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 Amendment
The preliminary amendments to the claims filed on 07/09/2026 have been accepted and entered for examination.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. The title recites, “Terminal and Communication Method”. The title of invention is “technically inaccurate and non-descriptive”. [See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606]. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Terminal and Communication Method for performing multi-channel access procedure in a subchannel for a device-to-device direct communication” or equivalent thereof.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit” and “communication unit” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0269730 A1 Sun et al. (hereafter refers as Sun) in view of US 2022/0272543 A1 to Abotabl et al. (hereafter refers as Abotabl), in view of US 2019/0246412 A1 to Noh et al. (hereafter refers as Noh) and further in view of US 2017/0230945 A1 to Babaei et al. (hereafter refers as Babaei).
Regarding claim 7, Sun teaches a terminal (first UE, Fig. 1, 4C, 14 and paragraphs [35-36, 39, 55, 103]) comprising:
a control unit (wherein the first UE comprises a processor configured to perform the function of the first UE, paragraphs [8, 103] and Fig. 2) configured to configure a certain subchannel (configuring at least one sidelink sub-channel comprising a first RB set and a second RB set, paragraphs [105-107]) with non-consecutive resource allocation in a frequency domain in a resource pool (wherein the first RB set is non-consecutive resource allocation in a frequency domain to the second RB set, in a resource pool, i.e. sub-channel 1, 3 or 5, paragraphs [90-91, 93-96, 108-110] and Fig. 10-11) for a device-to-device direct communication (for sidelink communication with a second UE, paragraphs [6, 55, 67, 81, 111]) and configure an intra-cell guard band (configuring an intra-cell guard band, i.e. avoid the intra-cell guard band, paragraphs [30, 74, 90, 91, 94, 98]); and
a communication unit (circuitries of processor for performing functions of communication, Fig. 14-15 and paragraphs [119-120, 138-140]) configured to perform a multi-channel access procedure in the subchannel (for perform LBT procedure across the first RB set and the second RB set of the subchannel, paragraphs [111, 139-140]),
wherein the communication unit performs a first multi-channel access method or a second multi- channel access method as the multi-channel access procedure (for performing LBT procedure on a plurality of RBs in frequency domain, paragraphs [74, 96, 107, 111]).
However, Sun does not explicitly teach configure an intra-cell guard band “based on RRC (Radio Resource Control) signaling”.
Abotabl teaches a terminal (UE, Fig. 2, 10 and paragraphs [60, 79]) comprising:
a control unit (wherein the UE comprises a processor configured to perform the function, paragraphs [6, 171-173] and Fig. 2, 10, 14) configured to configure a certain subchannel (configuring at least one set of frequency resources for channel access procedure, paragraphs [141-143]) and configure an intra-cell guard band based on RRC (Radio Resource Control) signaling (configures an intra-cell guard band for the frequency resources, i.e. between RB sets, based on an intra-cell guard band configuration which specifying the frequency between each RB set, in a RRC signaling, paragraph [131]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of configuring an intra-cell guard band based on RRC (Radio Resource Control) signaling as taught by Abotabl, with the teachings of configuring an intra-cell guard band as taught by Sun, for a purpose of increase efficiency in configuring the intra-cell guard band by based on instructions/signaling from the base station (see Abotabl, paragraph [131]).
However, the combination of Sun and Abotabl does not explicitly teach “randomly selects a channel for performing a channel access procedure from among multiple channels including the subchannel in a case of performing the second multi-channel access method as the multi-channel access procedure” and the communication unit “uses four types of channel access priority classes in the channel access procedure”.
Noh teaches performing a first multi-channel access method or a second multi- channel access method as the multi-channel access procedure and randomly selects a channel for performing a channel access procedure from among multiple channels including the subchannel in a case of performing the second multi-channel access method as the multi-channel access procedure (randomly selecting a carrier to perform multi-channel access method, paragraphs [295, 367]),
performing a first channel access method or a second channel access method as the channel access procedure and uses four types of channel access priority classes in the channel access procedure (wherein four types of channel access priority classes are used in the channel access procedure, paragraphs [212, 240-242, 244-245, 247]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of performing a first multi-channel access method or a second multi- channel access method as the multi-channel access procedure and randomly selects a channel for performing a channel access procedure from among multiple channels including the subchannel in a case of performing the second multi-channel access method as the multi-channel access procedure and performing a first channel access method or a second channel access method as the channel access procedure and uses four types of channel access priority classes in the channel access procedure as taught by Noh, with the teachings of performing the first multi-channel access method or the second multi- channel access method as the multi-channel access procedure as taught by combination of Sun and Abotabl, for a purpose of increase efficiency in performing the channel access procedure by employing different multi-channel access methods for identifying the channel for performing the access procedure, such as randomly selecting the channel (see Noh, paragraphs [212, 240-242, 244-245, 247, 295, 367, 378]).
However, the combination of Sun, Abotabl and Noh does not explicitly teach the control unit “adjusts an energy detection threshold value used for the channel access procedure based on a correction value indicated by a configured parameter in the channel access procedure”.
Babaei teaches a control unit (a processor for perform functions, paragraphs [126, 188]) adjusts an energy detection threshold value used for the channel access procedure based on a correction value indicated by a configured parameter in the channel access procedure (changes/adjusts energy detection threshold value for channel access procedure based on a value indicated by LBT configuration parameters, paragraphs [132, 142, 185-186, 195]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of adjusting an energy detection threshold value used for the channel access procedure based on a correction value indicated by a configured parameter in the channel access procedure as taught by Babaei, with the teachings of combination of Sun, Abotabl and Noh, for a purpose of increase flexibility for the detection of the energy by adjusting the energy detection threshold value when needed (see Babaei, paragraphs [132, 142, 185-186, 195]).
Regarding claim 8, Noh further teaches wherein the first multi-channel access method is a multi-channel access procedure in which channel access is individually performed for each channel (using CAT-4 LBT channel access procedure for a set of carriers/channels, in which channel access is independently performed for each carrier, paragraphs [294, 295, 367, 368]),
the second multi-channel access method is a multi-channel access procedure in which channel access is performed for a selected channel (performing cat-2 (25 us) LBT channel access procedure on a selected carrier, i.e. carrier in which the cat-4 LBT is failed, paragraphs [294, 295, 367, 368]),
the first channel access method is a channel access procedure with random backoff (wherein the CAT-4 LBT channel access procedure has a random backoff, paragraphs [12, 131, 296, 306, 354]), and
the second channel access method is a channel access procedure without random backoff (wherein the cat-2 (25 us) LBT channel access procedure without random backoff, paragraphs [12, 131, 296, 306, 354]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of wherein the first multi-channel access method is a multi-channel access procedure in which channel access is individually performed for each channel, the second multi-channel access method is a multi-channel access procedure in which channel access is performed for a selected channel, the first channel access method is a channel access procedure with random backoff, and the second channel access method is a channel access procedure without random backoff as taught by Noh, with the teachings of combination of Sun and Abotabl, for a purpose of increase adaptability for the multi-channel access procedure by employing different channel access methods for different situations (see Noh, paragraphs [294, 295, 367, 368]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0295550 A1 discloses adjusting an energy detection threshold based on a threshold indicated in the adjusted channel sensing parameters (paragraphs [121, 142, 175]).
US 2022/0386365 A1 discloses two types of channel access procedures, wherein the type 1 channel access procedure is associated with four priority classes (paragraph [167]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG B. HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)270-7642. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 6:00 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 N. Moore can be reached at 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 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.
/DUNG B HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469 October 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights