DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 21-39 are presented for examination.
Claim(s) 21-39 are new.
Claim(s) 1-20 are canceled.
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 .
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P.201.14(c), acknowledgement is made to applicant’s claim for priority based on application(s) 63/327,069 submitted on April 4th, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on August 29th, 2024 and August 12th, 2025 follow the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-24, 26-31 and 33-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2023/0413320 A1) hereinafter “Singh” in view of CHIEN (US 2023/0146487 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 28,
Singh discloses a user equipment (UE) [see fig. 9, pg. 10, ¶147 lines 1-13, a wireless communication device “900” (e.g., UE “412”)], comprising:
at least one memory [see fig. 9, pg. 10, ¶147 lines 1-13, memory “904”]; and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to [see fig. 9, pg. 10, ¶147 lines 1-13, one or more processors “902” implemented to]:
select a destination associated with unicast [see fig. 5: Step(s) “504”/ “506”, pg. 9, ¶141 lines 1-4, responsive to the determination made, the radio node (UE “412”) selects a particular channel occupancy time (COT) from among the gNB-initiated COT and the UE-initiated COT to be used], for transmission [see fig. 5: Step(s) “504”/ “506”, pg. 9, ¶141 lines 1-4, for the particular transmission], wherein the transmission comprises of a logical channel with a highest priority [see fig. 5: Step “502”, pg. 9, ¶139 lines 17-21, the UE “412” autonomously determines priority of the of a gNB-initiated COT and a UE-initiated COT relative to one another and then sends information that indicates this priority to the gNB “402”].
Although Singh discloses selecting a destination for transmission, Singh does not explicitly teach the destination is selected “based at least in part on information indicating whether there is channel occupancy time (COT) sharing”.
However Chien discloses selecting a destination associated with unicast [see pg. 9, ¶168 lines 1-7, according to a decision rule, the UE “10” selects a COT type], for transmission [see pg. 9, ¶168 lines 1-7, whose idle period does not overlap with the CG or DG uplink resource], wherein the transmission comprises of a logical channel with a highest priority [see pg. 9, ¶160 lines 1-2; ¶168 lines 1-7, the UE “10” selects the COT type according to a priority level of the uplink traffic (i.e., LCG (logic channel group) priority levels for triggering scheduling request(s))], wherein the destination is selected based at least in part on information indicating whether there is channel occupancy time (COT) sharing [see pg. 9, ¶168 lines 1-7; ¶169 lines 1-7, the COT type determination at the UE “10” with decision rule(s) is/are shared with the gNB “20”; or the UE “10” autonomously decides the COT type].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the destination is selected “based at least in part on information indicating whether there is channel occupancy time (COT) sharing” as taught by Chien in the system of Singh for efficiently supporting gNB-initiated channel occupancy time (COT) sharing without inducing latency for UL transmissions, especially for configured grant UL transmissions [see Singh, pg. 1, ¶3 lines 1-9].
Regarding Claims 22 and 29,
The combined system of Singh and Chien discloses the UE of claim 21.
Singh further discloses wherein the information indicating whether there is COT sharing is received from lower layers of the UE [see, pg. 9, ¶138 lines 1-4, UL transmission (PUCCH or PUSCH) with higher physical layer priority use a different option than UL transmission (PUCCH or PUSCH) with lower physical layer priority].
Regarding Claims 23 and 30,
The combined system of Singh and Chien discloses the UE of claim 21.
Singh further discloses wherein the transmission is in a shared COT [see, pg. 6, ¶77 lines 4-7, when these COTs are available, the UE and the gNB each has the possibility to transmit in either COT, either by initiating a COT or sharing an initiated COT].
Regarding Claims 24 and 31,
The combined system of Singh and Chien discloses the UE of claim 21.
Singh further discloses wherein a requirement for the transmission to the selected destination to be in a shared COT is configured [see, pg. 6, ¶77 lines 4-7, if a UE or gNB initiates or shares a COT for a transmission, the UE or gNB is not allowed to transmit in the idle period of the FFP associated to that COT].
Regarding Claims 26 and 33,
Singh discloses the UE of claim 21.
Singh does not explicitly teach the at least one processor is configured to “cause the UE to apply an offset value to a logical channel priority in response to the transmission to the selected destination being in a shared COT”.
However Chien discloses cause the UE to apply an offset value to a logical channel priority in response to the transmission to the selected destination being in a shared COT [see pg. 6, ¶91 lines 1-4, one or more than one set of period and offset values are configured jointly, e.g., {period, offset} or individually, e.g., {period} and {offset} respectively, for a single UE, such as the UE “10”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “cause the UE to apply an offset value to a logical channel priority in response to the transmission to the selected destination being in a shared COT” as taught by Chien in the system of Singh for the same motivation as set forth in claim 21.
Regarding Claim 27,
Singh discloses the UE of claim 21.
Singh does not explicitly teach “cause the UE to receive a configuration indicating whether to apply an offset value to a logical channel priority in response to the transmission to the selected destination being in a shared COT”.
However Chien discloses cause the UE to receive a configuration indicating whether to apply an offset value to a logical channel priority in response to the transmission to the selected destination being in a shared COT [see pg. 6, ¶91 lines 1-4, one or more than one set of period and offset values are configured jointly, e.g., {period, offset} or individually, e.g., {period} and {offset} respectively, for a single UE, such as the UE “10”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “cause the UE to receive a configuration indicating whether to apply an offset value to a logical channel priority in response to the transmission to the selected destination being in a shared COT” as taught by Chien in the system of Singh for the same motivation as set forth in claim 21.
Regarding Claims 34 and 37,
Singh discloses a base station [see fig. 6, pg. 9, ¶142 lines 1-12, a network node “600”, gNB, or base station “402”], comprising:
at least one memory [see fig. 6, pg. 9, ¶142 lines 1-12, memory “606”]; and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the base station to [see fig. 6, pg. 9, ¶142 lines 1-12, one or more processors “604” implemented to]:
receive a transmission associated with one of unicast [see fig. 5: Step “508”, pg. 9, ¶141 lines 1-6, a radio node (UE “412”) transmits and the gNB “402” receives a particular transmission in the selected COT], wherein the transmission comprises of a logical channel with a highest priority [see fig. 5: Step “502”, pg. 9, ¶139 lines 17-21, the UE “412” autonomously determines priority of the of a gNB-initiated COT and a UE-initiated COT relative to one another and then sends information that indicates this priority to the gNB “402”].
Although Singh discloses receiving a transmission, Singh does not explicitly teach the transmission is “based at least in part on information indicating whether there is channel occupancy time (COT) sharing”.
However Chien discloses receiving a transmission associated with unicast [see pg. 9, ¶169 lines 1-7, the UE “10” notifies the gNB “20” of the selected COT type via an uplink signal (e.g., CG-UCI) over an uplink channel], wherein the transmission comprises of a logical channel with a highest priority [see pg. 9, ¶160 lines 1-2; ¶168 lines 1-7, the UE “10” selects the COT type according to a priority level of the uplink traffic (i.e., LCG (logic channel group) priority levels for triggering scheduling request(s))], and wherein the transmission is based at least in part on information indicating whether there is channel occupancy time (COT) sharing [see pg. 9, ¶168 lines 1-7; ¶169 lines 1-7, the COT type determination at the UE “10” with decision rule(s) is/are shared with the gNB “20”; or the UE “10” autonomously decides the COT type].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the transmission is “based at least in part on information indicating whether there is channel occupancy time (COT) sharing” as taught by Chien in the system of Singh for efficiently supporting gNB-initiated channel occupancy time (COT) sharing without inducing latency for UL transmissions, especially for configured grant UL transmissions [see Singh, pg. 1, ¶3 lines 1-9].
Regarding Claims 35 and 38,
The combined system of Singh and Chien discloses the base station of claim 34.
Singh further discloses wherein the transmission is in a shared COT [see, pg. 6, ¶77 lines 4-7, when these COTs are available, the UE and the gNB each has the possibility to transmit in either COT, either by initiating a COT or sharing an initiated COT].
Regarding Claims 36 and 39,
Singh discloses the base station of claim 34.
Singh does not explicitly teach the at least one processor is further configured to “cause the base station to transmit a configuration indicating whether to apply an offset value to a logical channel priority in response to the transmission being in a shared COT”.
However Chien discloses cause the base station to transmit a configuration indicating whether to apply an offset value to a logical channel priority in response to the transmission being in a shared COT [see pg. 6, ¶91 lines 1-4, one or more than one set of period and offset values are configured jointly, e.g., {period, offset} or individually, e.g., {period} and {offset} respectively, for a single UE, such as the UE “10”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “cause the base station to transmit a configuration indicating whether to apply an offset value to a logical channel priority in response to the transmission being in a shared COT” as taught by Chien in the system of Singh for the same motivation as set forth in claim 34.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25 and 32 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
United States Patent Application Publication: CHISCI et al. (US 2022/0377754 A1); see fig. 14, pgs. 14-15, ¶165- ¶172.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSHIL P SAMPAT whose telephone number is (469) 295-9141. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (8 AM - 5 PM).
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUSHIL P. SAMPAT/Primary Examiner- TC 2400, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights