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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 received on 12/12/2024 have been examined, of which claims 1, 5-6 are independent.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit configured to determine” and/or “a transmission unit configured to transmit” in claims 1-5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 5 and 6 recite “immediately after an/the occasion”. The term immediately after is a relative term, and it is unclear immediately is to be considered next slot, next symbol or specific time gap. Thus, the metes and bounds of the limitation is unclear. Dependent claims are rejected for same reasons.
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 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.
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 1, 3-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Phan et al. (US 20230345529)
Regarding claim 1, Van Phan teaches a terminal (device 600, fig 6; para 111: the device 600 may be provided to implement the communication device, for example the UE 110-1 or the COT provider 120 as shown in fig. 1) comprising:
a control unit (processor 610, fig 6) configured to, in a case of detecting that a COT (Channel occupancy time) related to a device-to-device direct communication is continuing (para 49: if the initiating device intends to perform a new transmission (within the COT), it is still required to perform a “reduced” LBT procedure; para 52: continue transmissions in this COT) and detecting that there is an occasion for transmitting a signal during the COT (para 50: the responding device may use this information to determine which category/type of LBT should be applied for performing a transmission to the initiating device), determine whether or not the COT ends and perform an LBT (Listen before talk) (para 50: in case either the transmission from the responding device falls outside the COT or the responding device intends to perform a transmission to a device other than the initiating device, the responding device may have to acquire a new COT using the LBT Type 1 (LBT Cat.4) with the appropriate CAPC); and
a transmission unit (communication modules 640, fig 6) configured to transmit a signal of the device-to- device direct communication in a case where the LBT is successful (para 49: if the LBT Type 1 (LBT Cat.4) is successfully complete, the UE may perform a transmission and acquire the COT with duration associated with the corresponding CAPC), wherein in a case where the COT is determined to end, the control unit performs the LBT having a period that is longer than that of the LBT for a case where the COT is not determined to end (para 48-49: when a UE initiates the communication, the UE may acquire the “right” to access the channel for a certain time period of, which may be referred to as the Channel Occupancy Time (COT), by applying an “extended” LBT procedure in which the channel can be considered as free on the entire duration of a Contention Window (CW), if the initiating device intends to perform a new transmission (within the COT), it is still required to perform a “reduced” LBT procedure; thus, the reduced or type 2 LBT is used within COT, and extended or type 1 LBT is used outside of COT).
Van Phan teaches COT and LBT aware sensing and sidelink transmission on U-band. Van phan does not specifically teach determining if COT ends immediately after the occasion. It is noted above that the interpretation of term immediately is unclear. Van Phan teaches transmission within COT in para 49 and if the transmission from the responding device falls outside the COT, the responding device may have to acquire a new COT using the LBT Type 1 (LBT Cat.4) with the appropriate CAPC) in para 50. Thus, the terminal is determining transmission within COT and outside COT. The determination of falling outside the COT and performing LBT of type 1(extended) is obvious to teach the determination that COT ends. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine COT for sidelink transmission in U-band as taught by Van Phan with performing sidelink transmission based on COT and LBT procedures as taught by Van Phan for the benefit of providing a solution of COT for SL communication in U-band as taught by Van Phan in para 56.
Regarding claim 6, Van Phan teaches a communication method performed by a terminal (abstract: methods, apparatuses and computer readable storage media of Channel Occupancy Time (COT) for Sidelink (SL) communication in Unlicensed band (U-band); fig 1-2), the communication method comprising:
in a case of detecting that a COT (Channel occupancy time) related to a device-to-device direct communication is continuing (para 49: if the initiating device intends to perform a new transmission (within the COT), it is still required to perform a “reduced” LBT procedure) and detecting that there is an occasion for transmitting a signal during the COT (para 50: the responding device may use this information to determine which category/type of LBT should be applied for performing a transmission to the initiating device), determining whether or not the COT ends and performing LBT (Listen before talk) (para 50: in case either the transmission from the responding device falls outside the COT or the responding device intends to perform a transmission to a device other than the initiating device, the responding device may have to acquire a new COT using the LBT Type 1 (LBT Cat.4) with the appropriate CAPC);
transmitting a signal of the device-to-device direct communication in a case where the LBT is successful (para 49: if the LBT Type 1 (LBT Cat.4) is successfully complete, the UE may perform a transmission and acquire the COT with duration associated with the corresponding CAPC); and in a case where the COT is determined to end, performing the LBT having a period that is longer than that of the LBT for a case where the COT is not determined to end (para 48-49: when a UE initiates the communication, the UE may acquire the “right” to access the channel for a certain time period of, which may be referred to as the Channel Occupancy Time (COT), by applying an “extended” LBT procedure in which the channel can be considered as free on the entire duration of a Contention Window (CW), if the initiating device intends to perform a new transmission (within the COT), it is still required to perform a “reduced” LBT procedure; thus, the reduced or type 2 LBT is used within COT, and extended or type 1 LBT is used outside of COT).
Van Phan teaches COT and LBT aware sensing and sidelink transmission on U-band. Van phan does not specifically teach determining if COT ends immediately after the occasion. It is noted above that the interpretation of term immediately is unclear. Van Phan teaches transmission within COT in para 49 and if the transmission from the responding device falls outside the COT, the responding device may have to acquire a new COT using the LBT Type 1 (LBT Cat.4) with the appropriate CAPC) in para 50. Thus, the terminal is determining transmission within COT and outside COT. The determination of falling outside the COT and performing LBT of type 1(extended) is obvious to teach the determination that COT ends. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine COT for sidelink transmission in U-band as taught by Van Phan with performing sidelink transmission based on COT and LBT procedures as taught by Van Phan for the benefit of providing a solution of COT for SL communication in U-band as taught by Van Phan in para 56.
Regarding claim 3, Van Phan further teaches wherein the control unit determines that the COT ends in a case where the occasion is an occasion of a feedback channel (para 53: the responding devices may be allowed to transmit feedback such as ACK to a received packet within the current COT without performing an additional LBT, while in LBE, the responding device may have to perform a LBT (depending on the timing of the transmission from the initiating device and of feedback from the responding device) before accessing the channel to transmit the feedback), and determines that the COT does not end in a case where the occasion is an occasion of a signal including a synchronization signal (para 63: in a semi-static option (FBE), the fixed frame period and/or fixed COT duration may be preconfigured to the COT provider and the local UEs along with configurations related to the U-pool, and/or SL synchronization for U-pool, and/or time period and resources for transmitting the signal indicating the COT configuration).
Regarding claim 4, Van Phan further teaches wherein the transmission unit performs transmission on the occasion, and the control unit determines that the COT does not end (para 73: if the local UE 110-1 determines such gap is detected before the SL transmission within the COT, the local UE 110-1 may perform a LBT procedure before the SL transmission within the COT, if the LBT procedure is successfully performed, the local UE 110-1 may perform the SL transmission; here, the gap within the COT is considered as determination that COT does not end).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Phan et al. (US 20230345529) in view of Liu et al. (US 20220159725)
Regarding claim 2, Van Phan fails to teach the signal strength difference to determine if LBT is idle or busy. Liu is directed to COT and LBT aware sensing window and resource determination.
Liu further teaches wherein in a case where the COT is determined to end, when performing the LBT, the control unit determines whether the LBT is idle or busy based on a difference between a signal strength of the device-to-device direct communication and a signal strength that is detected in the LBT during the COT (para 57: A CCA may include an energy detection procedure to determine whether there are any other active transmissions on the shared channel. For example, a device may infer that a change in a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of a power meter indicates that a channel is occupied). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine COT for sidelink transmission in U-band as taught by Van Phan with determining busy or idle channel in CCA (LBT) procedure based on signal strength as taught by Liu for the benefit of providing efficient use of shared resources as taught by Liu in para 26.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20220159725) in view of Van Phan et al. (US 20230345529)
Regarding claim 5, Liu teaches a terminal (UE 115, fig 1-4, 11) comprising:
a control unit (processor 280, fig 11) configured to select a resource from resource candidates (para 91: the UE may randomly select a resource from the identified candidate resources) in which a resource immediately after an occasion for transmitting a signal is excluded (para 99: for resources outside of a COT, some of the resources may be excluded based on the projected time for a CAT 4 LBT procedure); and
a transmission unit (wireless radio 252, fig 11) configured to transmit a signal of device-to-device direct communication by using the selected resource (para 91: the UE may transmit a sidelink transmission (e.g., including SCI in a PSCCH and the packet in a PSSCH) using the selected resource).
Liu teaches COT aware sensing and sensing window determination based on projected LBT completion time (abstract). Liu also teaches LBT success rate and sidelink in-COT and out-COT resource determination, but is silent regarding sidelink transmission when LBT is successful. Van Phan is directed to COT for sidelink communication in unlicensed band.
Van Phan further teaches to transmit a signal of device-to-device direct communication in a case where the LBT is successful (para 73: if the LBT procedure is successfully performed, the local UE 110-1 may perform the SL transmission). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine resource selection for sidelink transmission as taught by Liu with performing sidelink transmission based on LBT success as taught by Van Phan for the benefit of providing a solution of COT for SL communication in U-band as taught by Van Phan in para 56.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RINA C PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-2679. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached on 571-272-3144. 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.
/RINA C PANCHOLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477 9/30/2026
Prosecution Insights