DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
This action is in response to communications filed on 1/14/2026.
Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are rejected.
Priority
This application claims foreign priority to KR10-2021-0018544, and is a 371 of PCT/KR2021/002416 which claims priority to provisional application 62/986,073 filed 3/6/2020.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the communications above have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
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.
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 1-2, 4-16, & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0416969 A1) hereinafter referenced as Lee969, in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0369144 A1) hereinafter referenced as Lee144, in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0287055 A1) hereinafter referenced as Lee055.
With regard to Claim 1, Lee969 teaches:
A method for operating a first terminal in a communication system, the method comprising:
utilizing by a processor, information indicating a delay bound value of a sidelink (SL) channel state information (CSI) report; (TX UE (i.e. first terminal) utilizes a latency bound related to a SL CSI report that may be a time window/domain from a channel state information-reference signal (CSI-RS) reception/transmission time to a latency budget in which the SL CSI report is performed [Lee969: 0305], wherein the SL CSI reference slot indicates a slot in which the SL CSI is measured/derived [Lee969: 0303; 0307]);
transmitting, by the processor, sidelink control information (SCI) including information for triggering a CSI reporting to the second terminal; (a TX UE (i.e. first terminal) transmits sidelink control information (SCI) comprising a CSI report request and a CSI-RS to an RX UE (i.e. second terminal) [Lee969: 0327]);
and performing a monitoring operation to receive the SL CSl of the second terminal within a time period corresponding to the delay bound value from a time of transmitting the CSI request information; (the TX UE determines whether the CSI report is received from the RX UE within a latency bound period T1 related to the CSI report [Lee969: 0325; Fig. 23]).
While Lee969 teaches the latency bound related to the SL CSI report may be exchanged between the TX UE and the RX UE through PC5 RRC signaling [Lee969: 0305], it does not explicitly teach that the TX UE (i.e. first terminal) transmits the latency bound to the RX UE (i.e. second terminal).
In a similar field of endeavor involving transmitting channel state information in NR V2X, Lee144 discloses:
transmitting by a processor, information indicating a delay bound value of a sidelink (SL) channel state information (CSI) report to a second terminal; (the transmitting UE (i.e. first terminal) may transmit a message for triggering CSI report/reporting to the receiving UE (i.e. second terminal) and may transmit information related to the CSI report/reporting to the receiving UE, the information comprising a latency bound [Lee144: 0198-99; 0189; Fig. 13]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee969 in view of Lee144 in order to transmit the latency bound to the RX UE in the system of Lee969.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee969 with Lee144 as doing so would allow the TX UE to inform the RX UE of the latency bound when providing other information related to the CSI report request [Lee144: 0198-99; Fig. 13].
However, Lee969-Lee144 does not teach starting a timer in response to the CSI reporting trigger, monitoring for CSI during operation of the timer, or cancelling CSI reporting upon expiration of the timer.
In a similar field of endeavor involving transmitting channel state information in NR V2X, Lee055 discloses:
and causing the second terminal to start a timer related to the delay bound value in response to the CSI reporting being triggered; (the WTRU may start a timer at the reception of CSI-RS report, wherein the timer value may be set based on the CSI reporting time window that may start from the slot #n+k1 and end at the slot #n+k2 [Lee055: 0164; 0222; 0229]);
performing a monitoring operation to receive the SL CSI of the second terminal with a time period of the timer corresponding to the delay bound value from a time of transmitting the CSI request; wherein during operation of the timer, the SL CSI is transmitted to the first terminal; and wherein upon expiration of the timer, the CSI reporting is canceled; (when an SL grant has been received before the timer expires, the CSI report is transmitted, wherein upon expiry of the timer the CSI-RS report which is pending and not yet transmitted is dropped [Lee055: abstract; 0164; 0230]. Examiner notes that corresponding support can be found in 62/975,497 [0152; 0190; 0197-98]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee969-Lee144 in view of Lee055 in order to start a timer in response to the CSI reporting trigger, monitor for CSI during operation of the timer, and cancel CSI reporting upon expiration of the timer in the system of Lee969-Lee144.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee969-Lee144 with Lee055 as doing so would avoid wasting resources in the event the CSI report is not timely transmitted.
With regard to Claim 2, Lee969-Lee144-Lee055 teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising, when the SL CSI of the second terminal is not received within the time period, retransmitting the CSI request information; (if the TX UE fails to receive the CSI report from the RX UE within the latency bound (T1), the TX UE may transmit a subsequent CSI report request and CSI-RS to the RX UE after T1 [Lee969: 0325; Fig. 22], wherein if the sl-CSI-ReportTimer for the triggered SL-CSI reporting expires the triggered SL-CSI reporting is cancelled [Lee969: 0329]).
With regard to Claim 4, Lee969-Lee144-Lee055 teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the delay bound value is set sidelink-specifically; (the latency bound is related to the SL CSI report and may be exchanged between the TX UE and the RX UE through PC5 RRC signaling [Lee969: 0305]. Lee144 teaches RRC parameters may include sl-LatencyBound-CSI-Report maintained for each PC5-RRC connection [Lee144: 0189]).
With regard to Claim 5, Lee969-Lee144-Lee055 teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the delay bound value is set in units of slots; (sl-LatencyBoundCSI-Report-r16 indicates a SL CSI report may be requested within a specified number of slots from a slot in which the SL CSI report is triggered (e.g., SL CSI reference slot) [Lee969: 0307]. Lee144 teaches the sl-LatencyBound-CSI-Report may indicate, based on the number of slots, a delay time boundary of SL CSI reporting from a related SL CSI triggering [Lee144: 0189]).
With regard to Claim 6, Lee969-Lee144-Lee055 teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the delay bound value is a time offset starting from the time of transmitting the CSI request information; (the latency bound related to the SL CSI report may be a time window/domain from a SL CSI-RS reception/transmission time to a latency budget in which the SL CSI report is performed [Lee969: 0305]. Lee144 teaches the time required to transmit the CSI report/reporting may be a time from a time when a receiving UE receives a message for triggering the CSI report from a transmitting UE to a pre-configured time such as a time set based on the latency bound [Lee144: 0201]).
With regard to Claim 7, Lee969-Lee144-Lee055 teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the delay bound value is set independently from a type of the SL CSI, and the type of the SL CSI varies according to information included in the SL CSI; (the TX UE may transmit SL information through a PSSCH and/or a PSCCH [Lee969: 0184], and may transmit a first SCI for scheduling of a PSSCH and a second SCI through a PSCCH [Lee969: 0325-27], wherein the UE may perform SL communication via broadcast, unicast, groupcast, etc. [Lee969: 0116]. Lee144 teaches the transmitting UE may trigger the CSI report to the receiving UE through a pre-configured field on the PSCCH or PSSCH (e.g., SCI) [Lee144: 0198-99]. Examiner notes that the latency bound appears to be set independently from whether the CSI is SCI Format 1 (sent on the Physical Sidelink Control Channel (PSCCH)) or SCI Format 2 (sent on the Physical Sidelink Shared Channel (PSSCH))).
With regard to Claim 8, Lee969-Lee144-Lee055 teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the SL CSI includes a channel quality indicator (CQl) and a rank indicator (RI); (the transmitting UE may transmit CSI-RS to the receiving UE, and the receiving UE may measure CQI or RI based on the CSI-RS [Lee969: 0145]. Lee144 teaches the sidelink channel state information comprises channel quality information such as RSRP/RSRQ or CQI/RI/PMI [Lee144: 0155]).
With regard to Claim 9, Lee969-Lee144-Lee055 teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the SL CSI is received on a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH); (the TX UE may transmit SL information through a PSSCH and/or a PSCCH [Lee969: 0184], and may transmit a first SCI for scheduling of a PSSCH and a second SCI through a PSCCH [Lee969: 0325-27]. Lee144 teaches the transmitting UE may trigger the CSI report to the receiving UE through a pre-configured field on the PSCCH or PSSCH (e.g., SCI) [Lee144: 0198-99]).
With regard to Claims 10-16 & 18-20, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claims 1-2 & 4-9 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claims. Accordingly, claims 10-16 & 18-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1-2 & 4-9.
Claims 3 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0416969 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0369144 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0287055 A1) as applied to Claims 2 & 16 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 107733499 A).
With regard to Claim 3, Lee969-Lee144-Lee055 teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein in response to the CSI request information being retransmitted, the SL CSI report is received according to the delay bound value; (if the TX UE fails to receive the CSI report from the RX UE within the latency bound (T1), the TX UE may transmit a subsequent CSI report request and receive a CSI report from the RX UE within the latency bound (T1) [Lee969: 0325; Fig. 22]).
However, Lee969-Lee144-Lee055 does not teach:
a reset delay bound value is used instead of the delay bound value, and the reset delay bound value is greater than or less than the delay bound value.
In a similar field of endeavor involving requesting channel state information (CSI) reports, Zhang discloses:
a reset delay bound value is used instead of the delay bound value, and the reset delay bound value is greater than or less than the delay bound value; (determining an offset based on comparing the number to a threshold number of reference signal resources, and using the offset to increase the reference delay budget so as to obtain the delay budget [Zhang: p. 6]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee969-Lee144-Lee055 in view of Zhang in order to utilize a reset delay bound value that is greater than or less than the delay bound value in the system of Lee969-Lee144-Lee055.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee969-Lee144-Lee055 with Zhang as doing so would ensure the terminal device has enough processing time to perform reference signal measurements and calculation [Zhang: p. 7].
With regard to Claim 17, it appears substantially similar to the limitations recited by claims 2-3 and consequently does not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claims. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 2-3.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated any new grounds of rejection presented in this office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ganesan et al. (US 2022/0225290 A1) which teaches addressing a SL-CSI ageing issue whereby a UE starts and/or restarts a timer whenever it receives a CSI-RS transmission or SL-CSI reporting request and the UE finds a candidate resource for transmission within a time window corresponding to the timer [0113]. Examiner notes corresponding support in [0287] of 62/931,598.
Agiwal et al. (US 2021/0195613 A1) which teaches starting a timer for SL-CSI reporting when SL-CSI reporting has been triggered, wherein if the timer for the triggered SL-CSI reporting expires, the controller cancels the triggered SL-CSI reporting [0226]. Examiner notes corresponding support in [0066] of 62/953,107.
In the case of amendments, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN J MOREAU whose telephone number is (571) 272-5179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 - 6:00 ET.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/AUSTIN J MOREAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446