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 6/10/2026.
Claim 11 is cancelled. Claims 1-10 & 12-20 remain pending. Claims 1-10 & 12-20 have been examined and are rejected.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/10/2026 has been entered.
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, 4-9, 16, & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0287055 A1) in view of Kung et al. (US 2021/0227464 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Lee teaches:
A method for receiving a sidelink (SL)-channel state information (CSI) report by a first user equipment (UE) in a communication system, the method comprising:
transmitting, to a second UE through a radio resource control (RRC) layer, first information indicating a latency bound of the SL-CSI report; (CSI reporting latency information for the CSI report which comprises a CSI reporting latency bound may be provided from the network or the transmitting WTRU via PC5, MAC CE, or RRC signaling [Lee: 0170-71; Fig. 2]);
transmitting, to the second UE, sidelink control information (SCI) including second information for triggering the SL-CSI report, wherein: the second information is transmitted to cause the second UE to start a timer related to the latency bound in response to the SL-CSI report being triggered, and the timer has a time duration from a first slot being a next slot of a slot in which the SCI is transmitted to a second slot located a number of slots corresponding to the latency bound after the first slot; (a transmitting WTRU may transmit SCI with an indication of triggering sidelink CSI reporting to a receiving WTRU [Lee: 0106; 0122; 0168-69; 0220], wherein the receiving WTRU may start a timer at the reception of CSI-RS reporting information and the timer value may be set based on the CSI reporting latency bound/time window that may start from the slot #n+k1 and end at the slot #n+k2, where CSI reporting is triggered at the slot #n, k1≥0, & k2=k1+Xk [Lee: 0164; 0172; 0222-25; 0229; Fig. 3]. Examiner notes that CSI reporting is triggered by receiving the SCI, and thus slot #n identifies the slot SCI is transmitted/received. Furthermore, k1=1 indicates the next slot after the SCI is transmitted/received, and k2>k1 indicates a number of slots corresponding to a latency bound);
monitoring to receive the SL-CSI report from the second UE during the time duration from a time of transmission of the SCI; receiving, from the second UE, the SL-CSI report based on the SL-CSI report being detected during the time duration; (when an SL grant is received before the timer expires, the receiving WTRU may transmit the CSI report to be received by the transmitting WTRU based on the SL grant [Lee: 0179-80; Fig 2]);
and canceling to transmit the SL-CSI report based on the SL-CSI report being not transmitted until the time duration has elapsed; (when a receiving WTRU may not be able to report triggered CSI within the time window (for example, between slot #n+k1 and slot #n+k2), at least one of following events may happen: (1) the receiving WTRU may drop the triggered CSI reporting; (2) the receiving WTRU may indicate to the transmitting WTRU that the previously triggered CSI reporting has been dropped; or (3) the receiving WTRU may increase k2 value if QoS of a traffic is higher than a threshold [Lee: 0181; 0230]).
However, Lee does not teach (where underlining indicates the portion of each limitation not taught):
and canceling to monitor to receive the SL-CSI report based on the SL-CSI report being not detected until the time duration has elapsed.
In a similar field of endeavor involving sidelink CSI reporting, Kung discloses:
and canceling to monitor to receive the SL-CSI report based on the SL-CSI report being not detected until the time duration has elapsed; (the Tx UE may stop being in active time and/or may stop monitoring PSCCH for SCI of the Rx UE and/or data associated with the CSI report when (and/or in response to) the timer is stopped [Kung: 0466]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Kung in order allow the Tx UE to cancel monitoring for the SL-CSI report when the latency time bound window elapses in the system of Lee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee with Kung as doing so would allow the Tx UE to conserve resources/power after the period in which the Rx UE can transmit the SL-CSI report has passed.
With regard to Claim 4, Lee-Kung teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the latency bound is configured sidelink-specifically; (the WTRU may assign a latency value or latency bound value to the SL CSI MAC CE [Lee: 0157]).
With regard to Claim 5, Lee-Kung teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the latency bound is configured in units of slots; (the latency bound window indicates the number of slots within the time window [Lee: 0234; Fig. 3]).
With regard to Claim 6, Lee-Kung teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the latency bound is a time offset starting from the time of transmission of the SCI; (the receiving WTRU may start a timer at the reception of CSI-RS reporting information and the timer value may be set based on the CSI reporting latency bound/time window that may start from the slot #n+k1 and end at the slot #n+k2, where CSI reporting is triggered at the slot #n, k1≥0, & k2=k1+Xk [Lee: 0164; 0172; 0222-25; 0229; Fig. 3]).
With regard to Claim 7, Lee-Kung teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the latency bound value is configured independently from a type of the SL-CSI report, and the type of the SL-CSI report varies according to information included in the SL-CSI report; (a receiving WTRU may be required to report CSI triggered by a transmitting WTRU within a time window, wherein the time window may start from the slot #n+k1 and end at the slot #n+k2, where k1 may be determined based on a processing capability of the WTRU, and k2 may be determined as a function of k1 [Lee: 0222-25; 0170], and wherein SL-CSI report can contain one or more of CQI, PMI, or RI (i.e. varying types) [Lee: 0103; 0219; 0228]. Examiner notes that the latency bound window does not appear to be configured based on the type of the SL-CSI report).
With regard to Claim 8, Lee-Kung teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the SL-CSI report includes a channel quality indicator (CQl) and a rank indicator (RI); (CSI may include a channel quality indicator (CQI) and a rank indicator (RI) [Lee: 0069]).
With regard to Claim 9, Lee-Kung teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the SL-CSI report is received on a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH); (CSI reporting may be delivered using a PSSCH [Lee: 0069]).
With regard to Claims 16 & 18-20, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claims 1 4, 5, & 8 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claims. Accordingly, claims 16 & 18-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1 4, 5, & 8.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0287055 A1) in view of Kung et al. (US 2021/0227464 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Freda et al. (US 2022/0150730 A1).
With regard to Claim 2, Lee-Kung teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach: retransmitting the SCI based on the SL-CSI report not being received from the second UE during the time duration.
In a similar field of endeavor involving a WTRU starting a timer for reception of a CSI report, Freda discloses:
retransmitting the SCI based on the SL-CSI report not being received from the second UE during the time duration; (if the timer expires and the WTRU does not receive a CSI report, the WTRU may retransmit the CSI request (potentially a (pre)configured number of times) while it does not receive CSI report [Freda: 1214-18]. Examiner notes that Lee teaches the CSI reporting request is contained in the SCI information [Lee: 0106; 0122]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee-Kung in view of Freda in order to retransmit the SCI based on the SL-CSI report not being received from the second UE during the time duration in the system of Lee-Kung.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee-Kung with Freda as doing so would allow a number of CSI report retransmissions to be attempted prior to declaring radio link failure.
Claims 3 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0287055 A1) in view of Kung et al. (US 2021/0227464 A1) in view of Freda et al. (US 2022/0150730 A1) as applied to Claims 2 & 16 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 107733499 A).
With regard to Claim 3, Lee-Kung-Freda teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the SCI is retransmitted, but does not teach:
a reset latency bound is used instead of the latency bound, and the reset latency bound is greater than or less than the latency bound.
In a similar field of endeavor involving requesting channel state information (CSI) reports, Zhang discloses:
a reset latency bound is used instead of the latency bound, and the reset latency bound is greater than or less than the latency bound; (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 Lee-Kung-Freda in view of Zhang in order to utilize a reset latency bound that is greater than or less than the latency bound in the system of Lee-Kung-Freda.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee-Kung-Freda 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.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10 & 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2022/0287055 A1).
With regard to Claims 10 & 12-15, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claims 1 & 4-8 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claims. Accordingly, claims 10 & 12-15 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1 & 4-8.
Conclusion
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.
Chae et al. (US 11,722,262 B2) which teaches the size of a maximum time offset at which a feedback signal may be delivered may be set differently according to the type of a packet, may be set differently according to the latency requirement of the packet, indicated by a transmitting UE, or set differently according to a retransmission number [16:36-49].
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
Prosecution Insights