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 .
Claims 1-15, 21-25 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “adapted to” must be corrected. Appropriate correction is 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 (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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 14-15, 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ozturk et al. US 20230232460.
Regarding claim 1, A method comprising: obtaining, by a first device (UE, Figure 3), information related to a first resource pool (UE communicating over sidelink channel, Figure 3, element 310, one or more sidelink channels use resource pools, para. 0055); obtaining information related to one or more resource block (RB) sets in which a channel access procedure is performed in a shared spectrum (scheduling assignment, included in SCI, element 330, is transmitted in sub-channels using specific resource blocks, para. 0055); performing listen before talk (LBT) for the one or more RB sets (a Tx UE may use an LBT procedure on at least one sidelink channel, the Tx UE may wait for one or more symbols of a slot and transmit to an Rx UE within that slot only when the Tx UE does not decode a transmission in those one or more symbols, the Tx UE may wait for a preconfigured amount of time or for a dynamic amount of time, para. 0063, 0067); and selecting, based on that a failure is detected in all of the one or more RB sets, a second resource pool among at least one resource pool excluding the first resource pool (a Tx UE, UE element 305, to report one or more LBT failures on a sidelink channel to a base station, element 110, and/or at least one Rx UE, UE 305-2, the Tx UE 305-1 may obtain one or more new resources from the base station, para. 0065, the Tx UE 305-1 may detect, while transmitting the data, one or more failures of an LBT procedure within an amount of time, the Tx UE, element 305-1, may use a counter that detects a threshold quantity of failures before expiry of a timer, the one or more failures may be aggregated across an RB set, a BWP, and/or a plurality of sidelink channels, the Tx UE 305-1 may aggregate LBT failures that occur on one RB set with those that occur on one or more other RB sets, para. 0068, 0074).
Regarding claim 2, The method of claim 1, further comprising: triggering a resource reselection procedure (whenever the Tx UE 305-1 detects a failure of an LBT procedure, the Tx UE 305-1 may increment the counter, such that the Tx UE 305-1 triggers one or more steps, para. 0068, the Tx UE, element 305-1, may transmit, and the base station may receive, a report indicating the one or more failures, Figure 5, the base station may transmit, and the Tx UE 305-1 may receive, an indication of at least one second bandwidth to use on the at least one sidelink channel, the base station may determine the at least one second bandwidth based at least in part on receiving the report and may transmit an updated configuration for the at least one sidelink channel that indicates the at least one second bandwidth, para. 0085).
Regarding claim 3, The method of claim 2, wherein the resource reselection procedure is triggered on the selected second resource pool (the base station may transmit, and the Tx UE 305-1 may receive, an indication of at least one second bandwidth to use on the at least one sidelink channel, the base station may determine the at least one second bandwidth based at least in part on receiving the report and may transmit an updated configuration for the at least one sidelink channel that indicates the at least one second bandwidth, para. 0085).
Regarding claim 4, The method of claim 2, wherein the resource reselection procedure is triggered based on that the failure is detected in all of the one or more RB sets of the first resource pool (whenever the Tx UE 305-1 detects a failure of an LBT procedure, the Tx UE 305-1 may increment the counter, such that the Tx UE 305-1 triggers one or more steps, para. 0068, the Tx UE, element 305-1, may transmit, and the base station may receive, a report indicating the one or more failures, Figure 5, the base station may transmit, and the Tx UE 305-1 may receive, an indication of at least one second bandwidth to use on the at least one sidelink channel, para. 0068, 0085).
Regarding claim 5, The method of claim 1, wherein the failure is detected in all of the one or more RB sets of the first resource pool (channels may share a link to one or more of the same UEs, an RB set, a bandwidth part (BWP), and/or one or more other resources such that the Tx UE, element 305-1, aggregates LBT failures for those channels, para. 0073).
Regarding claim 6, The method of claim 1, wherein the second resource pool is a resource pool that has at least one RB set in which a failure is not detected (the base station may determine the at least one second bandwidth based at least in part on receiving the report, Figure 5, element 515a, and may transmit an updated configuration for the at least one sidelink channel that indicates the at least one second bandwidth, para. 0085).
Claims 14-15, 21-25 are rejected under the same rationale.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozturk in view of Cirik et al. US 20210100031.
Regarding claim 7, The method of claim 1, Ozturk does not disclose further comprising: receiving, from a second device, information related to a first channel occupancy time (COT).
Cirik discloses a wireless device may perform a listen-before transmit (LBT) procedure for an uplink transmission, an LBT failure recovery procedure may be initiated based on a failure of one or more LBT procedures, the LBT failure recovery procedure may be aborted and/or canceled based on one or more conditions, such as receiving configuration (or reconfiguration) parameters, Abstract, para. 0384.
Cirik discloses the wireless device may start the COT based on receiving/detecting the downlink signal for the COT, the COT may correspond to a COT duration, the downlink signal may indicate the COT duration, the one or more configuration parameters may indicate the COT duration, para. 0325-0326. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Ozturk to include Cirik’s listen-before transmit procedure. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for failure detection and recovery procedures that can provide advantages such as reduced power consumption, reduced interference, and/or reduced delay, para. 0004.
Regarding claim 8, The method of claim 7, wherein channel access based on channel sensing for a certain time duration is performed within the first COT by the first device. Cirik discloses the wireless device may restart the LBT detection timer based on starting the COT, the wireless device may or may not reset a first value of the LBT failure counter during the COT duration, the LBT detection timer may expire during the COT duration and the wireless device may or may not reset, during the COT duration, the first value of the LBT failure counter based on the LBT detection timer expiring, the wireless device may start counting/controlling/managing the LBT failure counter based on the first value, for example, based on the end of the COT, para. 0326. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Ozturk to include Cirik’s listen-before transmit procedure. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for failure detection and recovery procedures that can provide advantages such as reduced power consumption, reduced interference, and/or reduced delay, para. 0004.
Regarding claim 9, The method of claim 7, Ozturk does not disclose further comprising: transmitting, to the second device, a COT reconfiguration request message based on failure of all LBT within the first COT.
Cirik discloses the wireless device may restart the LBT detection timer based on starting the COT, the wireless device may or may not reset a first value of the LBT failure counter during the COT duration, the LBT detection timer may expire during the COT duration and the wireless device may or may not reset, during the COT duration, the first value of the LBT failure counter based on the LBT detection timer expiring, the wireless device may start counting/controlling/managing the LBT failure counter based on the first value, for example, based on the end of the COT, para. 0326.
Cirik discloses a wireless device may trigger a listen-before-talk (LBT) failure recovery procedure, the wireless device may multiplex, in a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit, an LBT failure MAC CE of the LBT failure recovery procedure based on a logical channel of the LBT failure MAC CE, the wireless device may send, to a base station, the MAC PDU and determine a quantity of LBT failures for an active uplink bandwidth part (BWP) of the cell, wherein the triggering the LBT failure recovery procedure may be based on the quantity of LBT failures satisfying a threshold and the wireless device may abort and/or cancel the LBT failure recovery procedure based on receiving, during the LBT failure recovery procedure, LBT failure recovery reconfiguration parameters for the cell, para. 0387.
Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Ozturk to include Cirik’s listen-before transmit procedure. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for failure detection and recovery procedures that can provide advantages such as reduced power consumption, reduced interference, and/or reduced delay, para. 0004.
Regarding claim 10, The method of claim 9, Ozturk does not disclose wherein the COT reconfiguration request message includes cause information representing failure of the first COT. Cirik discloses the wireless device may send, to a base station, the MAC PDU and determine a quantity of LBT failures for an active uplink bandwidth part (BWP) of the cell, wherein the triggering the LBT failure recovery procedure may be based on the quantity of LBT failures satisfying a threshold and the wireless device may abort and/or cancel the LBT failure recovery procedure based on receiving, during the LBT failure recovery procedure, LBT failure recovery reconfiguration parameters for the cell, para. 0387. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Ozturk to include Cirik’s listen-before transmit procedure. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for failure detection and recovery procedures that can provide advantages such as reduced power consumption, reduced interference, and/or reduced delay, para. 0004.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE JAGANNATHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached at 571-270-1096. 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.
/MELANIE JAGANNATHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights