20: Talarico teaches a channel listening method, comprising: … ; wherein the method further comprises: performing by the communication device, channel occupancy and data transmission on a target channel within a second channel occupancy time (COT) ([0248] obtaining a channel occupancy time (COT) during a valid FFP for transmission and reception on the operating channel) through a transceiver in a case where a result of channel listening of the first receiver indicates that the target channel is idle and the second COT is obtained ([0157, 248] the method includes causing the gNB to transmit downlink (DL) transmission bursts within the valid FFP immediately after sensing the operating channel to be idle).
Talarico may not explicitly teach performing, by a communication device, channel listening through a first receiver, to determine whether a channel is idle; wherein the first receiver is a low power consumption receiver, or the first receiver is a zero power consumption receiver. However, Simpson teaches performing, by a communication device, channel listening through a first receiver, to determine whether a channel is idle ([0013-15] received signal strength information (RSSI) detection and/or measurement techniques can be used to determine whether the channel is presently clear); wherein the first receiver is a low power consumption receiver, or the first receiver is a zero power consumption receiver ([0012, 13] first low-power mode receiver can be used to detect channel energy indicia as part of a clear channel assessment process).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement channel sensing / LBT using low-power, taught by Simpson, into the communication system, taught by Talarico, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce power consumption for CCA. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Simpson and Talarico in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Talarico may not explicitly teach wherein the transceiver is a primary transceiver. However, Gan teaches wherein the transceiver is a primary transceiver ([0004] main transceiver).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement main transceiver, taught by Gan, into the communication system, taught by Talarico, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and a full-functioning high power radio for communication. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Talarico and Gan in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 2, 4, 5, 14, 15, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talarico (US-20200396767), Simpson (US-20050130713), Gan (US-20200015179) in view of Li (US-20200037354).
As to claim 2, 14, 21: Talarico teaches the method according to claim 1.
Talarico may not explicitly teach wherein performing, by the communication device, channel listening through the first receiver comprises: performing, by the communication device, channel listening within a COT through the first receiver; and/or performing, by the communication device, channel listening outside a first COT through the first receiver; wherein the first COT is a COT obtained by the communication device through channel listening. However, Li teaches wherein performing, by the communication device, channel listening through the first receiver comprises: performing, by the communication device, channel listening within a COT through the first receiver ([0181]); and/or performing, by the communication device, channel listening outside a first COT through the first receiver ([0401-403]); wherein the first COT is a COT obtained by the communication device through channel listening (abstract perform a listen-before-talk (LBT) operation over the operating channel according to the identified channel access mechanism and obtain a channel occupancy time (COT) for transmission and reception on the operating channel after the LBT operation is successful).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement COT, taught by Li, into the communication system, taught by Talarico, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce power consumption . In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Talarico and Li in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 4, 15, 22: Talarico teaches the method according to claim 2.
Talarico may not explicitly teach wherein the first COT being the COT obtained by the communication device through the channel listening comprises: the first COT being a COT obtained by channel listening performed by the communication device through the first receiver, or the first COT being a COT obtained by channel listening performed by the communication device through a transceiver. However, Li teaches wherein the first COT being the COT obtained by the communication device through the channel listening comprises: the first COT being a COT obtained by channel listening performed by the communication device through the first receiver, or the first COT being a COT obtained by channel listening performed by the communication device through a transceiver (abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement COT, taught by Li, into the communication system, taught by Talarico, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and determine if the channel is available. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Talarico and Li in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 5: Talarico teaches the method according to claim 2.
Talarico may not explicitly teach wherein a transceiver of the communication device is in a transmitting state within the first COT, or a transceiver of the communication device is in a receiving state within the first COT. However, Li teaches wherein a transceiver of the communication device is in a transmitting state within the first COT (abstract), or a transceiver of the communication device is in a receiving state within the first COT (abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement COT, taught by Li, into the communication system, taught by Talarico, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and perform parallel operations. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Talarico and Li in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talarico (US-20200396767), Simpson (US-20050130713), Gan (US-20200015179), Li (US-20200037354) in view of Li (US-20220131725), Thyagarajan (US-20210051720).
As to claim 3: Talarico teaches the method according to claim 2.
Talarico may not explicitly teach wherein in a case where the communication device performs channel listening within the first COT through the first receiver, a frequency of a channel corresponding to the first COT is different from a frequency of a channel to which the communication device listens through the first receiver. However, Li ‘725 teaches wherein in a case where the communication device performs channel listening within the first COT through the first receiver, a frequency of a channel corresponding to the first COT is different from a frequency of a channel to which the communication device listens through the first receiver ([0054-55] COT on SB setX, LBT on SB setY).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement different frequencies, taught by Li, into the communication system, taught by Talarico, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce interference . In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Talarico and Li in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Talarico may not explicitly teach and a frequency interval between the frequency of the channel corresponding to the first COT and the frequency of the channel to which the communication device listens through the first receiver is greater than or equal to a first threshold. However, Thyagarajan teaches and a frequency interval between the frequency of the channel corresponding to the first COT and the frequency of the channel to which the communication device listens through the first receiver is greater than or equal to a first threshold (fig.3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement higher frequency, taught by Thyagarajan, into the communication system, taught by Talarico, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce interference. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Thyagarajan and Talarico in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talarico (US-20200396767), Simpson (US-20050130713), Gan (US-20200015179), Li (US-20200037354) in view of Nam (US-20200205020).
As to claim 6: Talarico teaches the method according to claim 2.
Talarico may not explicitly teach further comprising: determining, by the communication device, whether to perform channel listening through the first receiver according to a semi-statically configured channel listening mode. However, Nam teaches further comprising: determining, by the communication device, whether to perform channel listening through the first receiver according to a semi-statically configured channel listening mode ([0095] channel monitoring parameters may be semi-statically configured for UE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement semi-static channel listening, taught by Nam, into the communication system, taught by Talarico, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and pre-configure the UE. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Talarico and Nam in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 7, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talarico (US-20200396767), Simpson (US-20050130713), Gan (US-20200015179), Li (US-20200037354) in view of Bhattad (US-20180332533).
As to claim 7, 16: Talarico teaches the method according to claim 2.
Talarico may not explicitly teach wherein a receiver used by the communication device to perform listening within the first COT is … from a receiver used by the communication device to perform listening outside the first COT. However, Li teaches wherein a receiver used by the communication device to perform listening within the first COT ([0181]) is … from a receiver used by the communication device to perform listening outside the first COT ([0401-0403]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement COT, taught by Li, into the communication system, taught by Talarico, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and optimize power usage. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Talarico and Li in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Talarico may not explicitly teach different. However, Bhattad teaches different ([0089] wake-up receiver, primary receiver).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement different receivers, taught by Bhattad, into the communication system, taught by Talarico, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and use different radios at different phases. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Talarico and Bhattad in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talarico (US-20200396767), Simpson (US-20050130713), Gan (US-20200015179), Li (US-20200037354) in view of Yingzhe (US-20200359411).
As to claim 9: Talarico teaches the method according to claim 2.
Talarico may not explicitly teach further comprising: determining, by the communication device according to a size of a gap between the first COT and the second COT, a type of channel listening to be performed by the transceiver of the communication device prior to start of the second COT. However, Yingzhe teaches further comprising: determining, by the communication device according to a size of a gap between the first COT and the second COT, a type of channel listening to be performed by the transceiver of the communication device prior to start of the second COT ([0319]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement multiple COTs, taught by Yingzhe, into the communication system, taught by Talarico, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and channel sense the channel and transmit on it. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine the references in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talarico (US-20200396767), Simpson (US-20050130713), Gan (US-20200015179) in view of Jiang (US-20200170039).
As to claim 10, 18: Talarico teaches the method according to claim 1.
Talarico may not explicitly teach wherein performing, by the communication device, channel listening through the first receiver comprises: determining, by the communication device, whether a target channel is idle according to an amplitude of a signal received by the first receiver in a process of listening to the target channel and a signal amplitude threshold. However, Jiang teaches wherein performing, by the communication device, channel listening through the first receiver comprises: determining, by the communication device, whether a target channel is idle according to an amplitude of a signal received by the first receiver in a process of listening to the target channel and a signal amplitude threshold ([0025, 27]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement measure signal amplitude, taught by Jiang, into the communication system, taught by Talarico, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and determine whether channel is active. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Talarico and Jiang in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 11: Talarico teaches the method according to claim 10.
Talarico may not explicitly teach wherein determining, by the communication device, whether the target channel is idle according to the amplitude of the signal received by the first receiver in the process of listening to the target channel and the signal amplitude threshold comprises: determining, by the communication device, that the target channel is non-idle in a case where the amplitude of the signal received by the first receiver in the process of listening to the target channel is greater than or equal to the signal amplitude threshold; and/or determining, by the communication device, that the target channel is idle in a case where the amplitude of the signal received by the first receiver in the process of listening to the target channel is less than the signal amplitude threshold. However, Jiang teaches wherein determining, by the communication device, whether the target channel is idle according to the amplitude of the signal received by the first receiver in the process of listening to the target channel and the signal amplitude threshold comprises: determining, by the communication device, that the target channel is non-idle in a case where the amplitude of the signal received by the first receiver in the process of listening to the target channel is greater than or equal to the signal amplitude threshold; and/or determining, by the communication device, that the target channel is idle in a case where the amplitude of the signal received by the first receiver in the process of listening to the target channel is less than the signal amplitude threshold ([0025, 27]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement measure signal amplitude, taught by Jiang, into the communication system, taught by Talarico, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and determine whether channel is active. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Talarico and Jiang in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talarico (US-20200396767), Simpson (US-20050130713), Gan (US-20200015179) in view of Wang (WO-2021022874-A1).
As to claim 12, 19: Talarico teaches the method according to claim 1.
Talarico may not explicitly teach further comprising: transmitting, by the communication device, first capability information, wherein the first capability information is used to indicate that the communication device supports to perform channel listening through the first receiver. However, Wang teaches further comprising: transmitting, by the communication device, first capability information, wherein the first capability information is used to indicate that the communication device supports to perform channel listening through the first receiver (abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement capability information, taught by Wang, into the communication system, taught by Talarico, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and apprise network of capabilities. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Wang and Talarico in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
