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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to amendments and remarks filed 02 July 2026. Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 12-15, 17, 20-22, 24-25, 27-29, 33-35 and 37-45 are pending in the application.
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. Examiner finds the means disclosed at Figs 8 and 9, and paragraphs [0124]-[0147].
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(s) 1, 4-5, 7, 9, 12-13, 15, 17, 20-22, 24-25, 27-29, 33, 35, 37 and 39-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 2021/0022139 A1) in view of Shin et al. (US 2022/0329301 A1), hereafter “Shin2”, in view of Huang et al. (US 2020/0178216 A1) in view of Yang et al. (US 2021/00680156 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shin appears to disclose a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
transmitting an aperiodic channel state information (CSI) request to a UE, wherein the aperiodic CSI request is for a sidelink channel between the relay UE and the UE (Fig. 8, 805, [0113] disclosing “the transmitting terminal 801 may request the receiving terminal 802 to report sidelink channel state information (CSI)”; [0116] disclosing “in the case of unicast transmission between terminals of a sidelink, only aperiodic sidelink CSI reporting is considered.”);
transmitting to the UE, a set of CSI reference signals (CSI-RSs) (Fig. 8, 805, [0113] disclosing terminal 801 transmits sidelink CSI-RS to the receiving terminal 802);
receiving an aperiodic CSI report from the UE based at least in part on the set of sidelink CSI-RSs ([0114]-[0116] disclosing the transmitting terminal receives the aperiodic CSI report);
receiving, from a base station via a MAC signal an indication of a plurality of modulation and coding schemes (MCSs) for sidelink communications in the sidelink channel ([0043] disclosing upper signalling received from the base station can be either RRC or MAC CEs; [0134] disclosing the base station can indicate the MCS configuration via the upper layer; [0211]-[0212] and Table 4 disclosing the MCS configuration comprises a range “minMCS-PSSCH, maxMCS-PSSCH”; Fig. 4, 421);
selecting an MCS, of the plurality of MCSs, for sidelink communications in the sidelink channel; and; transmitting a data communication to the UE via a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH), wherein the sidelink channel is modulated using the selected MCS of the plurality of MCS ([0234]-[0235] disclosing the transmitting terminal selects the transmission parameters including the MCS from the transmission parameter set (SL-PSSCH-TXParameters) of Table 4 and transmits to the receiving terminal based on the selected MCS; Fig. 4, 421, [0081] disclosing “in operation 421, the transmitting terminal 401 may broadcast data to the receiving terminal 402 via the PSSCH.”).
Shin does not disclose the following; however, Shin2 suggests an aperiodic CSI request transmitted via a medium access control (MAC) layer ([0198] disclosing “Method 3: SL CSI reporting is enabled and the SL CSI reporting is triggered/activated by an MAC CE”); and transmitting the aperiodic CSI report to the base station ([0085] [0307]-[0308] disclosing in mode 1, the transmitting UE may transmit the SL CSI report received from the receiving UE to the base station).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Shin with the teaching in Shin2 because it allows for interference management and resource pool management by the base station ([0077]) while allowing the UE to configure the transmission parameter information other than resource scheduling information Shin teaches included in the mode 1 DCI (Shin2: [0304]),
Huang discloses a method of wireless communication by a relay UE, comprising:
receiving, from the base station, a data communication to be relayed to the UE; and relaying the data communication to the UE via the PSSCH (Fig. 2A, [0025] disclosing a UE within coverage of the cellular network acts as a relay node such that a remote node outside of the coverage can communicate with the network (i.e., inherently including receiving data relayed by the relay UE from the base station) e.g., via the PSSCH of Shin).
Huang further suggests MCSs are received from the base station via a MAC signal ([0041] disclosing a control signal for controlling sidelink communications based on feedback received from a UE can be received from the base station via MAC CE; Figs. 4-5, [0045]-[0047] disclosing said control information comprising modulation and coding schemes based on said feedback).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the techniques of Shin with the techniques of Huang because Huang is in the same field of endeavor and the teaching lies in Huang that such techniques allow an out of coverage terminal to communicate with the network ([0025]).
Yang discloses receiving, from the base station, an indication, in a radio resource control (RRC) communication, to transmit the aperiodic CSI report to the base station; transmitting the aperiodic CSI report to a base station, based at least in part on the indication ([0033] disclosing “Aperiodic CSI report: It may refer to a CSI report sent by the UE to the base station based on an indication of the base station (for example, when receiving indication information sent by the base station). Specifically, the RRC layer may configure parameters (for example, a slot offset and a symbol in a slot) of an aperiodic CSI report”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Shin as suggested by Yang because this can reduce the waste of resources in a measurement process and increase utilization of the resources ([0038]).
Regarding claim 4, Shin does not expressly disclose the following; however, Huang discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the aperiodic CSI report is transmitted to the base station in at least one of a MAC control element or a MAC payload ([0081] MAC PDU; [0094] MAC CE on the PUCCH).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shin with the teaching in Huang because Huang indicates this solves a need for a satisfactory solution for how a base station controls sidelink transmission parameters applicable to the V2X systems of Shin ([0004]).
Regarding claim 5, Shin suggest the method of claim 1, wherein the MAC signal comprises a MAC control element or a MAC payload, downlink control information ([0043] disclosing upper signalling received from the base station can be either RRC or MAC CEs; [0134] disclosing the base station can indicate the MCS configuration via the upper layer).
Regarding claim 7, Shin discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: selecting, by the relay UE a second MCS ([0234]-[0235] disclosing the transmitting terminal selects the transmission parameters including the MCS from the transmission parameter set (SL-PSSCH-TXParameters) of Table 4 which; The acts disclosed by Shin implicitly are performed a plurality of times; as opposed to, only once.).
Regarding claims 9, 12-13 and 15, the claims are directed towards a relay user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, operatively coupled to the memory, configured to perform the method of claims 1, 4-5 and 7. Shin discloses such embodiments (Fig. 12, [0251]-[0257]); accordingly, claims 9, 12-13 and 15 are rejected on the grounds presented above for claims 1, 4-5 and 7.
Claims 17 and 20-22 are directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a relay user equipment (UE), cause the relay UE to perform the method of claims 1, 4-5 and 7. Shin discloses such embodiments (Fig. 12, [0251]-[0257]); accordingly, claims 17, 20-22 are rejected on the grounds presented above for claims 1, 4-5 and 7.
Claim 24 and 27-29 are directed towards an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising means for performing the method of claims 1, 4-5 and 7. The prior art discloses equivalent means (Shin: Id.; Fig. 12, [0251]-[0257]; Huang: Id.); accordingly, claims 24 and 27-29 are rejected on the grounds presented above for claims 1, 4-5 and 7.
Regarding claim 25, Shin does not expressly disclose the following; however, Huang discloses wherein the apparatus is a relay UE (Fig. 2A, Relay UE 214, [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the techniques of Shin with the techniques of Huang because Huang is in the same field of endeavor and the teaching lies in Huang that such techniques allow an out of coverage terminal to communicate with the network ([0025]).
Regarding claim 33, Shin and Huang suggest the relay UE of claim 9, wherein a communication link between the relay UE and the base station is associated with a higher channel quality than a communication link between the base station and the UE, and wherein a communication link between the relay UE and the UE is associated with higher channel quality than the communication link between the base station and the UE (Shin: Fig. 1B, [0055] disclosing the second terminal (i.e., “the UE”) is located outside the coverage of the base station while the first terminal 120 (i.e. the first UE, a.k.a., “the relay UE”) can communicate with the base station which implicitly discloses better coverage between the first terminal and both the base station and second terminal than between the second terminal and base station; Huang, Fig. 2A, Relay UE 214, [0025] disclosing the same scenario of the remote UE corresponding to “the UE” recited in the claims being out of coverage while communication can take place with the baser station via the relay UE. Out of coverage implicitly disclosing insufficient link quality to communicate; as opposed to sufficient link quality between the UE and the relay and between the relay and the base station).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the techniques of Shin with the techniques of Huang because Huang is in the same field of endeavor and the teaching lies in Huang that such techniques allow an out of coverage terminal to communicate with the network ([0025]).
Regarding claim 34, Shin discloses the relay UE of claim 15, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
determine the second MCS based on the reported SL CSI ([0134]) but does not disclose the following; however, Shin 2 suggests determine a different MCS index value; and select the second MCS based at least in part on the different MCS index value ([0323] disclosing the MCS selection range may be determined in the selectable MCS index in the MCS index table [0353] disclosing the UE selecting the transmission parameters from a set or subset of indexes in the MCS table).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Shin with the teaching in Shin2 because this allows increases in the transmission efficiency of the sidelink ([0011]).
Regarding claim 35, Shin discloses the relay UE of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors, to select the MCS, are further configured to:
Select the MCS based at least in part on a mapping of MCS to CSI ([0134] disclosing the terminal determines the MCS based on the reported CSI).
Regarding claim 37, Shin discloses the relay UE of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
determine one or more transmission parameters, wherein the one or more transmission parameters comprise one or more of a transport block (TB) size, a resource allocation ([0135] disclosing mode 2 in which the terminal performs resource allocation directly), or a transmit power (Table 4, [0234], [0238]).
Regarding claim 39, Shin does not expressly disclose the following; however, Huang suggests the relay UE of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
receive, from the base station and after transmitting the aperiodic CSI request, the indication of the plurality of MCSs based on a previous communication indicating that the UE is capable of using a suboptimal MCS (Fig. 5, 540 change of modulation and coding scheme; [0079]-[0087] disclosing the base station adjusts transmission parameters in Fig. 5 based on feedback information comprising HARQ process and its associated ACK/NACK information for the link between UE1 (a.k.a. relay UE) and UE2 (a.k.a., remote UE); that is this takes place during the ongoing communications after the CSI reporting of Shin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Shin with the teaching in Huang because this allows the base station to control the sidelink communication parameters when a remote UE accesses the the network through a relay UE ([0004]).
Regarding claim 40, Shin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the indication of the plurality of MCSs comprises an indication of a range of MCSs (Table 4 [0213])
Regarding claim 41, Shin discloses the relay UE of claim 9, wherein the indication of the plurality of MCSs comprises an indication of a range of MCSs (Table 4 [0213])
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 2021/0022139 A1) in view of Shin et al. (US 2022/0329301 A1), hereafter “Shin2”, in view of Huang et al. (US 2020/0178216 A1) in view of Yang et al. (US 2021/00680156 A1), further in view of Tang (US 2019/0166486 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Shin does not expressly disclose the following; however, Tang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the relay UE provides a layer 2 relay service for the UE ([0080] disclosing adopting a layer-2 relay manner over the PC5 (sidelink) interface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Shin to utilize layer-2 relaying as taught by Tang because the teaching lies in Tang that this reduces delays associated with layer-3 relaying ([0080]).
Regarding claim 14, the claim is directed towards the relay UE of claim 9, which performs the method of claim 6; therefore, claim 14 is rejected on the grounds presented above for claim 6.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 2021/0022139 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2020/0178216 A1) in view of Yang et al. (US 2021/00680156 A1), further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art.
Regarding claim 38, the relay UE of claim 9, wherein the plurality of MCSs are based at least in part on a target packet error rate (PER) or a target block error rate (BLER) (based on examiner’s previous official notice; this feature is applicant’s admitted prior art).
Claim(s) 42-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 2021/0022139 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2020/0178216 A1) in view of Yang et al. (US 2021/00680156 A1), further in view of Huang et al. (US 2021/0136742 A1), hereafter Huang2.
Regarding claim 42, Shin does not disclose the following; however, Huang2 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving the aperiodic CSI report via a MAC control element (MAC-CE) ([0271]-[0274] disclosing sidelink CSI reports are carried as a MAC CE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Shin with the teaching in Huang2 because this allows flexible transmission of CSI report and data as one or more transport blocks while also removing the need for additional sidelink control information (SCI) signalling to indicate the presence of the sidelink CSI report ([0277]).
Regarding claim 43, the claim are directed towards the apparatus which performs the method of claim 42; accordingly, claim 43 is rejected on the grounds presented above for claim 42.
Regarding claim 44, the claim is directed towards the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17 comprising instructions executable to perform the method of claim 42; accordingly, claim 44 is rejected on the grounds presented above for claim 42.
Regarding claim 45, the claim is directed towards an apparatus comprising means for performing the functionality of claim 42; accordingly, claim 45 is rejected on the grounds presented above for claim 42.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
Applicant is advised that the specific portions of the specification identified in the Office action as disclosing the means for performing the functions for claims interpreted to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) are seen as the specific algorithm(s) disclosed for performing the functions when implemented with hardware or a combination of hardware and software. Examiner is required by examination procedure to place this in an Office action.
Applicant is advised to review the guidance on treatment of computer implemented functional limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112. (84 FR 57 (January 7, 2019)).
Alleged Unaddressed Amendments and Traversal
Applicant argues the features “receiving, from the base station, a data communication to be relayed to the UE; and relaying the data communication to the UE via a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH), wherein the PSSCH” were allegedly not disclosed by Huang.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
It is inherent in the prior art that communications between base stations and UEs and between UEs is a data communication. The term data does not appear to encompass any sort of novelty, even in combination with the other features recited in the claims.
As indicated in the grounds of rejection above, the primary reference of record Shin appears to disclose, “transmitting a data communication to the UE via a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH)” (Fig. 4, 421, [0081] disclosing “in operation 421, the transmitting terminal 401 may broadcast data to the receiving terminal 402 via the PSSCH.”). Fig. 4 step 421 was cited in the previous office action with respect to a feature, “transmitting a data communication to the UE via a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH)”. Applicant has ignored the clear depiction in said figure that said communication is “Data” as illustrated in the excerpt from said figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
150
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for the disclosure of Huang, Huang is relied upon for suggesting “receiving, from the base station, a data communication to be relayed to the UE; and relaying the data communication to the UE via the PSSCH” (Fig. 2A, [0025] disclosing a UE within coverage of the cellular network acts as a relay node such that a remote node outside of the coverage can communicate with the network (i.e., inherently including receiving data relayed by the relay UE from the base station) e.g., via the PSSCH of Shin). Thus, the prior art appears to support a prima facie legal conclusion of obviousness based on the facts above and the reasoned statements in support of the combination of references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9, 17 and 24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu et al. (US 2016/0057735 A1); Larsson et al. (US 2020/0100265 A1); Andgart et al. (US 2016/0261321 A1); Yang et al. (US 2016/0337072); Ye et al. (US 2022/0085923 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph A Bednash whose telephone number is (571)270-7500. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM - 4:30 PM M-F.
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 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.
/JOSEPH A BEDNASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights