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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 23, 45 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 23, 45 and 49 recite “transmitting an initial periodic physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) data transmission that accompanies the first sidelink control information message and the second sidelink control information message; and transmitting subsequent periodic PSSCH data transmissions that are each accompanied by an additional first sidelink control information message without a corresponding additional second sidelink control information message having the second-stage sidelink control information format in response to a determination by the first UE that a third content of the additional first sidelink control information message and a fourth content of the corresponding additional second sidelink information message are identical to the first content and the second content, respectively.” This combination of limitations does not appear to be disclosed in Applicant’s Original Specification. For example, in Fig. 4 there is not a corresponding additional second sidelink information.
Further, the Specification does not appear to disclose that the particular content allocations recited in the claims. For example, the Specification does not disclose that “first content of the first sidelink control information message comprises one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications pertaining to a semi-persistent scheduling configuration of the first UE” is transmitted with subsequent period transmissions, while “second content comprising a source identifier or a destination identifier, wherein the second message content further identifies the semi-persistent scheduling configuration of the first UE” is omitted from subsequent transmissions. The Specification discloses that the fields may be present in a SCI-1 and/or SCI-2. Accordingly, a disclosure that SCI-2 may be skipped does not disclose that the invention will function if the individual fields the claimed source ID, destination ID and SPS configuration, are skipped. Applicant’s Specification does not disclose at all that a source identifier or a destination identifier or identifiers of one or more resources associated with the semi-persistent scheduling configuration may be omitted from SCI, let alone being omitted from subsequent SCI transmissions after being included with an initial SCI transmission.
Further still, Applicant’s original Specification does not appear to recite an explicit step of determination that contents a third content of the additional first sidelink control information message and a fourth content of the corresponding additional second sidelink information message are identical to the first content and the second content.
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, 23, 45 and 49 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, 23, 45 and 49 recite “transmitting subsequent periodic PSSCH data transmissions that are each accompanied by an additional first sidelink control information message without a corresponding additional second sidelink control information message having the second-stage sidelink control information format in response to a determination by the first UE that a third content of the additional first sidelink control information message and a fourth content of the corresponding additional second sidelink information message are identical to the first content and the second content, respectively.” The claims recites that there are not additional second sidelink control information messages, and then recites that fourth content is “of the” additional second sidelink information message does exist. These limitations appear to contradict each other.
Further, the limitation “the corresponding additional second sidelink information message” has no antecedent basis.
Further still, the second clause of the independent claims recites “further identifies the semi-persistent scheduling configuration of the first UE,” while the first clause recites “the one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications.” Accordingly, it is unclear how to determine which of the ““one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications” recited in the first clause corresponds to “the semi-persistent scheduling configuration of the first UE” recited in the second clause.
Claims 1, 23, 45 and 49 recite “transmitting, to a second UE, a first sidelink control information message having a first-stage sidelink control information format that includes format information of a second-stage sidelink control information format, wherein first content of the first sidelink control information message comprises one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications pertaining to a semi-persistent scheduling configuration of the first UE, the one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications comprising an activation indicator.” However, Applicant’s claims and Applicant’s Specification do not provide any information for determining the difference between first-stage sidelink control information and second-stage sidelink control information. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, would not have been able to ascertain whether information was part of a first-stage sidelink control information or second-stage sidelink control information.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 11-12, 17-22, 23, 25-37, 39-44, 45 and 47-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0146048) in view of Ganesan et al. (US 2020/0260472), and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2021/0376959).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a method for wireless communications at a first user equipment (UE) (Lee, paragraph [0085], UE to UE interface for sidelink communication), comprising:
transmitting, to a second UE, a first sidelink control information message having a first-stage sidelink control information format that includes format information of a second-stage sidelink control information format, wherein first content of the first sidelink control information message comprises one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications (Lee, Fig. 13, steps 1316, 1318; paragraph [0144], configured grants for SPS; paragraph [0174]-[0176], UE1 sends SPS configurations to the UE2 via the activated UE grant; the Examiner may interpret a temporally first portion of a disclosed SCI message as a first stage and a temporally second portion of a disclosed SCI message as a second stage) pertaining to a semi-persistent scheduling configuration of the first UE (Lee, Fig. 13, step 1314; paragraph [0113], BS schedules transmission resources for sidelink information and data, SPS is supported; paragraph [0137], gNB provides configuration for a UE’s V2X communication; paragraph [0171], gNB sends SPS configurations to the UE1), the one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications comprising an activation indicator (Lee, paragraph [0101], schedule sidelink communication using SL-RNTI; paragraph [0174], SPS configurations corresponding to the UE2 identifier transmitted via the activated SPS grant; Fig. 13, steps 1316, 1318; paragraph [0174]-[0176], UE1 sends SPS activation MAC CE indicating activation of the SPS configuration corresponding to the SPS indexes to the UE2; paragraph [0177], UE2 activates SPS grant corresponding to SPS configuration 2a without receiving an activation MAC CE);
transmitting, to the second UE after transmission of the first sidelink control information message, a second sidelink control information message that is separate from the first sidelink control information message, the second sidelink control information message having the second-stage sidelink control information format that includes second content comprising a source identifier or a destination identifier, wherein the second message content further identifies the semi-persistent scheduling configuration of the first UE (Lee, Fig. 13, steps 1316, 1318, S1332; paragraph [0132], destination ID, source ID; paragraph [0174]-[0176], UE1 sends SPS activation MAC CE indicating activation of the SPS configuration corresponding to the SPS indexes to the UE2; also paragraph [0185], activation/deactivation MAC CE S1332); and
performing the semi-persistent scheduled sidelink communications with the second UE in accordance with the semi-persistent scheduling configuration identified by the second sidelink control information message and the one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications of the first sidelink control information message (Lee, Fig. 13, STCH transmissions via SPS resources; paragraph [0144], sidelink grants related to SPS; paragraph [0147], first wireless device performs sidelink transmission with second wireless device based on sidelink configured grant), wherein performing the semi-persistent scheduled sidelink communications comprises:
transmitting an initial periodic physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) data transmission that accompanies the first sidelink control information message and the second sidelink control information message (Lee, Fig. 13, STCH transmissions via SPS resources; paragraph [0144], sidelink grants related to SPS; paragraph [0147], first wireless device performs sidelink transmission with second wireless device based on sidelink configured grant); and
transmitting subsequent periodic PSSCH data transmissions that are each accompanied by an additional first sidelink control information message without a corresponding additional second sidelink control information message having the second-stage sidelink control information format (Lee, Fig. 13, second SCI in step 1332 and Second sidelink communication in step 1338; paragraph [0089], SC period over which resources allocated for sidelink control information (SCI) and sidelink transmissions occur, UE sends SCI followed by sidelink data, SCI indicates location of resources over duration of the SC period; the Examiner may interpret a temporally first portion of a disclosed SCI message as a first stage and a temporally second portion of a disclosed SCI message as a second stage).
The Examiner interprets that a portion of an SCI message after the activation indicator constitutes a second stage SCI message.
Lee does not explicitly disclose that a third content of the additional first sidelink control information message and a fourth content of the corresponding additional second sidelink information message being identical to the first content and the second content, respectively.
Ganesan discloses a first-stage sidelink control information format that includes format information of a second-stage sidelink control information format (Ganesan, Figs, 7, 8, 9, 10, first stage SCI followed by second stage SCI; paragraph [0026], SCI format 1 used to schedule PSSCH; paragraph [0027] second stage SCI masked by destination ID; paragraph [0030], SCI part1 can be related to resource reservation, SCI part 2 masked by destination ID; paragraph [0031], first stage SCI can point to time and frequency resources of second stage SCI and indicate SCI format);
transmitting, to the second UE after transmission of the first sidelink control information message, a second sidelink control information message that is separate from the first sidelink control information message, the second sidelink control information message having the second-stage sidelink control information format that includes a source identifier or a destination identifier, wherein the second sidelink control information message identifies the semi-persistent scheduling configuration of the first UE (Ganesan, Figs, 7, 8, 9, 10, first stage SCI followed by second stage SCI; paragraph [0026], SCI format 1 used to schedule PSSCH; paragraph [0027] second stage SCI masked by destination ID; paragraph [0028], SCI includes source ID, destination ID, HARQ ID; paragraph [0030], SCI part1 can be related to resource reservation, SCI part 2 masked by destination ID; paragraph [0031], first stage SCI can point to time and frequency resources of second stage SCI and indicate SCI format); and
performing the semi-persistent scheduled sidelink communications with the second UE in accordance with the semi-persistent scheduling configuration identified by the second sidelink control information message and the one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications of the first sidelink control information message (Ganesan, Figs, 7, 8, 9, 10, Unicast data following SCI; paragraph [0026], SCI format 1 used to schedule PSSCH; paragraph [0040], semi-static configuration; paragraph [0049], semi-statically configured), wherein performing the semi-persistent scheduled sidelink communications comprises:
transmitting an initial periodic physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) data transmission that accompanies the first sidelink control information message and the second sidelink control information message (Ganesan, Figs, 7, 8, 9, 10, first stage SCI followed by second stage SCI followed by Unicast data and then first stage SCI not followed by second stage SCI and followed by Unicast data; paragraph [0049], first stage SCI can include T/F of second stage SCI; paragraph [0028], SCI can include source ID, destination ID HARQ ID, some of the SCI information may not be present in some operations; paragraph [0050], when the second stage SCI is not being transmitted, then the UE can assume that the content of the second stage remains the same); and
transmitting subsequent periodic PSSCH data transmissions that are each accompanied by an additional first sidelink control information message without a corresponding additional second sidelink control information message having the second-stage sidelink control information format in response to a determination by the first UE that a third content of the additional first sidelink control information message and a fourth content of the corresponding additional second sidelink information message are identical to the first content and the second content, respectively (Ganesan, Figs, 7, 8, 9, 10, first stage SCI followed by second stage SCI followed by Unicast data and then first stage SCI not followed by second stage SCI and followed by Unicast data; paragraph [0049], first stage SCI can include T/F of second stage SCI; paragraph [0028], SCI can include source ID, destination ID HARQ ID, some of the SCI information may not be present in some operations; paragraph [0050], when the second stage SCI is not being transmitted, then the UE can assume that the content of the second stage remains the same).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use 2 stage SCI format in the invention of Lee. The motivation to combine the references would have been to conform to common SCI standards.
Yang discloses the second sidelink control information message having the second-stage sidelink control information format that includes a source identifier or a destination identifier, wherein the second sidelink control information message identifies the semi-persistent scheduling configuration of the first UE (Yang, paragraph [0122], destination ID, source ID); and
performing the semi-persistent scheduled sidelink communications with the second UE in accordance with the semi-persistent scheduling configuration identified by the second sidelink control information message and the one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications of the first sidelink control information message (Yang, paragraph [0144], configured grant may be activated), wherein performing the semi-persistent scheduled sidelink communications
transmitting an initial periodic physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) data transmission that accompanies the first sidelink control information message and the second sidelink control information message; and transmitting subsequent periodic PSSCH data transmissions that are each accompanied by an additional first sidelink control information message without a corresponding additional second sidelink control information message having the second-stage sidelink control information format (Yang, Fig. 13, subsequent data and configured grant; paragraph [0150], periodicity of configured grant, cs-RNTI used for activation or inactivation; paragraph [0183], Tx UE re transmission to the Rx UE using subsequent configured grant, include HARQ process ID, L1 ID including NDI, and RV information in SCI and transmit the same through a PSCCH).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to transmit subsequent PSSCH data transmissions with SCI in the invention of Lee. The motivation to combine the references would have been to increase the reliability of the transmissions being received.
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Ganesan, and further in view of Yang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the first sidelink control information message comprises: including in the first content, as one of the one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications, a configuration index in the first sidelink control information message, wherein the configuration index is indicative of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration (Lee, paragraph [0174]-[0175], UE1 sends SPS configurations to the UE2 via the activated UE grant including one or more listed SL-SPSConfiguredGrantConfig corresponding to the UE2 identifier with the corresponding SPS-Indexes).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Ganesan, and further in view of Yang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the first sidelink control information message comprises: including in the first content, as one of the one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications, a semi-persistent scheduling identifier in the first sidelink control information message, wherein the semi-persistent scheduling identifier is indicative that the first sidelink control information message includes the semi-persistent scheduling configuration (Lee, paragraph [0174]-[0175], UE1 sends SPS configurations to the UE2 via the activated UE grant including one or more listed SL-SPSConfiguredGrantConfig corresponding to the UE2 identifier with the corresponding SPS-Indexes).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Ganesan, and further in view of Yang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: including at least one of the one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications in one or more third fields of either the first content of the first sidelink control information message or the second content of the second sidelink control information message, wherein the one or more third fields are configured to be used for multiple purposes (Lee, paragraph [0174]-[0175], UE1 sends SPS configurations to the UE2 via the activated UE grant including one or more listed SL-SPSConfiguredGrantConfig corresponding to the UE2 identifier with the corresponding SPS-Indexes).
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Ganesan, and further in view of Yang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the first sidelink control information message comprises: including at least one of the one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications in one or more third fields of the first content of the first sidelink control information message, wherein the one or more third fields are dedicated to semi-persistent scheduling indication use (Lee, paragraph [0174]-[0175], UE1 sends SPS configurations to the UE2 via the activated UE grant including one or more listed SL-SPSConfiguredGrantConfig corresponding to the UE2 identifier with the corresponding SPS-Indexes).
Regarding claim 12, Lee in view of Ganesan, and further in view of Yang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the second UE, a feedback message indicating the semi- persistent scheduling configuration is active (Lee, Fig. 13; paragraph [0174]-[0175], UE1 sends SPS configurations to the UE2 via the activated UE grant; paragraph [0176], UE2 sends SPS activation/deactivation confirmation to the UE1).
Regarding claim 17, Lee in view of Ganesan, and further in view of Yang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, to the second UE additional one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications for deactivating an active semi-persistent scheduling configuration (Lee, Fig. 13; paragraph [0174]-[0175], UE1 sends SPS configurations to the UE2 via the activated UE grant; paragraph [0176], UE2 sends SPS activation/deactivation confirmation to the UE1; paragraph [0185], UE1 sends SPS deactivation to UE 2).
Regarding claim 18, Lee in view of Ganesan, and further in view of Yang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: participating in communication of additional semi-persistent scheduling parameters to be applied to the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, the additional semi-persistent scheduling parameters including at least one of a plurality of semi-persistent scheduling configuration indices, a radio network temporary identifier for activation, deactivation, or retransmission of semi-persistent scheduling transmissions, a periodicity of semi-persistent scheduling transmissions, or a maximum number of times that a transport block is to be transmitted in accordance with the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, wherein the additional semi- persistent scheduling parameters are either received from a network entity or transmitted from the first UE to the second UE (Lee, paragraph [0174]-[0175], UE1 sends SPS configurations to the UE2 via the activated UE grant including one or more listed SL-SPSConfiguredGrantConfig corresponding to the UE2 identifier with the corresponding SPS-Indexes).
Regarding claim 19, Lee in view of Ganesan, and further in view of Yang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the second UE, a positive acknowledgement indicating the semi-persistent scheduling configuration is active and indicating that a data transmission (Lee, Fig. 13; paragraph [0174]-[0175], UE1 sends SPS configurations to the UE2 via the activated UE grant; paragraph [0176], UE2 sends SPS activation/deactivation confirmation to the UE1; paragraph [0183], UE1 and UE2 transmit sidelink user traffic).
Lee does not explicitly disclose, but Yang discloses that the positive acknowledgement from the receiving UE indicates that a data transmission from the transmitting UE was successful (Yang, Fig. 13, ACK; paragraph [0184], Rx UE generates and transmits a HARQ-ACK message to the Tx UE).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to receive, at the transmitting UE, a HARQ ACK/NACK from the receiving UE indicates that a data transmission from the transmitting UE was successful or not, in the invention of Lee. The motivation to combine the references would have been to reliably communicate.
Regarding claim 20, Lee in view of Ganesan, and further in view of Yang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the second UE, an acknowledgement indicating the semi-persistent scheduling configuration is active (Lee, Fig. 13; paragraph [0174]-[0175], UE1 sends SPS configurations to the UE2 via the activated UE grant; paragraph [0176], UE2 sends SPS activation/deactivation confirmation to the UE1; paragraph [0183], UE1 and UE2 transmit sidelink user traffic).
Lee does not explicitly disclose, but Yang discloses receiving, from the receiving UE, a negative acknowledgement indicating that a data transmission from the transmitting UE was unsuccessful (Yang, Fig. 13, NACK; paragraph [0180], Rx UE generates and transmits a HARQ-NACK message to the Tx UE);
and transmitting a retransmission of the data included within the data transmission in response to the negative acknowledgement (Yang, Fig. 13, NACK; paragraph [0183], Tx UE re transmission to the Rx UE).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to receive, at the transmitting UE, a HARQ ACK/NACK from the receiving UE indicates that a data transmission from the transmitting UE was successful or not, in the invention of Lee. The motivation to combine the references would have been to reliably communicate.
Regarding claim 21, Lee in view of Ganesan, and further in view of Yang discloses the method of claim 20, wherein transmitting the retransmission of the data further comprises: transmitting the retransmission of the data on semi-persistent scheduled resources according to the semi-persistent scheduling configuration (Lee, Fig. 13; paragraph [0174]-[0175], UE1 sends SPS configurations to the UE2 via the activated UE grant; paragraph [0176], UE2 sends SPS activation/deactivation confirmation to the UE1; paragraph [0128], UE1 and UE2 transmit sidelink user traffic).
Regarding claim 22, Lee in view of Ganesan, and further in view of Yang discloses the method of claim 20, wherein transmitting the retransmission of the data further comprises: transmitting the retransmission of the data on dynamically scheduled resources (Yang, Fig. 13, NACK; paragraph [0181], SL dynamic allocated SL grant).
Claims 23, 25-26, 28, 33-34 and 39-44 are rejected under substantially the same rationale as claims 1, 3-4, 6, 11-12 and 17-22, respectively. Lee further discloses a processing system that includes one or more processors and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors, the processing system configured to cause the apparatus (Lee, Fig. 2, Processor, memory).
Claims 45 and 47-48 are rejected under substantially the same rationale as claims 1 and 3-4, respectively.
Claims 49 and 51-52 are rejected under substantially the same rationale as claims 1 and 3-4, respectively.
Claim(s) 53-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0146048) in view of Ganesan, and further in view of Yang, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2019/0166613).
Regarding claim 53, Lee in view of Huawei, and further in view of Yang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a portion of the first sidelink control information message from the first UE is scrambled with a sidelink semi-persistent scheduling radio network temporary identifier (SL-SPS-RNTI), and wherein scrambling the portion of the first sidelink control information message with the SL-SPS-RNTI indicates that the one or more resources identified by the second sidelink control information message are usable for semi-persistent scheduled sidelink communications between the first UE and the second TE (Lee, paragraph [0101], schedule sidelink communication using SL-RNTI; paragraph [0174]-[0175], UE1 sends SPS configurations corresponding to the UE2 identifier to the UE2 via the activated UE grant).
Lee does not explicitly disclose a SL-SPS-RNTI.
Zhang discloses wherein a portion of the first sidelink control information message from the first UE is scrambled with a sidelink semi-persistent scheduling radio network temporary identifier (SL-SPS-RNTI), and wherein scrambling the portion of the first sidelink control information message with the SL-SPS-RNTI indicates that the one or more resources identified by the second sidelink control information message are usable for semi-persistent scheduled sidelink communications between the first UE and the second TE (Zhang, paragraph [0113], the SPS configuration can be correctly activated if the second activation can be unscrambled using the identification information of the remote equipment; paragraph [0115], scramble the SCI format 2 using identification information of the remote equipment; paragraph [0117], scramble SCI format 2 information by using SL-R-SPS-RNTI).
Claims 54-56 are rejected under substantially the same rationale as claim 52.
Claim(s) 5, 7-10, 27 and 29-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0146048), in view of Ganesan, and further in view of Yang, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2019/0166613), and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0014564) (Hereafter, Lee ‘564).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Zhang discloses the method of claim 4, wherein including the semi-persistent scheduling identifier in the first content of the first sidelink control information message comprises: the sidelink semi-persistent scheduling radio network temporary identifier (SL-SPS-RNTI) (Lee, paragraph [0101], schedule sidelink communication using SL-RNTI; paragraph [0174]-[0175], UE1 sends SPS configurations corresponding to the UE2 identifier to the UE2 via the activated UE grant) (Zhang, paragraph [0115], scramble the SCI format 2 using identification information of the remote equipment; paragraph [0117], scramble SCI format 2 information by using SL-R-SPS-RNTI).
Lee does not explicitly disclose that a CRC is scrambled by an RNTI.
Lee ‘564 discloses including the semi-persistent scheduling identifier in the first sidelink control information message comprises: scrambling a cyclic redundancy check with a sidelink semi-persistent scheduling radio network temporary identifier (SL-SPS-RNTI), wherein the semi-persistent scheduling identifier is the scrambling of the cyclic redundancy check with the SL-SPS- RNTI (Lee ‘564, paragraph [0147], CRC scrambled by using a V2X-SPS-RNTI).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to transmit, to scramble V2X control information using a V2X-SPS-RNTI, in the invention of Lee. The motivation to combine the references would have been to conform to commonly used wireless communication techniques.
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Huawei, and further in view of Yang, and further in view of Zhang discloses the method of claim 6, wherein including the at least one of the one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications in the one or more third fields comprises a semi-persistent scheduling identifier (Lee, paragraph [0101], schedule sidelink communication using SL-RNTI; paragraph [0174]-[0175], UE1 sends SPS configurations corresponding to the UE2 identifier to the UE2 via the activated UE grant) (Zhang, paragraph [0115], scramble the SCI format 2 using identification information of the remote equipment; paragraph [0117], scramble SCI format 2 information by using SL-R-SPS-RNTI).
Lee does not explicitly disclose, but Lee ‘564 discloses wherein including the at least one of the one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications in the one or more fields comprises: setting each bit in a second sidelink control information message format field of the first sidelink control information message to "1" to indicate a semi-persistent scheduling identifier (Lee ‘564, paragraphs [0176]-[0177], bitmap where each bit is given a value of 0 or 1 to indicate activation/release of the corresponding sidelink SPS configuration).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to transmit, to indicate semi-persistent scheduling identifiers using a bitmap, in the invention of Lee. The motivation to efficiently communicate the information about activation/release of the corresponding sidelink SPS configurations.
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Huawei, and further in view of Yang, and further in view of Zhang discloses the method of claim 6, wherein including the at least one of the one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications in the one or more third fields comprises: including a valid frequency and time resource assignment in the first sidelink control information message to indicate activation of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration (Lee, paragraph [0085], sidelink transmission in resources in time and frequency domains).
Lee does not explicitly disclose, but Lee ‘564 discloses wherein including the at least one of the one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications in the one or more fields comprises: setting a new data indicator in the second sidelink control information message to "0" to indicate activation of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration (Lee ‘564, paragraphs [0121]-[0127], activation/release operations when new data indicator field set to ‘0’).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to transmit, to indicate activation of SPS using a new data indicator field set to ‘0’, in the invention of Lee. The motivation to efficiently communicate the information about activation/release of the corresponding sidelink SPS configurations.
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Huawei, and further in view of Yang, and further Zhang discloses the method of claim 6, wherein including the at least one of the one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications in the one or more third fields comprises.
Lee does not explicitly disclose, but Lee ‘564 discloses wherein including the at least one of the one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications in the one or more fields comprises: setting a new data indicator in the second sidelink control information message to "0" and setting a frequency and time resource assignment in the first sidelink control information message to all "0"s to indicate deactivation of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration (Lee ‘564, paragraphs [0129]-[013] and Tables 1-3, FDD and TDD fields set to ‘000’ to indicate activation or release; paragraphs [0121]-[0127], activation/release operations when new data indicator field set to ‘0’).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to transmit, to indicate activation of SPS using a new data indicator field set to ‘0’, in the invention of Lee. The motivation to efficiently communicate the information about activation/release of the corresponding sidelink SPS configurations.
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Huawei, and further in view of Yang, and further Zhang discloses the method of claim 6, wherein including the at least one of the one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications in the one or more third fields comprises a semi-persistent scheduling identifier.
Lee does not explicitly disclose, but Lee ‘564 discloses wherein including the at least one of the one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications in the one or more fields comprises: setting one or more bits of a hybrid automatic repeat request process identifier field of the second sidelink control information message to indicate an index of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration (Lee ‘564, paragraphs [0176]-[0177], HARQ bitmap where each bit is given a value of 0 or 1 to indicate activation/release of the corresponding sidelink SPS configuration, this may be understood as SPS configuration index information; paragraph [0178], HARQ field may express a 3 bit index/ID of an SPS process).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to transmit, to indicate semi-persistent scheduling identifiers using a HARQ message, in the invention of Lee. The motivation to efficiently communicate the information about activation/release of the corresponding sidelink SPS configurations.
Claims 27 and 29-32 are rejected under substantially the same rationale as claims 5 and 7-10, respectively.
Claim(s) 16 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ganesan, and further in view of Yang, and further in view of ITRI: "Considering on NR Sidelink Resource Allocations Using Mode 1 ", 3GPP Draft, R1-1907231, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #97, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Mobile Competence Centre, 650, Route Des Lucioles, F-06921 Sophia-Antipolis Cedex, France, vol. RAN WG1, no. Reno, USA, 20190513 -20190517, 13 May 2019 (2019-05-13), XP051728674, 10 Pages (cited in Applicant’s IDS filed on January 24, 2022) (Hereafter, R1-1907231).
Regarding claim 16, Lee in view of Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, to the second UE additional one or more semi-persistent scheduling indications for an active semi-persistent scheduling configuration (Lee, Fig. 13; paragraph [0174]-[0175], UE1 sends SPS configurations to the UE2 via the activated UE grant; paragraph [0176], UE2 sends SPS activation/deactivation confirmation to the UE1; paragraph [0185], UE1 sends SPS activation/deactivation to UE 2).
Lee does not explicitly disclose updating an active sidelink configuration.
R1-1907231 discloses transmitting, to the second UE additional one or more scheduling indications for modifying an active scheduling configuration (R1-1907231, section 3.1, page 6, lines 7-12, SL transmitter UE permitted to activate/deactivate a configured grant and forward this knowledge to the SL receiver explicitly, schemes to modify a configured/activated grant are similar).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to transmit, to the receiving UE a scheduling indication for modifying a scheduling configuration with the receiving UE, in the invention of Lee. The motivation to combine the references would have been to adapt to changing transmission conditions.
Claim 38 is rejected under substantially the same rationale as claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant asserts that the Examiner’s first reason of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection is incorrect. Applicant argues that Fig. 4 and paragraphs 79, 93 and 100-102 disclose that there is NOT a corresponding additional second sidelink information. Applicant appears to misunderstand the Examiner’s first rejection, because Applicant’s arguments appear to support the Examiner’s interpretation that Applicant’s Specification supports there is NOT PRESENT a corresponding additional second sidelink information. However, as discussed in the claim rejections, the last three lines of the last clause of the present independent claims additionally recites that a fourth content of the corresponding additional second sidelink information message [is] identical to … the second content. In order for fourth content of the corresponding additional second sidelink information message to be identical to … the second content, then the corresponding additional second sidelink information must be PRESENT. This being PRESENT is the reason for the Examiner’s first reason of 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection, because the claim recites that the subsequent transmissions are without a corresponding additional second sidelink control information message having the second-stage sidelink control information format.
Applicant asserts that the Examiner’s second and third reasons of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection are incorrect. Applicant argues that paragraphs 83 and 91 disclose possible contents of a SCI-2 may include the claimed source ID, destination ID and SPS configuration, and paragraph 102 discloses that an SCI-2 may be skipped; so Applicant argues that, therefore, any of the disclosed possible contents of the SCI-2 message may be skipped. However, the Examiner disagrees. The Specification discloses that the fields may be present in a SCI-1 and/or SCI-2. Accordingly, a disclosure that SCI-2 may be skipped does not disclose that the invention will function if the individual fields the claimed source ID, destination ID and SPS configuration, are skipped. In order to overcome this rejection, Applicant is advised to point out the portions of the Specification that discuss that the claimed fields may be skipped, and how the invention work if those fields are skipped.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, Applicant argues that the claim limitation of “transmitting subsequent periodic PSSCH data transmissions … without a corresponding additional second sidelink control information message” does not contradict, and does provide antecedent basis for, the limitation “a fourth content of the corresponding additional second sidelink information message,” because there may be other transmissions of a “corresponding additional second sidelink control information message.” However, the Examiner disagrees, as discussed in the claim rejections. In order for the claim to be interpreted according to Applicant’s asserted interpretation, one option could be for the claim to be amended to somehow explicitly recite an existence/determination of contents or values of/for a corresponding additional second sidelink information, and then that the transmission of that corresponding additional second sidelink information is omitted if those contents are the same as the contents of the previously transmitted second sidelink control information message.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, Applicant argues that the claims are patentable because Ganesan does not explicitly disclose that omitted the SCI-2 is in response to determining that the content of the SCI-2 is the same. However, firstly, Applicant’s Specification does not support an explicit determination that they are the identical, or that the omitting is in response to a determination of them being identical. Secondly, Ganesan, for example in paragraphs [0050] and [0095] discloses that the contents are the same, which is the same as the disclosure in Applicant’s Specification.
Applicant further argues that Ganesan does not determine that the first contents and third contents are equal, as recited in the claim. However, firstly, Applicant’s Specification does not support an explicit determination that they are the identical, or that the omitting is in response to a determination of them being identical. Secondly, a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, would have understood that the information in Ganesan’s disclosed first-stage sidelink control information format that includes format information of a second-stage sidelink control information format (Ganesan, Figs, 7, 8, 9, 10, first stage SCI followed by second stage SCI; paragraph [0026], SCI format 1 used to schedule PSSCH; paragraph [0027] second stage SCI masked by destination ID; paragraph [0030], SCI part1 can be related to resource reservation, SCI part 2 masked by destination ID; paragraph [0031], first stage SCI can point to time and frequency resources of second stage SCI and indicate SCI format) could have been the same for the disclosed subsequent transmissions of Figs. 7, 8, 9 and 10, that have the same transmitting and receiving devices.
Applicant further asserts th