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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-10, 14, 21, 23, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui et al.(US 20250024494) in view of Park et al. (KR20170093059 from IDS dated 1/27/2025).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 21, Hui teaches to obtain a configuration of a candidate resource selection in an unlicensed operation (Fig. 18 and [0220] Each wireless device may attempt to transmit using different resource units, for example, to avoid collisions); establish a minimum time offset value for a contention window size (CWS) ([0469] The transmitting entity may draw a random number N within a contention window. The size of the contention window may be specified by the minimum and maximum value of N); and the minimum time offset value for the CWS ([0469] The random number N may be used in the LBT procedure to determine the duration of time that the channel is sensed to be idle before the transmitting entity transmits on the channel).
Hui, however, does not expressly teach to report minimum time offset value for the CWS. Park discloses Fig. 9, S920 - eNodeB reporting CWS. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with Park in order to control the competitive window size for data transmission and variably control a channel occupant rate of a terminal (Abstract, Park).
Regarding claim 10, Hui in view of Park, as in claim 1 above, teaches to receive, from a user equipment (UE), a minimum time offset value for a contention window size (CWS) ([0469] The transmitting entity may draw a random number N within a contention window. The size of the contention window may be specified by the minimum and maximum value of N). Hui teaches sidelink resource pool in Fig. 18 and Park further teaches to transmit, to the UE, a signaling indicating a resource according to the CWS (Fig. 9. S930 DCI (UL Grant). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with Park in order to control the competitive window size for data transmission and variably control a channel occupant rate of a terminal (Abstract, Park).
Regarding claims 3 and 23, Hui teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to establish the minimum time offset value for the CWS based at least in part on an estimate of time to determine sidelink slots by a clear channel assessment procedure (Fig. 21- 24, and [0469] The size of contention window may be specified by the minimum and maximum value of N).
Regarding claims 4 and 24, Hui teaches to cause the UE to report the minimum time offset value for the CWS to at least one of a candidate resource selection procedure or a physical layer (PHY) of the UE for autonomous resource selection by the UE ([0469] The transmitting entity may draw a random number N within a contention window. The size of the contention window may be specified by the minimum and maximum value of N… The random number N may be used in the LBT procedure to determine the duration of time that the channel is sensed to be idle before the transmit3ting entity transmits on the channel).
Regarding claims 7 and 26, Hui teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to reselect a sidelink resource based at least in part on a completion delay of a clear channel assessment procedure (Fig. 24, Fig. 25, [0478] The first wireless device may select, based on the LBT failure of the first resource and for the one or more sidelink transmissions, a second resource other than the first resource).
Regarding claim 8, Hui teaches wherein the completion delay of the clear channel assessment procedure is based on at least one of a lack of the candidate resource selection or a listen-before-talk (LBT) failure ([0478] The first wireless device may select, based on the LBT failure of the first resource and for the one or more sidelink transmissions, a second resource other than the first resource).
Regarding claim 9, Hui teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to perform resource reselection based at least in part on a lack of the candidate resource selection being utilized for sidelink transmission due to at least one of a LBT failure or a completion delay of a clear channel assessment procedure (Fig. 24, Fig. 25, [0478] The first wireless device may select, based on the LBT failure of the first resource and for the one or more sidelink transmissions, a second resource other than the first resource).
Claims 2 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui et al. (US 20250024494) modified by Park et al. (KR20170093059 from IDS dated 1/27/2025), and further in view of Di Girolamo et al. (US 20260164459).
Regarding claims 2 and 22, neither Hui nor Park expressly teach wherein the configuration of the candidate resource selection comprises of a channel access priority class (CAPC) value. Di Girolamo teaches re-evaluating resource selection and TABLE 2 - Channel Access Priority Class. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with Di Girolamo in order to have systems and methods that can effectively allocate resources to users transmitting on unlicensed bands ([0002], Di Girolamo).
15-20. (canceled)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 11-13 and 25 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. Xue et al. (US 20210058968) discloses Fig. 4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNSOOK CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-1822. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 5712723940. 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.
/EUNSOOK CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights