DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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: 02/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 01/12/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1, 7, and 14 have been amended.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
For context, Applicant indicates support for its amended independent claims 1, 7, and14 exists in paras. [0046], [00107], [00250] (describing Fig. 13), and [00291] of its originally filed disclosure. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 6. Notably, each of these cited paragraphs describe a similar scenario where a first terminal device, a SL UE1, that unsuccessfully sends HARQ feedback, i.e., a failed PSFCH transmission, to a second terminal device, SL UE2, from which it previously received a first PSSCH transmission, a PSSCH1. The first terminal device, SL UE1, can then receive a second PSSCH transmission, a PSSCH2, from the same, second terminal device, SL UE2. The first terminal device, SL UE1, may then bundle HARQ feedback associated with the PSSCH 1 (the failed HARQ feedback) and PSSCH 2 transmissions, in a second, combined HARQ feedback transmission, i.e., a second PSFCH transmission, to the second terminal device, SL UE2.
In this regard, Applicant’s above-indicated supporting disclosure describes a single terminal device, SL UE1, sending only its own feedback information to another SL terminal device, from which it received the PSSCH transmissions requiring feedback. This subject matter is depicted in Applicant’s Fig. 13, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
590
1046
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With reference to Fig. 13, above, only terminal device 11 sends its own feedback for PSSCH 1 (w/failed initial HARQ transmission) and PSSCH 2 to terminal device 00. Terminal devices 01 and 10 are shown to have successfully sent their PSSCH feedback to terminal device 00, independently. As such, this supporting subject matter deviates from the claim subject matter at issue of a first terminal device sending HARQ information corresponding to each of a plurality of second terminal devices on a channel resource on which LBT succeeds.
Specifically, what is recited in Applicant’s independent claims is an embodiment where a first terminal device sends HARQ information corresponding to each of a plurality of second terminal devices, i.e., HARQ info of multiple SL UEs of a SL group. Then the first terminal receives indication information from at least one of the second terminal devices to effectuate retransmission of a failed HARQ information along with a next HARQ transmission in a subsequent transmission over a single feedback channel. The Examiner requests that Applicant provide support for is amendments related to its claimed embodiment, in its next response.
With respect to claims 1, 7, and 14, Applicant asserts the combination of prior art references cited in the previous Office Action, namely the combination of Salem in view of Moon and Hahn, “…neither teaches nor suggests ‘HARQ information that is not successfully sent and HARQ information that is to be sent next time are to be combined and sent on a single feedback channel,’ as claimed.” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 8. The Examiner Agrees.
However, in the instant Office Action a new grounds of rejection is relied upon, i.e., Salem in view of Basu Mallick and Fehrenbach, to reject each of amended independent claims 1, 7, and 14, under §103. In this regard, Salem is not substantially relied upon to teach/suggest the above, contested claim subject matter at issue. Instead, new prior art references: Basu Mallick and Fehrenbach, are each relied upon in combination to teach this claim subject matter.
Accordingly, the Examiner refers Applicant to the corresponding §103 rejections of a claims 1, 7, and 14, included herein, for specific citations and explanation as to how these new prior art references are relied upon to reject the above-argued claims limitations of each of Applicant’s independent claims.
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 14 under §103, are determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise been rendered moot based on the new grounds of rejection applied in the present Office Action, namely Basu Mallick and Fehrenbach, which was warranted by Applicant’s corresponding claim amendments.
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant only argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 11. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise rendered moot, for the same reasons described above for the respective independent claims.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) 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. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 7, 8, 13-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2018/0176955 A1, Salem et al. (hereinafter “Salem”) in view of US Patent 11,304,039 B2, Basu Mallick et al. (hereinafter “Basu Mallick”), in further view of US PG Pub 2021/0306089 A1, Fehrenbach et al. (hereinafter “Fehrenbach”).
With Respect to Claim 1, Salem teaches:
A hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback method, wherein the method comprises:
performing, by a first terminal device, listen before talk (LBT) (paras. [0039], and [0044], [0059], and [0086]; and Fig. 1 —each UE of a group of cooperating UE (CUEs 1-3) can perform a LBT procedure for determining if an unlicensed channel is idle/available, i.e., via clear channel assessment (CCA)); and
after the LBT succeeds, sending, by the first terminal device, HARQ information on a channel resource on which the LBT succeeds (paras. [0059], [0068], [0070], [0086], and [1000]; and Fig. 1 —after the LBT CCA is deemed successful for a respective CUE, i.e., the unlicensed spectrum channel is deemed to be idle/clear, para. [0107], the CUE can transmit HARQ information via a SL burst over the clear, unlicensed spectrum channel the target UE (TUE) of its HyperUE).
However, Salem does not explicitly teach:
sending HARQ information corresponding to each of a plurality of second terminal devices on a single feedback channel.
Basu Mallick does teach:
a first terminal device sending HARQ information corresponding to each of a plurality of second terminal devices on a single feedback channel (col. 11, ln. 51 to col. 12, ln. 62, col. 13, lines 14-56; 420 and 425 of Fig. 4 and 810, 815, and 820 —in a groupcast VX2 UE scenario with multiple SL UEs, a single VX2 SL UE, i.e., a leader, can aggregate HARQ feedback/information received from multiple other SL UEs of the group, and then send the aggregated HARQ feedback in a combined HARQ communication over a single feedback channel).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Salem’s HARQ feedback mechanism with the combined SL feedback for a group of SL UEs for transmission over a single feedback channel, as taught by Basu Mallick.
The motivation for doing so would have been to consolidate SL HARQ feedback to reduce signaling overhead, as recognized by Basu Mallick (col. 11, ln. 51 to col. 12, ln. 62, col. 13, lines 14-56; 420 and 425 of Fig. 4 and 810, 815, and 820)
Salem in view of Basu Mallick does not explicitly teach:
in response to receiving indication information from at least one second terminal device of the plurality of terminal devices, resending, by the first terminal device, the HARQ information in accordance with the indication information, wherein the indication information indicates whether the HARQ information that is not successfully sent and HARQ information that is to be sent next time are to be combined and sent.
Fehrenbach does teach:
in response to receiving indication information from a second terminal device of a plurality of terminal devices, resending, by the first terminal device, the HARQ information in accordance with the indication information, wherein the indication information indicates whether the HARQ information that is not successfully sent and HARQ information that is to be sent next time are to be combined and sent (paras. [0116]-[0131], [0137], [0162], [0189]-[0192] —a SL terminal device can send indication information, i.e., a bitmap within SCI, to another SL terminal, after receiving HARQ feedback, where the indication can indicate both HARQ retransmission information (for unsuccessful initial HARQ transmission) and new HARQ transmission information, for a subsequent, combined HARQ feedback transmission).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Salem in view of Basu Mallick’s HARQ feedback mechanism, having combined SL UE feedback being transmitted over a single feedback channel, with indication information to transmit both HARQ retransmission data and new HARQ transmission data as combined feedback, as taught by Fehrenbach.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for failed HARQ feedback to be selectively retransmitted along with new, upcoming HARQ feedback, to more effectively consolidate HARQ feedback resources, as recognized by Fehrenbach (paras. [0113]-[0131], [0137], [0162], [0189]-[0192])
With respect to claim 2, Salem in view of Basu Mallick and Fehrenbach teaches the method according to claim 1.
However, Salem does not explicitly teach:
wherein the HARQ information corresponding to each of the plurality of second terminal devices comprises feedback information corresponding to a plurality of HARQ processes.
Basu Mallick does teach:
HARQ information that corresponds to each of the plurality of second terminal device and comprises feedback information corresponding to a plurality of HARQ processes (col. 11, ln. 51 to col. 12, ln. 62, col. 13, lines 14-56; 420 and 425 of Fig. 4 and 810, 815, and 820 —in a groupcast VX2 UE scenario with multiple SL UEs, a single VX2 SL UE, i.e., a leader, can aggregate HARQ feedback/information received from multiple other SL UEs of the group, and send the aggregated HARQ feedback in a combined HARQ communication over a single feedback channel —the aggregate HARQ feedback received from the multiple other SL UEs of the group corresponds to a plurality of HARQ processes).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Salem’s HARQ feedback mechanism with the combined SL feedback for a group of SL UEs for transmission over a single feedback channel, as taught by Basu Mallick.
The motivation for doing so would have been to consolidate SL HARQ feedback to reduce signaling overhead, as recognized by Basu Mallick (col. 11, ln. 51 to col. 12, ln. 62, col. 13, lines 14-56; 420 and 425 of Fig. 4 and 810, 815, and 820)
With respect to claim 7, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 7 is directed to a HARQ feedback apparatus comprising a processor(s) and memory storing processor-executable programming instructions (Salem: paras. [0061] and [0144]; TUE 800 with processor 802 and memory 804 of Fig. 8). As such, claim 7 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Salem in view of Basu Mallick and Fehrenbach, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 8, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 2. As such, claim 8 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Salem in view of Basu Mallick and Fehrenbach, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 2.
With respect to claim 13, Salem in view of Basu Mallick and Fehrenbach teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the apparatus is implemented on a chip or a terminal device (Salem: para. [0144]; TUE 800 with processor 802 and memory 804 of Fig. 8 —the term “or” only requires Examination on the merits of a single alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 14, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 14 is directed to a HARQ feedback apparatus on the network side, i.e., a BS or TP, as opposed to a UE, which comprises a processor(s) and memory storing processor-executable programming instructions (Salem: paras. [0145]; TP 900, i.e., a network device, with processor 902 and memory 904 of Fig. 9). As such, claim 14 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Salem in view of Basu Mallick and Fehrenbach, for similar reasons to those explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 15, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 2. As such, claim 15 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Salem in view of Basu Mallick and Fehrenbach, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 2.
With respect to claim 20, Salem in view of Basu Mallick and Fehrenbach teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the apparatus is implemented on a chip or a terminal device (Salem: para. [0145]; TP 900 with processor 902 and memory 904 of Fig. 9 —the term “or” only requires Examination on the merits of a single alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
Claims 3-6, 9-12, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem in view of Basu Mallick and Fehrenbach in further view of US PG Pub 2020/0389257 A1, Kung et al. (hereinafter “Kung”).
With Respect to Claim 3, Salem in view of Basu Mallick and Fehrenbach teaches the method according to claim 1.
Salem in view of Basu Mallick and Fehrenbach does not explicitly teach:
sending, by the first terminal device, an identifier of the first terminal device to the plurality of second terminal devices
Kung does teach:
sending, by a first terminal device, an identifier of the first terminal device to a plurality of second terminal devices (paras. [0275]-[0279], and [0292]; and Figs. 15-16 —a first terminal device, i.e., a group leader Tx UE, can send its Src ID to other group member UEs, as depicted in Fig. 16).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Salem in view of Basu Mallick and Fehrenbach’s LBT procedure with HARQ feedback resource provisioning for a group of UEs with SL feedback provisioning that includes a group leader ID, as taught by Kung.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow a group leader/groupcast Tx UE to identify itself as such for consolidating SL HARQ feedback communications, as recognized by Kung (paras. [0275]-[0279], and [0292]; and Figs. 15-16).
With respect to claim 4, Salem in view of Basu Mallick, Fehrenbach, and Kung teaches the method according to claim 3.
However, Salem does not explicitly teach:
wherein a correspondence exists between the feedback channel and the first terminal device.
Kung does teach:
wherein a correspondence exists between a feedback channel and a first terminal device (paras. [0005], [0263], [0296], and [0311]-[0312]; and block 1715 of Fig. 17 —a feedback channel resource can be determined based at least on part on a source ID of a group Tx UE —this relation is interpreted to be equivalent to “a correspondence”).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Salem’s LBT procedure with HARQ feedback resource provisioning for a group of UEs with SL feedback provisioning that includes a correspondence between a feedback channel and a first terminal device, as taught by Kung.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow a group identifier based correspondence, as recognized by Kung (paras. [0005], [0263], [0296], and [0311]-[0312]; and block 1715 of Fig. 17).
With respect to claim 5, Salem in view of Basu Mallick, Fehrenbach, and Kung teaches the method according to claim 4.
However, Salem does not explicitly teach:
wherein the feedback channel is determined based on the identifier of the first terminal device.
Kung does teach:
wherein a feedback channel is determined based on the identifier of the first terminal device (paras. [0005], [0263], [0296], and [0311]-[0312]; and block 1715 of Fig. 17 —a feedback channel resource can be determined based at least on part on a source ID of a group Tx UE).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Salem’s LBT procedure with HARQ feedback resource provisioning for a group of UEs, where a feedback channel is determined based on a group leader identifier, as taught by Kung.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow a group leader identifier to be associated with a particular feedback channel, as recognized by Kung (paras. [0005], [0263], [0296], and [0311]-[0312]; and block 1715 of Fig. 17).
With respect to claim 6, Salem in view of Basu Mallick, Fehrenbach, and Kung teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the first terminal device and the plurality of second terminal devices are located in a same terminal device group (Salem: paras. [0045]-[0046] —the TUE1 and CUEs 1-3 can be located within the same Hyper UE Group 104, as depicted in Fig. 1; Kung: paras. [0266]-[0267] and [0275]-[0276] —a leader UE and multiple member UEs can be part of a group, or a platoon).
However, Salem does not explicitly teach:
wherein the identifier of the first terminal device comprises one or more of the following identifiers: an identifier of the terminal device group, an identifier of the first terminal device in the terminal device group, or a source node identifier source ID of the first terminal device.
Kung does teach:
wherein the identifier of a first terminal device comprises one or more of the following identifiers: an identifier of the terminal device group, an identifier of the first terminal device in the terminal device group, or a source node identifier source ID of the first terminal device (paras. [0005], [0263], and [0266]-[0267] —the identifier of the Src UE is an ID associated with the leader of a group of UEs or platoon —the term “or” only requires Examination on the merits of a single alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Salem’s LBT procedure with HARQ feedback resource provisioning for a group of UEs, where a feedback channel is determined based on a group leader identifier, as taught by Kung.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow a group leader identifier to be associated with a particular feedback channel, as recognized by Kung (paras. [0005], [0263], [0296], and [0311]-[0312]; and block 1715 of Fig. 17).
With respect to claim 9, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3. As such, claim 9 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Salem in view of Basu Mallick, Fehrenbach, and Kung, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
With respect to claim 10, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 4. As such, claim 10 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Salem in view of Basu Mallick, Fehrenbach, and Kung, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 4.
With respect to claim 11, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 5. As such, claim 11 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Salem in view of Basu Mallick, Fehrenbach, and Kung, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 5.
With respect to claim 12, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 5. As such, claim 11 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Salem in view of Basu Mallick, Fehrenbach, and Kung, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 5.
With respect to claim 16, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3. As such, claim 16 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Salem in view of Basu Mallick, Fehrenbach, and Kung, for similar reasons to those explained above for dependent claim 3.
With respect to claim 17, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 4. As such, claim 17 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Salem in view of Basu Mallick, Fehrenbach, and Kung, for similar reasons to those explained above for dependent claim 4.
With respect to claim 18, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 5. As such, claim 18 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Salem in view of Basu Mallick, Fehrenbach, and Kung, for similar reasons to those explained above for dependent claim 5.
With respect to claim 19, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 6. As such, claim 19 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Salem in view of Basu Mallick, Fehrenbach, and Kung, for similar reasons to those explained above for dependent claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm EST.
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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418