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 .
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem (2022/0124796) and further in view of Abdel-Kader (2008/0259882).
Regarding claim 1, Salem discloses a baseband processor of a user equipment (UE), comprising: (See Salem fig. 2, para. 36; processing unit and memory which performs signal coding, data processing, power control, etc. (e.g. a baseband processor in that it performs the functions of a baseband processors))
one or more processors configured to: (See Salem fig. 2, para. 36; processor)
perform an initial LBT procedure based on the determined region; and (See Salem para. 63; switching between channel-access mechanisms with and without LBT, depending on region-specific requirements (e.g. a determined region); para. 65; channel sensing before transmitting that are used to initiate channel occupancy (e.g. performing initial procedure); see also para. 49; EU, Japan, etc (e.g. different regions); see also fig. 5, para. 79)
generate, for transmission by a radio frequency (RF) circuitry, (See Salem para. 37; transceiver (e.g. RF circuitry) generates signals for transmission) an uplink (UL) message after performing the initial LBT procedure. (See Salem fig. 5, para. 79; 524; UL transmission after channel is sensed idle)
Salem also discloses determining LBT mandatory regions such as EU, European Union, for MGWS, Multiple Gigabit Wireless System, through energy detection based CCA (e.g. clear channel assessment procedure) or non-LBT mandatory regions such as US, China, Japan, etc. (See Salem para. 49; see also para. 50; LBT, listen before talk, is a type of CCA) Salem does not explicitly disclose receive a network identifier (ID) and determine, based on the network ID, a region and using the determined regulatory region to configure radio physical-layer operation. However, Abdel-Kader does disclose receive a network identifier (ID) (See Abdel-Kader para. 21; mobile country code, MCC, (e.g. it identifies the network as from a certain region (e.g. a network identifier)) is received by UE) and determine, based on the network ID, a region and (See Abdel-Kader para. 22; mapping of MCC to ISO country code and mapping to regulatory domain; see also fig. 4 steps 418, 420; para. 2; North America, ETSI, covering Europe, TELEC covering Japan (e.g. different regions)) using the determined regulatory region to configure radio physical-layer operation. (See Abdel-Kader fig.3, para. 26-27; configure PHY for operation based upon the determined regulatory domain) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem to include the teaching of receive a network identifier (ID) and determine, based on the network ID, a region and using the determined regulatory region to configure radio physical-layer operation of Abdel-Kader with the motivation being to allow for automatic regulatory compliance when roaming and further to reduce delay in channel access and further to reduce signaling by using base regulatory compliance parameters and then allowing the network to just fine tune those and further to prevent rogue devices from causing interference and to reduce manufacturing costs and allow users to freely move between region (which is more efficient and convenient then having different phones for every region).
Regarding claim 2, Salem in view of Abdel-Kader discloses the baseband processor of claim 1, wherein the initial LBT procedure is associated with at least some regulation in the first region, and wherein LBT is mandatory in the second region. (See Salem para. 49; different regions; not mandatory in EU (e.g. first region) for certain types but mandatory in US, China, Japan, etc. (e.g. second region); see also para. 48, 54)
Regarding claim 3, Salem in view of Abdel-Kader discloses the baseband processor of claim 2, wherein the first region is regulated by European standards, and the second region is regulated by Japanese standards. (See Salem para. 49; different regions; not mandatory in EU (e.g. first region) for certain types but mandatory in Japan (e.g. second region); see also para. 48, 54)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem (2022/0124796) and further in view of Abdel-Kader (2008/0259882) and further in view of 3GPP TS 23.003v15.8.0 – (3GPP TS 23.003 version 15.8.0 Release 15 “Digital cellular telecommunication system (Phase 2+); Universal Mobile Telecommunication System (UMTS); LTE; Numbering, addressing and identification” September 2019) and further in view of Park (2016/0095125).
Regarding claim 4, Salem in view of Abdel-Kader discloses the baseband processor of claim 1, the region is determined based on a mobile country code (MCC); and (See Abdel-Kader para. 22; mapping of MCC to ISO country code and mapping to regulatory domain; see also fig. 4 steps 418, 420; para. 2; North America, ETSI, covering Europe, TELEC covering Japan (e.g. different regions)) The motivation being to allow for automatic regulatory compliance when roaming and further to reduce delay in channel access and further to reduce signaling by using base regulatory compliance parameters and then allowing the network to just fine tune those and further to prevent rogue devices from causing interference and to reduce manufacturing costs and allow users to freely move between region (which is more efficient and convenient then having different phones for every region).
Salem does not explicitly disclose wherein the network ID identifies a public land mobile network (PLMN). However, 3GPP 23.003v15.8.0 does disclose wherein the network ID identifies a public land mobile network (PLMN). (See 3GPP 23.003v15.8.0 section 12.1, pg. 48; PLMN identifier is composed of MCC and MNC and uniquely identifies the network) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem in view of Abdel-Kader to include the teaching of wherein the network ID identifies a public land mobile network (PLMN) of 3GPP 23.003v15.8.0 with the motivation being to provide compatibility with the 3GPP suite of standards which saves time and money and further for global uniqueness which prevents address conflicts between different countries and carriers and further for roaming management by allowing the correct parameters to be utilized when in a foreign country and further for precise routing and billing.
Salem in view of Abdel-Kader in view of 3GPP 23.003v15.8.0 do not explicitly disclose one region with Japan in it identified by the MCC and another region. However, Park does disclose a region with Japan in it identified by the MCC and another region. (See Park para. 81; specific regions Japan (e.g. a first region) certain MCC are just for Japan (e.g. region 1); other areas of the world (e.g. region two); para. 123, 124; regions are identified by MCC; see also fig. 7, 8a, 8b) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem to include the teaching of one region with Japan in it identified by the MCC and another region of Park with the motivation being for roaming management by allowing the correct parameters to be utilized when in a foreign country and further for precise routing and billing and further to comply with local regulations and requirements which allows one UE to roam to different countries.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem (2022/0124796) and further in view of Abdel-Kader (2008/0259882) and further in view of Lai (2022/0046530).
Regarding claim 5, Salem in view of Abdel-Kader discloses the baseband processor of claim 1, the region is determined based on a UE subscription data associated with the network ID. (See Abdel-Kader fig. 4; determine whether the UE is branded for a particular carrier (Step 426-428) and if yes then use ISO country code corresponding to vendor ID; para. 36; vendor ID is unique code for carrier in a particular country, vendor ID stored in memory on UE, regulatory domain correspond to carrier country code, and driver may map vendor ID to ISO country code at step 428) The motivation being to allow for automatic regulatory compliance when roaming and further to reduce delay in channel access and further to reduce signaling by using base regulatory compliance parameters and then allowing the network to just fine tune those and further to prevent rogue devices from causing interference and to reduce manufacturing costs and allow users to freely move between region (which is more efficient and convenient then having different phones for every region).
Salem in view of Abdel-Kader do not explicitly disclose wherein the network ID includes a public land mobile network (PLMN) ID and a network identifier (NID) that identifies a standalone non-public network (SNPN) and for each subscribed SNPN, with the PLMN ID and NID, a subscriber identifier and the HSP subscription. However, Lai does disclose wherein the network ID includes a public land mobile network (PLMN) ID and a network identifier (NID) that identifies a standalone non-public network (SNPN) and for each subscribed SNPN, with the PLMN ID and NID, a subscriber identifier and the HSP subscription (See Lai para. 29; PLMN ID and NID can identify the SNPN; para. 34; each subscribed SNPN with PLMN ID and NID has a subscriber id) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem in view of Abdel-Kader to include the teaching of wherein the network ID includes a public land mobile network (PLMN) ID and a network identifier (NID) that identifies a standalone non-public network (SNPN) and for each subscribed SNPN, with the PLMN ID and NID, a subscriber identifier and the HSP subscription of Lai with the motivation being to preload appropriate configuration data, reduce higher-layer signaling, reduce initial-access delay, and facilitate roaming among SNPNs.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem (2022/0124796) and further in view of Abdel-Kader (2008/0259882) and further in view of 3GPP TS37.213v17.0.0 (3GPP TS37.213v17.0.0 “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Physical layer procedures for shared spectrum channel access (Release17)”; December 2021).
Regarding claim 6, Salem in view of Abdel-Kader discloses the baseband processor of claim 1, wherein when the determined region is the first region, (See Abdel-Kader para. 22; mapping of MCC to ISO country code and mapping to regulatory domain (e.g. the region is determined); see also fig. 4 steps 418, 420; para. 2; North America, ETSI, covering Europe, TELEC covering Japan (e.g. different regions)) The motivation being to allow for automatic regulatory compliance when roaming and further to reduce delay in channel access and further to reduce signaling by using base regulatory compliance parameters and then allowing the network to just fine tune those and further to prevent rogue devices from causing interference and to reduce manufacturing costs and allow users to freely move between region (which is more efficient and convenient then having different phones for every region).
and the initial LBT procedure is a non-mandatory LBT procedure. (See Salem para. 63; switching between channel-access mechanisms with and without LBT, depending on region-specific requirements (e.g. a determined region); para. 65; channel sensing before transmitting that are used to initiate channel occupancy (e.g. performing initial procedure); see also para. 49; EU, Japan, etc (e.g. different regions) with some regions like EU requiring LBT while others like Japan, US , China, South Korea, etc. do not require LBT; para. 49; see also para. 50; LBT, listen before talk, is a type of CCA)
Salem does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensing procedure is called a Type 3 sensing procedure. However, 3GPP TS37.213v17.0.0 does disclose wherein the sensing procedure is called a Type 3 sensing procedure. (See 3GPP TS37.213v17.0.0 pg. 33, section 4.4.3; Type 3 Channel access is without sensing) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem to include the teaching of wherein the sensing procedure is called a Type 3 sensing procedure of 3GPP TS37.213v17.0.0 with the motivation being to provide compatibility with the 3GPP suite of standards and allow for common terminology and parameters to standardize the operation of mobile networks.
Regarding claim 7, Salem in view of Abdel-Kader discloses the baseband processor of claim 1, wherein when the determined region is the second region, (See Abdel-Kader para. 22; mapping of MCC to ISO country code and mapping to regulatory domain (e.g. the region is determined); see also fig. 4 steps 418, 420; para. 2; North America, ETSI, covering Europe, TELEC covering Japan (e.g. different regions)) The motivation being to allow for automatic regulatory compliance when roaming and further to reduce delay in channel access and further to reduce signaling by using base regulatory compliance parameters and then allowing the network to just fine tune those and further to prevent rogue devices from causing interference and to reduce manufacturing costs and allow users to freely move between region (which is more efficient and convenient then having different phones for every region).
and the initial LBT procedure is a mandatory LBT procedure. (See Salem para. 63; switching between channel-access mechanisms with and without LBT, depending on region-specific requirements (e.g. a determined region); para. 65; channel sensing before transmitting that are used to initiate channel occupancy (e.g. performing initial procedure); see also para. 49; EU, Japan, etc (e.g. different regions) with some regions like EU requiring LBT while others like Japan, US , China, South Korea, etc. do not require LBT; para. 49; see also para. 50; LBT, listen before talk, is a type of CCA)
Salem does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensing procedure is a type 1 or type 2 sensing procedure. However, 3GPP TS37.213v17.0.0 does disclose wherein the sensing procedure is a type 1 or type 2 sensing procedure. (See 3GPP TS37.213v17.0.0 pg. 33, section 4.4.1, 4.4.2; Type 1 or Type 2 Channel access is with sensing) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem to include the teaching of wherein the sensing procedure is a type 1 or type 2 sensing procedure of 3GPP TS37.213v17.0.0 with the motivation being to provide compatibility with the 3GPP suite of standards and allow for common terminology and parameters to standardize the operation of mobile networks.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem (2022/0124796) and further in view of Abdel-Kader (2008/0259882) and further in view of 3GPP TS37.213v17.0.0 (3GPP TS37.213v17.0.0 “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Physical layer procedures for shared spectrum channel access (Release17)”; December 2021) and further in view of Lo (2020/0154474).
Regarding claim 8, Salem in view of Abdel-Kader in view of 3GPP TS 37.213v17.0.0 discloses the baseband processor of claim 7. Salem in view of Abdel-Kader in view of 3GPP TS 37.213v17.0.0 do not explicitly disclose wherein the LBT procedure is performed based on a capability of the UE. However, Lo does disclose wherein the LBT procedure is performed based on a capability of the UE. (See Lo fig. 3; LBT procedure is determined based upon UE capability; see also para. 25-28) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem in view of Abdel-Kader in view of 3GPP TS 37.213v17.0.0 to include the teaching of wherein the LBT procedure is performed based on a capability of the UE of Lo with the motivation being to avoid configuring an unsuitable sensing duration and provide the predictable capability adaptive operation and further it is common sense that a UE can only communicate according to its capability.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem (2022/0124796) and further in view of Abdel-Kader (2008/0259882).
Regarding claim 9, Salem discloses a user equipment (UE), comprising:
one or more processors communicatively coupled to a memory device and the one or more processors configured to: (See Salem fig. 2, para. 36; UE with processing unit, processor, and memory which performs signal coding, data processing, power control, etc.)
receive a downlink control information (DCI) comprising a DCI CCA indication; (See Salem para. 159; one-bit flag in non-fallback DL assignment DCI such as DCI format 1_1; para. 160, 161; channel access indication or channel access SRS; para. 48; LBT procedure UE applies CCA before using the channel (e.g. DCI field indicates or triggers an LBT/channel-access procedure is DCI indication related to CCA))
perform an LBT procedure in response to receiving the DCI; and (See Salem para. 160, 161; UE decodes DCI; DCI triggers an SRS transmission; UE performs channel sensing immediately before the SRS resource; UE transmits SRS when the channel is sensed idle; sensing may follow the channel-access procedure dynamically indicated by the same DCI)
transmit, by a radio frequency (RF) circuitry, (See Salem para. 37; transceiver (e.g. RF circuitry) generates signals for transmission) an uplink (UL) message after performing the LBT procedure. (See Salem fig. 5, para. 79; 524; UL transmission after channel is sensed idle)
Salem also discloses determining LBT mandatory regions such as EU, European Union, for MGWS, Multiple Gigabit Wireless System, through energy detection based CCA (e.g. clear channel assessment procedure) or non-LBT mandatory regions such as US, China, Japan, etc. (See Salem para. 49; see also para. 50; LBT, listen before talk, is a type of CCA)
Salem does not explicitly disclose receive a network identifier (ID) and determine, based on the network ID, a region and using the determined regulatory region to configure radio physical-layer operation. However, Abdel-Kader does disclose receive a network identifier (ID) (See Abdel-Kader para. 21; mobile country code, MCC, (e.g. it identifies the network as from a certain region (e.g. a network identifier)) is received by UE) and determine, based on the network ID, a region and (See Abdel-Kader para. 22; mapping of MCC to ISO country code and mapping to regulatory domain; see also fig. 4 steps 418, 420; para. 2; North America, ETSI, covering Europe, TELEC covering Japan (e.g. different regions)) using the determined regulatory region to configure radio physical-layer operation. (See Abdel-Kader fig.3, para. 26-27; configure PHY for operation based upon the determined regulatory domain) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem to include the teaching of receive a network identifier (ID) and determine, based on the network ID, a region and using the determined regulatory region to configure radio physical-layer operation of Abdel-Kader with the motivation being to allow for automatic regulatory compliance when roaming and further to reduce delay in channel access and further to reduce signaling by using base regulatory compliance parameters and then allowing the network to just fine tune those and further to prevent rogue devices from causing interference and to reduce manufacturing costs and allow users to freely move between region (which is more efficient and convenient then having different phones for every region).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem (2022/0124796) and further in view of Abdel-Kader (2008/0259882) and further in view of OH (2020/0351056) and further in view of Kittichokechai (2022/0124788).
Regarding claim 10, Salem in view of Abdel-Kader discloses the UE of claim 9, wherein the determined region is the first region (See Abdel-Kader para. 22; mapping of MCC to ISO country code and mapping to regulatory domain (e.g. the region is determined); see also fig. 4 steps 418, 420; para. 2; North America, ETSI, covering Europe, TELEC covering Japan (e.g. different regions)) The motivation being to allow for automatic regulatory compliance when roaming and further to reduce delay in channel access and further to reduce signaling by using base regulatory compliance parameters and then allowing the network to just fine tune those and further to prevent rogue devices from causing interference and to reduce manufacturing costs and allow users to freely move between region (which is more efficient and convenient then having different phones for every region).
the DCI CCA indication is a 1 bit CCA indicator in a non-fallback DCI format (See Salem para. 159, 160; channel access indication; para. 161; when set UE performs channel sensing before transmitting)
transmit, by the RF circuitry, generate the UL message after performing the LBT procedure. (See Salem para. 161; UE sense the channel then transmits; fig. 2, para. 37; transceiver)
Salem does not explicitly disclose indicates a Type 1 LBT procedure or Type 3 LBT procedure, and the one or more processors are further configured to: perform the LBT procedure wherein the LBT procedure is one of the Type 1 LBT procedure or Type 3 LBT procedure. However, Oh does disclose indicates a Type 1 LBT procedure or Type 3 LBT procedure, and the one or more processors are further configured to: perform the LBT procedure wherein the LBT procedure is one of the Type 1 LBT procedure or Type 3 LBT procedure. (See Oh table 10, para. 225, method 4; indicates a value of 0 as Type 1 or a value of 1 as Type 3 LBT procedure) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem to include the teaching of indicates a Type 1 LBT procedure or Type 3 LBT procedure, and the one or more processors are further configured to: perform the LBT procedure wherein the LBT procedure is one of the Type 1 LBT procedure or Type 3 LBT procedure of Oh with the motivation being to explicitly indicate desired settings for channel access procedures to meet local regulations or changing needs of the network to prevent collisions and interference.
Salem does not explicitly disclose comprised in a fallback DCI format of the DCI. However, Kittichokechai does disclose comprised in a fallback DCI format of the DCI. (See Kittichokechai para. 3; fallback DCI formats) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem to include the teaching of comprised in a fallback DCI format of the DCI of Kittichokechai with the motivation being to provide robustness in poor channel conditions by having smaller payload sizes with a lower code rate making it easier for the UE to decode and further reducing UE blind decoding overhead and further to support initial access and common operations
Regarding claim 11, Salem in view of Abdel-Kader discloses the UE of claim 9, wherein the determined region is the second region and (See Abdel-Kader para. 22; mapping of MCC to ISO country code and mapping to regulatory domain (e.g. the region is determined); see also fig. 4 steps 418, 420; para. 2; North America, ETSI, covering Europe, TELEC covering Japan (e.g. different regions)) The motivation being to allow for automatic regulatory compliance when roaming and further to reduce delay in channel access and further to reduce signaling by using base regulatory compliance parameters and then allowing the network to just fine tune those and further to prevent rogue devices from causing interference and to reduce manufacturing costs and allow users to freely move between region (which is more efficient and convenient then having different phones for every region).
the DCI CCA indication is a 1 bit CCA indicator in a non-fallback DCI format (See Salem para. 159, 160; channel access indication; para. 161; when set UE performs channel sensing before transmitting)
transmit, by the RF circuitry, the UL message after performing the LBT procedure. (See Salem para. 161; UE sense the channel then transmits; fig. 2, para. 37; transceiver)
Salem does not explicitly disclose indicates a Type 1 LBT procedure or Type 2 LBT procedure, and the one or more processors are further configured to: perform the LBT procedure wherein the LBT procedure is one of the Type 1 LBT procedure or Type 2 LBT procedure. However, Oh does disclose indicates a Type 1 LBT procedure or Type 2 LBT procedure, and the one or more processors are further configured to: perform the LBT procedure wherein the LBT procedure is one of the Type 1 LBT procedure or Type 2 LBT procedure. (See Oh table 10, para. 225, method 4; indicates a value of 0 as Type 1 or Type 2 LBT procedure) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem to include the teaching of indicates a Type 1 LBT procedure or Type 2 LBT procedure, and the one or more processors are further configured to: perform the LBT procedure wherein the LBT procedure is one of the Type 1 LBT procedure or Type 2 LBT procedure of Oh with the motivation being to explicitly indicate desired settings for channel access procedures to meet local regulations or changing needs of the network to prevent collisions and interference.
Salem does not explicitly disclose comprised in a fallback DCI format of the DCI. However, Kittichokechai does disclose comprised in a fallback DCI format of the DCI. (See Kittichokechai para. 3; fallback DCI formats) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem to include the teaching of comprised in a fallback DCI format of the DCI of Kittichokechai with the motivation being to provide robustness in poor channel conditions by having smaller payload sizes with a lower code rate making it easier for the UE to decode and further reducing UE blind decoding overhead and further to support initial access and common operations
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem (2022/0124796) and further in view of Abdel-Kader (2008/0259882) and further in view of OH (2020/0351056).
Regarding claim 12, Salem in view of Abdel-Kader discloses the UE of claim 9, wherein the determined region is the first region and (See Abdel-Kader para. 22; mapping of MCC to ISO country code and mapping to regulatory domain (e.g. the region is determined); see also fig. 4 steps 418, 420; para. 2; North America, ETSI, covering Europe, TELEC covering Japan (e.g. different regions)) The motivation being to allow for automatic regulatory compliance when roaming and further to reduce delay in channel access and further to reduce signaling by using base regulatory compliance parameters and then allowing the network to just fine tune those and further to prevent rogue devices from causing interference and to reduce manufacturing costs and allow users to freely move between region (which is more efficient and convenient then having different phones for every region).
the DCI CCA indication is a 1 bit CCA indicator in a non-fallback DCI format (See Salem para. 159, 160; channel access indication; para. 161; when set UE performs channel sensing before transmitting)
transmit, by the RF circuitry, the UL message after performing the LBT procedure. (See Salem para. 161; UE sense the channel then transmits; fig. 2, para. 37; transceiver)
Salem does not explicitly disclose the CCA indication is a 2 bit CCA indicator that indicates a Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3 LBT procedure, and the one or more processors are further configured to: perform the LBT procedure wherein the LBT procedure is one of the Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3 LBT procedure. However, Oh does disclose the CCA indication is a 2 bit CCA indicator that indicates a Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3 LBT procedure, and the one or more processors are further configured to: perform the LBT procedure wherein the LBT procedure is one of the Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3 LBT procedure. (See Oh table 6, para. 212, method 1; indicates a value of 00 as Type 1, 01 or 10 as Type 2 and 11 as Type 3) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem to include the teaching of the CCA indication is a 2 bit CCA indicator that indicates a Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3 LBT procedure, and the one or more processors are further configured to: perform the LBT procedure wherein the LBT procedure is one of the Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3 LBT procedure of Oh with the motivation being to explicitly indicate desired settings for channel access procedures to meet local regulations or changing needs of the network to prevent collisions and interference and further using an additional bit allows for more types to be conveyed (including Type 2-1 and 2-2) which may be desirable to fine tune parameters to meet end user goals and comply with requirements.
Regarding claim 13, Salem in view of Abdel-Kader discloses the UE of claim 9, wherein the determined region is the second region and (See Abdel-Kader para. 22; mapping of MCC to ISO country code and mapping to regulatory domain (e.g. the region is determined); see also fig. 4 steps 418, 420; para. 2; North America, ETSI, covering Europe, TELEC covering Japan (e.g. different regions)) The motivation being to allow for automatic regulatory compliance when roaming and further to reduce delay in channel access and further to reduce signaling by using base regulatory compliance parameters and then allowing the network to just fine tune those and further to prevent rogue devices from causing interference and to reduce manufacturing costs and allow users to freely move between region (which is more efficient and convenient then having different phones for every region).
the DCI CCA indication is a 1 bit CCA indicator in a non-fallback DCI format (See Salem para. 159, 160; channel access indication; para. 161; when set UE performs channel sensing before transmitting)
transmit, by the RF circuitry, the UL message after performing the LBT procedure. (See Salem para. 161; UE sense the channel then transmits; fig. 2, para. 37; transceiver)
Salem does not explicitly disclose the CCA indication is a 2 bit CCA indicator that that indicates a Type 1 or Type 2 LBT procedure, and the one or more processors are further configured to: perform the LBT procedure wherein the LBT procedure is one of the Type 1 or Type 2 LBT procedure. However, Oh does disclose the CCA indication is a 2 bit CCA indicator that that indicates a Type 1 or Type 2 LBT procedure, and the one or more processors are further configured to: perform the LBT procedure wherein the LBT procedure is one of the Type 1 or Type 2 LBT procedure. (See Oh table 6, para. 212, method 1; indicates a value of 00 as Type 1, 01 or 10 as Type 2 and 11 as Type 3) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem to include the teaching of the CCA indication is a 2 bit CCA indicator that that indicates a Type 1 or Type 2 LBT procedure, and the one or more processors are further configured to: perform the LBT procedure wherein the LBT procedure is one of the Type 1 or Type 2 LBT procedure of Oh with the motivation being to explicitly indicate desired settings for channel access procedures to meet local regulations or changing needs of the network to prevent collisions and interference and further using an additional bit allows for more types to be conveyed (including Type 2-1 and 2-2) which may be desirable to fine tune parameters to meet end user goals and comply with requirements.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem (2022/0124796) and further in view of Abdel-Kader (2008/0259882) and further in view of 3GPP TS37.213v17.0.0 (3GPP TS37.213v17.0.0 “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Physical layer procedures for shared spectrum channel access (Release17)”; December 2021) and further in view of Lo (2020/0154474) and further in view of 3GPP TS 38.212v16.8.0 (3GPP TS 38.212v16.8.0 “5G; NR; Multiplexing and channel coding”; January 2022).
Regarding claim 14, Salem in view of Abdel-Kader discloses the UE of claim 9, wherein the determined region is the second region and (See Abdel-Kader para. 22; mapping of MCC to ISO country code and mapping to regulatory domain (e.g. the region is determined); see also fig. 4 steps 418, 420; para. 2; North America, ETSI, covering Europe, TELEC covering Japan (e.g. different regions)) The motivation being to allow for automatic regulatory compliance when roaming and further to reduce delay in channel access and further to reduce signaling by using base regulatory compliance parameters and then allowing the network to just fine tune those and further to prevent rogue devices from causing interference and to reduce manufacturing costs and allow users to freely move between region (which is more efficient and convenient then having different phones for every region).
the DCI CCA indication is a 1 bit CCA indicator in a non-fallback DCI format (See Salem para. 159, 160; channel access indication; para. 161; when set UE performs channel sensing before transmitting)
transmit, by the RF circuitry, the UL message after performing the LBT procedure. (See Salem para. 161; UE sense the channel then transmits; fig. 2, para. 37; transceiver)
Salem does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensing procedure is a type 1 or type 2 sensing procedure. However, 3GPP TS37.213v17.0.0 does disclose wherein the sensing procedure is a type 1 or type 2 sensing procedure. (See 3GPP TS37.213v17.0.0 pg. 33, section 4.4.1, 4.4.2; Type 1 or Type 2 Channel access is with sensing) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem to include the teaching of wherein the sensing procedure is a type 1 or type 2 sensing procedure of 3GPP TS37.213v17.0.0 with the motivation being to provide compatibility with the 3GPP suite of standards and allow for common terminology and parameters to standardize the operation of mobile networks.
Salem in view of Abdel-Kader in view of 3GPP TS 37.213v17.0.0 do not explicitly disclose wherein the LBT procedure is performed based on a capability of the UE. However, Lo does disclose wherein the LBT procedure is performed based on a capability of the UE. (See Lo fig. 3; LBT procedure is determined based upon UE capability; see also para. 25-28) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem in view of Abdel-Kader in view of 3GPP TS 37.213v17.0.0 to include the teaching of wherein the LBT procedure is performed based on a capability of the UE of Lo with the motivation being to avoid configuring an unsuitable sensing duration and provide the predictable capability adaptive operation and further it is common sense that a UE can only communicate according to its capability.
Salem in view of Abdel-Kader in view of 3GPP TS 37.213v17.0.0 in view of Lo do not explicitly disclose 0 bits are associated with the DCI channel access indication. However, 3GPP TS 38.212v16.8.0 does disclose 0 bits are associated with the DCI channel access indication. (See 3GPP TS 38.212v16.8.0 pg. 127; section 7.3.1.2.2; ChannelAccess – 0bits) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem in view of Abdel-Kader in view of 3GPP TS 37.213v17.0.0 in view of Lo to include the teaching of 0 bits are associated with the DCI channel access indication of 3GPP TS 38.212v16.8.0 with the motivation being to minimize control overhead and further reducing DCI size lowers coding rate which makes it easier to decode at lower SNR and further to provide compatibility with 3GPP standards and further to reduce blind decoding complexity.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem (2022/0124796) and further in view of Abdel-Kader (2008/0259882) and further in view of Shokri (2022/0394520).
Regarding claim 15, Salem in view of Abdel-Kader discloses the UE of claim 9, wherein the determined region is the first region and (See Abdel-Kader para. 22; mapping of MCC to ISO country code and mapping to regulatory domain (e.g. the region is determined); see also fig. 4 steps 418, 420; para. 2; North America, ETSI, covering Europe, TELEC covering Japan (e.g. different regions)) The motivation being to allow for automatic regulatory compliance when roaming and further to reduce delay in channel access and further to reduce signaling by using base regulatory compliance parameters and then allowing the network to just fine tune those and further to prevent rogue devices from causing interference and to reduce manufacturing costs and allow users to freely move between region (which is more efficient and convenient then having different phones for every region).
transmit, by the RF circuitry, the UL message after performing the LBT procedure. (See Salem para. 161; UE sense the channel then transmits; fig. 2, para. 37; transceiver)
Salem does not explicitly disclose the DCI CCA indication indicates a Type 1 LBT procedure, and the one or more processors are further configured to: detect a channel occupancy time (COT) from the DCI; switch to a type 3 LBT; and determine that the UL message can be generated during the COT. However, Shokri does disclose the DCI CCA indication indicates a Type 1 LBT procedure, and the one or more processors are further configured to: detect a channel occupancy time (COT) from the DCI; (See Shokri para. 233, DCI for LBT procedure; para. 234; CAT 4 (e.g. aka type 1)) switch to a type 3 LBT; (See Shokri para. 235; CAT1 (e.g. aka type 3)) and determine that the UL message can be generated during the COT; (See Shokri para. 208; transmitting within the COT (e.g. it is determined before it is transmitted in order to be within)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem to include the teaching of the DCI CCA indication indicates a Type 1 LBT procedure, and the one or more processors are further configured to: detect a channel occupancy time (COT) from the DCI; switch to a type 3 LBT; and determine that the UL message can be generated during the COT of Shokri with the motivation being to reduce latency and transmission overhead and further to reduce power consumption and further to utilize spectrum and resources more efficiently.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem (2022/0124796) and further in view of Abdel-Kader (2008/0259882) and further in view of 3GPP TS 38.212v16.8.0 (3GPP TS 38.212v16.8.0 “5G; NR; Multiplexing and channel coding”; January 2022) and further in view of 3GPP TS 38.213v17.0.0 (3GPP TS 38.213v17.0.0 “Physical layer procedures for shared spectrum channel access”; December 2021).
Regarding claim 16, Salem in view of Abdel-Kader discloses the UE of claim 9, wherein the determined region is the second region (See Abdel-Kader para. 22; mapping of MCC to ISO country code and mapping to regulatory domain (e.g. the region is determined); see also fig. 4 steps 418, 420; para. 2; North America, ETSI, covering Europe, TELEC covering Japan (e.g. different regions)) The motivation being to allow for automatic regulatory compliance when roaming and further to reduce delay in channel access and further to reduce signaling by using base regulatory compliance parameters and then allowing the network to just fine tune those and further to prevent rogue devices from causing interference and to reduce manufacturing costs and allow users to freely move between region (which is more efficient and convenient then having different phones for every region).
transmit, by the RF circuitry, the UL message after performing the LBT procedure. (See Salem para. 161; UE sense the channel then transmits; fig. 2, para. 37; transceiver)
Salem does not explicitly disclose the DCI CCA indication indicates a Type 1 LBT procedure and detect a channel occupancy time (COT) from the DCI. However, 3GPP TS 38.212v16.8.0 does disclose the DCI CCA indication indicates a Type 1 LBT procedure, (See 3GPP TS 38.212v16.8.0 pg. 93; DCI format 0_1 used for scheduling and indicates Type 1; Table 7.3.1.1.1-4) and detect a channel occupancy time (COT) from the DCI. (See 3GPP TS 38.212v16.8.0 pg. 86; DCI format 2_0 COT from DCI) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem to include the teaching of the DCI CCA indication indicates a Type 1 LBT procedure and detect a channel occupancy time (COT) from the DCI of 3GPP TS 38.212v16.8.0 with the motivation being to provide compatibility with the 3GPP suite of standards which saves time and money and further using standardized NR control signaling available at the time of the claimed invention.
Salem does not explicitly disclose switching between a type 1 procedure to a type 2 procedure. However, 3GPP TS 37.213v17.0.0 does disclose switching between a type 1 procedure to a type 2 procedure. (See 3GPP TS 37.213v17.0.0 pg. 18; UE switches from type 1 procedure to a type 2 procedure) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem to include the teaching of switching between a type 1 procedure to a type 2 procedure of 3GPP TS 37.213v17.0.0 with the motivation being to provide compatibility with the 3GPP suite of standards which saves time and money and further to reduce latency and transmission overhead and further to reduce power consumption and further to utilize spectrum and resources more efficiently.
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.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem (2022/0124796) and further in view of Abdel-Kader (2008/0259882) and further in view of Jia (2020/0351942).
Regarding claim 17, Salem discloses a baseband processor of a user equipment (UE), comprising: (See Salem fig. 2, para. 36; processing unit and memory which performs signal coding, data processing, power control, etc. (e.g. a baseband processor in that it performs the functions of a baseband processors))
one or more processors configured to: (See Salem fig. 2, para. 36; processor)
generate, for transmission by a radio frequency (RF) circuitry, (See Salem para. 37; transceiver (e.g. RF circuitry) generates signals for transmission) an uplink
(UL) message (See Salem fig. 5, para. 79; 524; UL transmission after channel is sensed idle)
Salem also discloses determining LBT mandatory regions such as EU, European Union, for MGWS, Multiple Gigabit Wireless System, through energy detection based CCA (e.g. clear channel assessment procedure) or non-LBT mandatory regions such as US, China, Japan, etc. (See Salem para. 49; see also para. 50; LBT, listen before talk, is a type of CCA)
Salem does not explicitly disclose receive a network identifier (ID) and determine, based on the network ID, a region and using the determined regulatory region to configure radio physical-layer operation. However, Abdel-Kader does disclose receive a network identifier (ID) (See Abdel-Kader para. 21; mobile country code, MCC, (e.g. it identifies the network as from a certain region (e.g. a network identifier)) is received by UE) and determine, based on the network ID, a region and (See Abdel-Kader para. 22; mapping of MCC to ISO country code and mapping to regulatory domain; see also fig. 4 steps 418, 420; para. 2; North America, ETSI, covering Europe, TELEC covering Japan (e.g. different regions)) using the determined regulatory region to configure radio physical-layer operation. (See Abdel-Kader fig.3, para. 26-27; configure PHY for operation based upon the determined regulatory domain) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem to include the teaching of receive a network identifier (ID) and determine, based on the network ID, a region and using the determined regulatory region to configure radio physical-layer operation of Abdel-Kader with the motivation being to allow for automatic regulatory compliance when roaming and further to reduce delay in channel access and further to reduce signaling by using base regulatory compliance parameters and then allowing the network to just fine tune those and further to prevent rogue devices from causing interference and to reduce manufacturing costs and allow users to freely move between region (which is more efficient and convenient then having different phones for every region).
Salem does not explicitly disclose determine a maximum channel occupancy time (MCOT); and transmitting during MCOT. However, Jia does disclose determine a maximum channel occupancy time (MCOT); (See Jia para. 79; terminal obtains MCOT) channel occupancy duration) and transmitting during MCOT. (See Jia para. 78, fig.3, fig. 4; UE transmits during MCOT that it obtained) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem to include the teaching of determine a maximum channel occupancy time (MCOT); and transmitting during MCOT of Jia with the motivation being for regulatory compliance and coexistence (e.g. no device may hold a channel beyond the MCOT) and further to enforce multi-slot/subframe boundaries and further to determine LBT priority class and contention parameters.
Regarding claim 20, Salem in view of Abdel-Kader in view of Jia discloses the baseband processor of any of claims 17-19, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to establish a radio resource control (RRC) connection (See Salem para. 70; UE in different RRC states Idle, Connected, inactive; UE configured with connection information to connect to network (e.g. establish an RRC connection))
before determining the MCOT. (See Jia para. 73; para. 80-81; UE is connected to network; para. 83; MCOT is determined after LBT) The motivation being for regulatory compliance and coexistence (e.g. no device may hold a channel beyond the MCOT) and further to enforce multi-slot/subframe boundaries and further to determine LBT priority class and contention parameters.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem (2022/0124796) and further in view of Abdel-Kader (2008/0259882) and further in view of Jia (2020/0351942) and further in view of Bhattad (2020/0187250).
Regarding claim 18, Salem in view of Abdel-Kader in view of Jia discloses the baseband processor of claim 17, wherein the determined region is the first region and (See Abdel-Kader para. 22; mapping of MCC to ISO country code and mapping to regulatory domain (e.g. the region is determined); see also fig. 4 steps 418, 420; para. 2; North America, ETSI, covering Europe, TELEC covering Japan (e.g. different regions)) The motivation being to allow for automatic regulatory compliance when roaming and further to reduce delay in channel access and further to reduce signaling by using base regulatory compliance parameters and then allowing the network to just fine tune those and further to prevent rogue devices from causing interference and to reduce manufacturing costs and allow users to freely move between region (which is more efficient and convenient then having different phones for every region).
the one or more processors are further configured to: generate the UL message during the MCOT (See Jia para. 79; terminal obtains MCOT) channel occupancy duration) (See Jia para. 78, fig.3, fig. 4; UE transmits during MCOT that it obtained) The motivation being for regulatory compliance and coexistence (e.g. no device may hold a channel beyond the MCOT) and further to enforce multi-slot/subframe boundaries and further to determine LBT priority class and contention parameters.
Salem in view of Abdel-Kader in view of Jia do not explicitly disclose without performing a LBT procedure associated with the UL message. However, Bhattad does disclose without performing a LBT procedure associated with the UL message. (See Bhattad fig. 4, para. 80) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem in view of Abdel-Kader in view of Jia to include the teaching of without performing a LBT procedure associated with the UL message of Bhattad with the motivation being to avoid unnecessary repeated sensing, reduce access delay and improve use of the already-acquired channel occupancy.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem (2022/0124796) and further in view of Abdel-Kader (2008/0259882) and further in view of Jia (2020/0351942) and further in view of Noh (2020/0322974).
Regarding claim 19, Salem in view of Abdel-Kader in view of Jia discloses the baseband processor of claim 17,
generate, for transmission by a radio frequency (RF) circuitry, (See Salem para. 37; transceiver (e.g. RF circuitry) generates signals for transmission) an uplink
(UL) message (See Salem fig. 5, para. 79; 524; UL transmission after channel is sensed idle)
wherein the determined region is the second region and (See Abdel-Kader para. 22; mapping of MCC to ISO country code and mapping to regulatory domain (e.g. the region is determined); see also fig. 4 steps 418, 420; para. 2; North America, ETSI, covering Europe, TELEC covering Japan (e.g. different regions)) The motivation being to allow for automatic regulatory compliance when roaming and further to reduce delay in channel access and further to reduce signaling by using base regulatory compliance parameters and then allowing the network to just fine tune those and further to prevent rogue devices from causing interference and to reduce manufacturing costs and allow users to freely move between region (which is more efficient and convenient then having different phones for every region).
generate the UL message during the MCOT (See Jia para. 79; terminal obtains MCOT) channel occupancy duration) (See Jia para. 78, fig.3, fig. 4; UE transmits during MCOT that it obtained) The motivation being for regulatory compliance and coexistence (e.g. no device may hold a channel beyond the MCOT) and further to enforce multi-slot/subframe boundaries and further to determine LBT priority class and contention parameters.
Salem in view of Abdel-Kader in view of Jia do not explicitly disclose determine that no transmissions from the UE or a base station (BS) occur during a gap period; and perform a LBT procedure where the LBT procedure is a Type 1 or Type 2 LBT procedure in response to determining that no transmissions occurred during the gap period. However, Noh does disclose determine that no transmissions from the UE or a base station (BS) occur during a gap period; and (See Noh para. 343-345, fig. 28; gap period) perform a LBT procedure where the LBT procedure is a Type 1 or Type 2 LBT procedure in response to determining that no transmissions occurred during the gap period. (See Noh para. 360; if channel continuously idle from time point when UL transmission stopped until the LBT point for the UL subframe (e.g. a gap) the UE performs LBT procedure; see also para. 129-131) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Salem in view of Abdel-Kader in view of Jia to include the teaching of determine that no transmissions from the UE or a base station (BS) occur during a gap period; and perform a LBT procedure where the LBT procedure is a Type 1 or Type 2 LBT procedure in response to determining that no transmissions occurred during the gap period of Noh with the motivation being to maintain fair coexistence with other devices using the unlicensed channel and further to reduce channel-access delay.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CLAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm est.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at (571) 272-3155. 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.
/Stephen J Clawson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights