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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 08/22/2024 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Independent Claims
Claim(s) 1, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wentzloff (US-20210258878).
As to claim 1, 13, 20: Wentzloff teaches a channel listening method, comprising: performing, by a communication dev11ice, channel listening through a first receiver ([0003] listening to all channels); wherein the first receiver is a low power consumption receiver, or the first receiver is a zero power consumption receiver ([0011] low-power).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
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.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 2, 4, 5, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wentzloff (US-20210258878) in view of Li (US-20200037354).
As to claim 2, 14: Wentzloff teaches the method according to claim 1.
Wentzloff 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 first channel occupancy time (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 first channel occupancy time (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 Wentzloff, 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 Wentzloff 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: Wentzloff teaches the method according to claim 2.
Wentzloff 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 Wentzloff, 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 Wentzloff 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: Wentzloff teaches the method according to claim 2.
Wentzloff 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 Wentzloff, 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 Wentzloff 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 Wentzloff (US-20210258878), Li (US-20200037354) in view of Li (US-20220131725), Thyagarajan (US-20210051720).
As to claim 3: Wentzloff teaches the method according to claim 2.
Wentzloff 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 Wentzloff, 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 Wentzloff 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.
Wentzloff 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 Wentzloff, 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 Wentzloff 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 Wentzloff (US-20210258878), Li (US-20200037354) in view of Nam (US-20200205020).
As to claim 6: Wentzloff teaches the method according to claim 2.
Wentzloff 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 Wentzloff, 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 Wentzloff 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 Wentzloff (US-20210258878), Li (US-20200037354) in view of Bhattad (US-20180332533).
As to claim 7, 16: Wentzloff teaches the method according to claim 2.
Wentzloff 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 Wentzloff, 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 Wentzloff 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.
Wentzloff 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 Wentzloff, 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 Wentzloff 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) 8, 9, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wentzloff (US-20210258878), Li (US-20200037354) in view of Yingzhe (US-20200359411).
As to claim 8, 17: Wentzloff teaches the method according to claim 2.
Wentzloff may not explicitly teach further comprising: performing, by the communication device, channel occupancy and data transmission on a target channel within a second COT 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. However, Yingzhe teaches further comprising: performing, by the communication device, channel occupancy ([0430]) and data transmission (abstract) on a target channel within a second COT through a transceiver in a case where a result of channel listening of the first receiver indicates that the target channel is idle ([0101]) and the second COT is obtained ([0116] MCOT obtained by UE).
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 Wentzloff, 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.
As to claim 9: Wentzloff teaches the method according to claim 8.
Wentzloff 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 Wentzloff, 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 Wentzloff (US-20210258878) in view of Jiang (US-20200170039).
As to claim 10, 18: Wentzloff teaches the method according to claim 1.
Wentzloff 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 Wentzloff, 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 Wentzloff 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: Wentzloff teaches the method according to claim 10.
Wentzloff 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 Wentzloff, 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 Wentzloff 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 Wentzloff (US-20210258878) in view of Wang (WO-2021022874-A1).
As to claim 12, 19: Wentzloff teaches the method according to claim 1.
Wentzloff 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 Wentzloff, 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 Wentzloff 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
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
Prosecution Insights