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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
1. (Proposed Amendment) A wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), comprising:
a processor configured to:
determine to use a first listen-before-talk (LBT) type of a set of LBT types for LBT processing, wherein the set of LBT types includes at least the first LBT type and a second LBT type;
receive, from a base station, downlink control information (DCI) indicating time or frequency resources for a downlink transmission, wherein an uplink transmission is associated with the downlink transmission;
determine, based on the downlink control information, to switch from the first LBT type to the second LBT type; and
send the uplink transmission after performing the LBT processing in accordance with the second LBT type.
5. (Proposed Amendment) The WTRU of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine to use the first LBT type of the set of LBT types based on an LBT configuration indicated in radio resource control (RRC) signaling.
6. (Proposed Amendment) The WTRU of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine the set of LBT types based on an LBT configuration received via radio resource control (RRC) signaling.
7. (Proposed Amendment) The WTRU of claim 1, wherein the downlink control information indicates an LBT type to be performed.
8. (Proposed Amendment) The WTRU of claim 1, wherein the downlink control information indicates an implicit LBT type selection.
9. (Proposed Amendment) The WTRU of claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine, based on the implicit LBT type selection indication, whether to switch from the first LBT type to the second LBT type.
10. (Proposed Amendment) The WTRU of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: send reservation data associated with the uplink transmission, wherein the reservation data indicates resources to be reserved for the uplink transmission.
11. (Proposed Amendment) A method implemented by a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising:
determining to use a first listen-before-talk (LBT) type of a set of LBT types for LBT processing, wherein the set of LBT types includes at least the first LBT type and a second LBT type;
receiving, from a base station, downlink control information indicating time or frequency resources for a downlink transmission, wherein an uplink transmission is associated with the downlink transmission;
determining, based on the downlink control information, to switch from the first LBT type to the second LBT type; and
sending the uplink transmission after performing the LBT processing in accordance with the second LBT type.
15. (Proposed Amendment) The method of claim 11, further comprising: determining to use the first LBT type of the set of LBT types based on an LBT configuration indicated in radio resource control (RRC) signaling.
16. (Proposed Amendment) The method of claim 11, further comprising: determining the set of LBT types based on an LBT configuration received via radio resource control (RRC) signaling.
17. (Proposed Amendment) The method of claim 11, wherein the downlink control information indicates an LBT type to be performed.
18. (Proposed Amendment) The method of claim 11, wherein the downlink control information indicates an implicit LBT type selection.
19. (Proposed Amendment) The method of claim 18, further comprising: determining, based on the implicit LBT type selection indication, whether to switch from the first LBT type to the second LBT type.
20. (Proposed Amendment) The method of claim 11, further comprising: sending reservation data associated with the uplink transmission, wherein the reservation data indicates resources to be reserved for the uplink transmission.
Claims 2-4 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1, therefore they are also objected.
Claims 12-14 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 11, therefore they are also objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
The preamble of claim 1 recites “[A] wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising a processor configured to...”, but the body recites active operational steps of performance ("receive," "determine," "switch," "send"). Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the metes and bounds require the WTRU to be structurally capable of receiving/sending the steps or acts within a physical device claim. See the proposed amendment by the examiner to claim 1 in the claim objections.
Line 4 of both claims 1 and 11, the phrase “the base station” also lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 2-10 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1, therefore they are also rejected.
Claims 12-20 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 11, therefore they are also rejected.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 2019/0342915 A1), hereinafter “Kim”.
Kim illustrates a wireless communication system in FIG. 30 comprising a user equipment (UE) for transmitting an uplink signal to a base station (BS), wherein the wireless communication system includes a receiver, a transmitter, and a processor configured to receive first information scheduling uplink signal transmission for one or more first subframes and indicating a first LBT (Listen-Before-Talk) type as an LBT type for the one or more first subframes from the base station, receive second information indicating one or more second subframes included in downlink MCOT (maximum channel occupancy time) from the base station, perform LBT of a second LBT type other than the first LBT type in the one or more first subframes and transmit the uplink signal based on a result of the performed LBT the first LBT type by performing random backoff and the second LBT type correspond to an LBT type attempting to perform uplink signal transmission when a channel is in an idle state for prescribed time. See paragraphs [0007]-[0009].
The reference teaches that the present disclosure supported by standard specifications of wireless access systems including an IEEE 802.xx system, a 3GPP system, and an LTE system, and the UE receives the remaining MCOT value via a common PDCCH, a UE-specific PDCCH, a PHICH, or the like. Is it inherent or well known to reject the claim of "a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising a processor configured to: determine to use a first listen-before-talk (LBT) type of a set of LBT types for LBT processing, wherein the set of LBT types includes at least the first LBT type and a second LBT type; receive, from the base station, downlink control information indicating time or frequency resources for a downlink transmission, wherein an uplink transmission is associated with the downlink transmission; determine, based on the downlink control information, to switch from the first LBT type to the second LBT type; and send the uplink transmission after performing LBT in accordance with the second LBT type. See paragraphs [0048] and [0198].
Regarding claim 1, Kim illustrates a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (wireless communication system shown in FIG. 30, the UE is the standard 3GPP equivalent of a WTRU) comprising a processor (40 or 140) configured to: determine to use a first listen-before-talk (LBT) type of a set of LBT types for LBT processing, wherein the set of LBT types includes at least the first LBT type and a second LBT type (“...receive first information scheduling uplink signal transmission... and indicating a first LBT type...” The set of LBT types (first type with random backoff, second type checking if the channel is idle for a prescribed time). The processor determines to use the first type based on the received scheduling information); receive, from the base station (FIG. 30), downlink control information indicating time or frequency resources for a downlink transmission, wherein an uplink transmission is associated with the downlink transmission (“...receive second information indicating one or more second subframes included in downlink MCOT value via a common PDCCH, a UE-specific PDCCH...” The Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) carries Downlink Control Information (DCI). The MCOT indicates the time resources reserved for the downlink transmission window, which dictates when the subsequent/associated uplink transmission can safely bypass the random backoff LBT); determine, based on the downlink control information, to switch from the first LBT type to the second LBT type (“...perform LBT of a second LBT type other than the first LBT type in the one or more first subframes... based on receiving the second information/MCOT...” Kim explicitly teaches switching from the first LBT type to the second LBT type upon receiving the MCOT (downlink control information) that signals the subframes are inside the shared channel occupancy window); and send the uplink transmission after performing LBT in accordance with the second LBT type (“...transmit the uplink signal based on a result of the performed LBT of the second LBT type...” Directly anticipated by Kim’s step of transmitting the uplink signal after validating the second LBT type requirements).
Although Kim does not explicitly phrase the MCOT parameters as “time or frequency resources for a downlink transmission,” it would have been completely obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) to implement this switch based on standard DCI. In 3GPP LTE-LAA (License Assisted Access) and 5G NR-U (Unlicensed) frameworks which Kim explicitly notes it supports a base station grabs a channel (MCOT) for downlink transmission. When the base station shares its remaining MCOT with a UE via PDCCH (DCI), the UE is legally permitted by regulatory bodies to switch from a burdensome Category 4 LBT (random backoff) to a rapid Category 2 LBT (short 25µs clear channel assessment) for its associated uplink response (like an ACK/NACK or scheduled PUSCH). Modifying Kim’s MCOT notification framework to be explicitly tied to downlink transmission resource allocation represents nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to maximize channel utility and reduce transmission latency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention to tie this LBT type switch directly to downlink resource allocations. This is because, under 3GPP LTE/LTE-A specifications explicitly taught by Kim, sharing a channel occupancy time between downlink data bursts and associated uplink transmissions inherently requires informing the WTRU of the downlink window parameters via DCI to ensure collision-free switching.
Regarding claim 11, it is a method claim that recites features corresponding to those of apparatus claim 1 for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, it is well known and inherent under standard wireless protocols that a Category 4 (Cat 4) Listen-Before-Talk (LBT) mechanism which involves random backoff with a variable contention window size serves as the “default LBT type” for uplink transmissions in unlicensed spectrum because Kim’s wireless communication system relies on standard 3GPP specifications where random backoff is the mandatory baseline access method when outside a shared MCOT, the first LBT type operates inherently as the default type.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 13-14, the First LBT Type with random backoff matches Category 4 LBT (also known as Type 1 Uplink channel access in 3GPP specifications). It involves picking a random backoff counter within a contention window and counting down only when the channel is idle. The Second LBT Type (idle for a prescribed time) matches Category 2 LBT (also known as Type 2 Uplink channel access), which is a short, fixed-duration clear channel assessment (CCA) without a random backoff counter. In 3GPP standard architecture, the baseline assessment window for the First LBT Type (Category 4) is inherently longer than the Second LBT Type (Category 2) because it scales with a random backoff multiplier. If a specific implementation sets a minimal single-slot backoff, the nominal sensing slot itself could theoretically be shorter.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, wherein the processor is configured to: determine to use the first LBT type of the set of LBT types based on receiving a configuration for LBT via radio resource control (RRC) signaling is considered well-known or obvious under the standard 3GPP/LTE-A systems. For example, configuring telecommunication parameters via RRC signaling is a standard, fundamental practice in 3GPP LTE and 5G NR systems. A person ordinarily skilled in the art (PHOSITA) would consider it well-known for the following reasons: In 3GPP systems, semi-static configurations (like default LBT configurations, sets of allowed LBT types, or channel access parameters) are routinely handled by RRC signaling. Dynamic overrides or specific scheduling triggers are then handled by the PDCCH (DCI). The dependent claims 5 and 15 specifies determining to use a type “of the set of LBT types based on receiving a configuration... via RRC signaling.” In standard LTE-LAA (License Assisted Access) and NR-U (Unlicensed) specifications, the base station configures the underlying allowed LBT parameters or configurations via RRC and then triggers or dynamically switches them via the PDCCH. Combining Kim’s dynamic LBT switching with standard RRC configuration techniques is a routine design choice. It yields the entirely predictable result of reducing physical layer signaling overhead by configuring underlying parameters ahead of time.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Kim teaches that the base station schedules uplink signal transmissions and indicates the LBT type using control channels like the PDCCH. In the context of the cited 3GPP and LTE systems, it is a notoriously well-known industry standard to pre-configure the available options/sets via RRC signaling and then dynamically select the active option via DCI. Therefore, the dependent claims introduce standard, predictable technical features that are inherent to how LBT types are managed in the mentioned wireless architectures.
regarding claims 7 and 17, it is both explicitly disclosed and inherently well-known in the art that the downlink control information (DCI) comprises an indication of an LBT type to be used, based on the standard wireless communication protocols (like 3GPP LTE/5G NR). Kim explicitly states that the User Equipment (UE) is configured to “receive first information scheduling uplink signal transmission... and indicating a first LBT (Listen-Before-Talk) type.” Further, in cellular systems (like LTE and 3GPP systems mentioned in the text), “information scheduling uplink signal transmission” is the exact functional definition of Downlink Control Information (DCI) carried by a PDCCH (Physical Downlink Control Channel). Therefore, Kim explicitly states this scheduling information contains/indicates the LBT type and directly teaches the limitation of the dependent claims 7 and 17.
Regarding claims 8-9 and 18-19, Kim states that the UE receives a first LBT type (typically Category 4 LBT / Random Backoff) for scheduled subframes, but switches to a second LBT type (typically Category 2 LBT / Immediate 25µs clear channel assessment) when those subframes fall within the base station’s Downlink MCOT. By teaching that the UE receives the downlink MCOT information (e.g., remaining MCOT value) via a common PDCCH (like the GC-PDCCH / Group Common PDCCH) or UE-specific PDCCH, it inherently establishes an implicit trigger. The “implicit LBT type selection indication” is the receipt of the MCOT availability itself. When the UE detects that its scheduled uplink subframe overlaps with the active downlink MCOT shared by the base station, the processor is configured to automatically (implicitly) switch from the strict Category 4 LBT to the short Category 2 LBT.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, although Kim’s LBT switching mechanism functions flawlessly without the transmission of explicit resource reservation data, Kim explicitly notes that the disclosure is supported by standard specifications of wireless access systems, including the IEEE 802.xx system, the 3GPP system, and the LTE system. In shared or unlicensed spectrums (like LTE-LAA or 5G-NR Unlicensed), sending a “reservation signal” or “reservation data” (such as a channel usage beacon, fractional subframe reservation, or scheduling request) is a standard, ubiquitous technique that incorporating reservation data to prevent collisions during the uplink transmission would be a routine optimization.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang et al. relates to a method of dynamic spectrum sharing mechanism called listen-before-talk (LBT) is proposed for uplink transmission in Licensed Assisted Access (LAA). A maximum channel occupancy time (MCOT) including downlink (DL) transmission from one eNB and uplink (UL) transmission to the same eNB is introduced. A transmission sequence is defined as a number of subframes including possible partial subframes for DL and/or UL within a MCOT. The transmission in the first subframe among the transmission sequence is conducted after a Category 4 LBT. The transmission sequence within the MCOT can be initiated by either a DL transmission or an UL transmission. After the first subframe in a transmission sequence, LBT for another transmission is a fast DL LBT and/or fast UL LBT. Further, a Category 4 LBT can be converted to a short LBT (e.g., one shot CCA) for more efficient channel access.
Yerramalli et al. relates to a method for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) includes receiving, over the air, information indicative of at least one type of LBT procedure to perform for an uplink transmission; identifying, from the received information, the at least one type of LBT procedure to perform for the uplink transmission; and performing, for a shared spectrum, the at least one type of LBT procedure for the uplink transmission. One method for wireless communication at a network access device includes scheduling an uplink transmission of a UE in a shared spectrum, and transmitting, over the air, information indicative of at least one type of LBT procedure to perform for the uplink transmission.
Yang et al. relates to a wireless access system supporting an unlicensed band, and to methods for performing uplink listen before talk (LBT) on multiple carriers, and a device supporting the same. According to one embodiment of the present invention, a method by which a terminal performs LBT in a wireless access system supporting an unlicensed band and multiple carriers can comprise the steps of: receiving, from a base station, each of uplink grants for scheduling uplink channels on two or more component carriers (CCs); randomly selecting a first CC on which a first LBT is to be performed from among the two or more CCs; performing the first LBT on the selected first CC: and performing a second LBT on the remaining CCs among the two or more CCs, wherein the first LBT can be a random back-off-based LBT for performing a random back-off by a random back-off counter value, and the second LBT can be a channel sensing-based LBT for sensing a channel during a predetermined time interval before uplink transmission.
Kim et al. relates to a method and an apparatus for determining a Listen Before Talk (LBT) mode, as well as a method for LBT mode switching. The method includes: determining (100) an LBT mechanism and/or an LBT mechanism parameter set based on related indication information and/or priority information and/or measurement information; and performing (101), by a transmitting device, contention-based channel access based on the determined LBT mechanism and/or LBT mechanism parameter set. With the present disclosure, an LBT mode can be determined. With the selection of the LBT mode, it is possible to avoid wasting channel resources and indication information due to an improper LBT mode, thereby improving the efficiency of contention-based channel access.
WANG et al. relates to a communication method and system for converging a 5.sup.th-Generation (5G) communication system for supporting higher data rates beyond a 4.sup.th-Generation (4G) system with a technology for Internet of Things (IoT). The present disclosure may be applied to intelligent services based on the 5G communication technology and the IoT-related technology, such as smart home, smart building, smart city, smart car, connected car, health care, digital education, smart retail, security and safety services. The present disclosure provides a method for monitoring a carrier and transmitting a signal over an unlicensed band. The method includes: determining information on an LBT priority based on a signaling indication and thus a transmission parameter associated with the LBT priority when a UE operating on an unlicensed band carrier transmits a signal based on autonomous uplink access and uses a first category of LBT. The present disclosure further includes: selecting a transmission resource by determining the resource based on LBT information; and determining a scheme for CWS adjustment for LBT based on a scheduling scheme. With the present disclosure, a LAA UE can coexist with other UEs and/or other LAA UEs properly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Young T. Tse whose telephone number is (571)272-3051. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:30am-7pm.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/Young T. Tse/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights