DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in reply communication filed on 09/06/2024.
Claims 1-4, 7-14, 17-20, and 23-26 are pending.
Claim 5-6, 15-16, and 21-22 are cancelled.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4, 7-10, 12-14, and 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-4, 7-10, 12-14, and 17-20 recited, “The method of…” in line 1. For clarity, it is suggested to change to “The guard period determination method…”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 11-12, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SENGUPTA et al. (US 2022/0039125).
Regarding claim 1, SENGUPTA discloses a guard period determination method, performed by a terminal [Fig. 1, ¶ 78-80 a method of UE 120 for guard-interval time-domain resource determination], comprising:
determining a time domain range corresponding to an uplink subband for uplink transmission in downlink slots [see Fig. 6B, ¶ 78; determine the one or more time-domain resources of the downlink timeline 610 (e.g., slots 5-8) as the configurable gap 616]; and
determining a guard period in the time domain range [see Fig. 2, ¶ 35; determining that the guard-interval time-domain resources (e.g., slots 4 and 9) are included in the configurable gap 616].
Regarding claim 2, SENGUPTA discloses the method of claim 1.
SENGUPTA further discloses wherein the guard period is for the terminal to switch from downlink reception to the uplink transmission [see Fig. 6C, ¶ 81; wherein the guard-interval time-domain resources/(guard period) is for the UE 120/terminal to switch from downlink reception to the uplink transmission].
Regarding claims 11-12, the claims recite a guard period determination method, performed by a network device to perform the guard period determination method, of the terminal recited as in claims 1-2 respectively; therefore, claims 11-12 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 1-2 respectively.
. Regarding claim 23, the claim recites a communication device, comprising: a processor; and a memory storing computer programs [Fig. 2, ¶ 48; the UE 120 includes a transceiver. The transceiver may include any combination of antenna(s) 252, modulators and/or demodulators 254, MIMO detector 256, receive processor 258, transmit processor 264, and/or TX MIMO processor 266], wherein the computer programs, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the functions of the communication device recited as in claim 1; therefore, claim 23 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 1.
Regarding claim 24, the claim recites a communication device, comprising: a processor; and a memory storing computer programs [Fig. 2, ¶ 46; Network controller 130 may include communication unit 294, controller/processor 290, and memory 292], wherein the computer programs, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the functions of the communication device recited as in claim 1; therefore, claim 24 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 1.
Regarding claim 25, the claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing computer programs thereon, wherein the computer programs [Fig. 2, ¶ 126; a non-transitory computer-readable medium and executable by a controller or a processor to perform the functions], when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the functions of the communication device recited as in claim 1; therefore, claim 25 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 1.
Regarding claim 26, the claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing computer programs thereon, wherein the computer programs, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the guard period determination method [Fig. 2, ¶ 50; memory 282 may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions (e.g., code and/or program code) for wireless communication], performed by a terminal recited as in claim 1; therefore, claim 26 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 1.
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 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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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.
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over SENGUPTA et al. (US 2022/0039125) in view of MOON et al. (US 2023/0354275).
Regarding claim 3, SENGUPTA discloses the method of claim 1.
SENGUPTA does not explicitly disclose wherein determining the guard period before or in the time domain range comprises: determining, based on a pre-agreed rule, the guard period in a time domain resource closest to a start of the time domain range and before the start of the time domain range; or determining, based on a pre-agreed rule, the guard period in the time domain range.
However, MOON discloses wherein determining the guard period before or in the time domain range comprises: determining, based on a pre-agreed rule [see ¶ 318; the available time period of the guard band may be determined by a predefined rule], the guard period in a time domain resource closest to a start of the time domain range and before the start of the time domain range [see ¶ 144; the transmission in the guard band may be performed at least at the same time as transmission in the two LBT subbands within the COT of the first period (e.g., a set of symbols constituting the first period, a start time of the first period, and/or the length of the first period)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein determining the guard period before or in the time domain range comprises: determining, based on a pre-agreed rule, the guard period in a time domain resource closest to a start of the time domain range and before the start of the time domain range; or determining, based on a pre-agreed rule, the guard period in the time domain range” as taught by MOON in the system of SENGUPTA, so that it would to improve a channel access method and a transmission method to effectively support the above-described usage scenarios (e.g., URLLC) in unlicensed band communication [see MOON; ¶ 3].
Regarding claim 4, the combined system of SENGUPTA and MOON discloses the method of claim 3.
SENGUPTA does not explicitly disclose wherein the guard period comprises at least one time domain symbol, close to the start of the time domain range, in the time domain resource; or the guard period comprises at least one time domain symbol in the time domain range and close to the start of the time domain range.
However, MOON discloses wherein the guard period comprises at least one time domain symbol, close to the start of the time domain range, in the time domain resource; or the guard period comprises at least one time domain symbol in the time domain range and close to the start of the time domain range [see ¶ 144; the transmission in the guard band may be performed within the COT of the first period (e.g., a set of symbols constituting the first period, a start time of the first period, and/or the length of the first period), wherein the symbol(s) constituting the first period may be consecutive in the time domain].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the guard period comprises at least one time domain symbol, close to the start of the time domain range, in the time domain resource; or the guard period comprises at least one time domain symbol in the time domain range and close to the start of the time domain range” as taught by MOON in the system of SENGUPTA, so that it would to improve a channel access method and a transmission method to effectively support the above-described usage scenarios (e.g., URLLC) in unlicensed band communication [see MOON; ¶ 3].
Regarding claims 13-14, the claims recite method of claim 11 to perform the guard period determination method, of the terminal recited as in claims 3-4 respectively; therefore, claims 13-14 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 3-4 respectively.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over SENGUPTA et al. (US 2022/0039125) in view of ZHANG et al. (US 2023/0064285).
Regarding claim 7, SENGUPTA discloses the method of claim 1.
SENGUPTA does not explicitly disclose determining, based on an indication from a network device, a length of the guard period.
However, ZHANG discloses determining, based on an indication from a network device, a length of the guard period [see Fig. 17, ¶ 190; determining a first length of the first guard interval].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “determining, based on an indication from a network device, a length of the guard period” as taught by ZHANG in the system of SENGUPTA, so that it would to provide a common protocol that enables different UEs to communicate on a municipal, national, regional, and/or global level [see ZHANG; ¶ 4].
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the method of claim 11 to perform the guard period determination method of the terminal recited as in claim 7; therefore, claim 17 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 7.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over SENGUPTA et al. (US 2022/0039125) in view of ZHANG et al. (US 2023/0064285), and further in view of Haghighat et al. (US 2024/0187058).
Regarding claim 8, the combined system of SENGUPTA and ZHANG discloses the method of claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: transmitting to the network device switching capability information, for switching from downlink reception to the uplink transmission, of the terminal.
However, Haghighat discloses transmitting to the network device switching capability information, for switching from downlink reception to the uplink transmission, of the terminal [see ¶ 167; WTRU may indicate (e.g., transmit capability information indicating) its capability for performing antenna switching for a first subset of Tx chains when it may have (e.g., during) an ongoing transmission on a second subset of Tx chains.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “transmitting to the network device switching capability information, for switching from downlink reception to the uplink transmission, of the terminal” as taught by Haghighat in the combined system of SENGUPTA and ZHANG, so that it would to provide a common protocol that enables different UEs to communicate on a municipal, national, regional, and/or global level [see Haghighat; ¶ 4].
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the method of claim 7 to perform the guard period determination method of the terminal recited as in claim 8; therefore, claim 18 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 8.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over SENGUPTA et al. (US 2022/0039125) in view of ZHANG et al. (US 2023/0064285), and further in view of MIAO et al. (US 2023/0076690).
Regarding claim 9, the combined system of SENGUPTA and ZHANG discloses the method of claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: transmitting to the network device information related to a communication delay from the terminal to the network device.
However, MIAO discloses transmitting to the network device information related to a communication delay from the terminal to the network device [see Fig. 6, ¶ 125; transmit the PRACH signal at a PRACH signal transmission occasion according to a calculated initial TA and the delay information/(related to TA offset value from the initial TA as a final TA value)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “transmitting to the network device switching capability information, for switching from downlink reception to the uplink transmission, of the terminal” as taught by MIAO in the combined system of SENGUPTA and ZHANG, so that it would to access after connection failure of the radio link, and recovery of uplink time-frequency synchronization when there is uplink or downlink data transmission, etc. [see MIAO; ¶ 3].
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the method of claim 7 to perform the guard period determination method of the terminal recited as in claim 9; therefore, claim 19 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 9.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over SENGUPTA et al. (US 2022/0039125) in view of MIAO et al. (US 2023/0076690).
Regarding claim 10, SENGUPTA discloses the method of claim 1.
SENGUPTA does not explicitly disclose determining, based on an indication from a network device, a starting slot for the uplink subband in the downlink slots.
However, MIAO discloses determining, based on an indication from a network device, a starting slot for the uplink subband in the downlink slots [see ¶ 121; determining by the UE received a downlink signal sent by the network side device, obtains a timing starting point of a signal subframe or slot of a downlink received signal as a receiving timing point of a downlink signal based on the detection of the downlink signal].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “determining, based on an indication from a network device, a starting slot for the uplink subband in the downlink slots” as taught by MIAO in the system of SENGUPTA, so that it would to access after connection failure of the radio link, and recovery of uplink time-frequency synchronization when there is uplink or downlink data transmission, etc. [see MIAO; ¶ 3].
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites the method of claim 11 to perform the guard period determination method of the terminal recited as in claim 10; therefore, claim 20 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 10.
Conclusion
In additional to references cited that are used for rejection as set forth above, YEO et al. (US 2022/0353026) is also considered as relevant prior arts for rejection of in claims 1, 11, 23, 24, 25, and 26 (See YEO; Figs. 1E, 3A, ¶¶ 137, 320).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG LA whose telephone number is (571)272-2588. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (EST).
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/PHONG LA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights