DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been considered for examination.
With regard to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 06/22/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are not persuasive at least in view of reasons set forth below.
On page 12 of Remarks, Applicant argued:
However, paragraph [0160] of Hwang merely states that the DCI may indicate a slot
offset between the DCI reception and a first SL transmission scheduled by the DCI. As such, the
offset of Hwang is a timing offset between reception of DCI and a scheduled sidelink transmission. Further, Hwang does not disclose information related to second offset between a user to universal terrestrial radio access network (Uu) carrier and a side/ink (SL) carrier. The Examiner's interpretation improperly maps DCI reception to the claimed Uu carrier and first SL transmission to the claimed SL carrier, because a DCI reception event and a first SL transmission event are not carriers. As such, Hwang does not teach the claimed information related to second offset between a user to universal terrestrial radio access network (Uu) carrier and a sidelink (SL) carrier, as required by the above-referenced limitation (i) of independent claim 1.
In response to the above Applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, regarding the applicant’s argument that Hwang’s paragraph [0160] discloses only a timing offset between “a DCI reception event” and “a first SL transmission event”, that because these are events rather than carriers, Hwang cannot disclose “information related to a second offset between a Uu carrier and a SL carrier” as recited in claim 1, this argument is not persuasive.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), an offset “between” two carriers is necessarily manifested as an offset between a timing reference occurring on one carrier and a timing reference occurring on the other carrier. A carrier, standing alone, has no timing value from which an “offset” could be computed - an offset is inherently a relationship between two temporal events. In Hwang, the DCI is received on the Uu carrier (see ¶¶0160 and 0030) and schedules a first SL transmission on the SL carrier. The offset between these two events is therefore an offset between a Uu carrier timing reference (DCI reception) and an SL carrier timing reference (first SL transmission), consistent with the claimed second offset. Applicant has not identified any claim language that excludes an offset derived from such carrier-specific timing events from the scope of “offset between a Uu carrier and a SL carrier.”
On page 12 of Remarks, Applicant argued:
Further, regarding the above-referenced limitation (ii), paragraph [0031] of Hwang describes determining a slot to carry a PUCCH based on a value representing the number of slots from a PSFCH to the PUCCH by the first UE and transmitting feedback information based on the PSFCH on the PUCCH in the determined slot to a BS by the first UE. In addition, based on a slot for the PUCCH being asynchronous with a slot for the PSFCH, the value representing the number of slots is a value corrected based on a synchronization difference between the slot for the PUCCH and the slot for the PSFCH by the first UE. However, Hwang remains silent with respect to the timing for transmitting, on a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), the retransmission control related response being determined based on a number of slots, as required by the above-referenced limitation.
In response to the above Applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Unlike the applicant’s argument above, Hwang clearly discloses, a timing for transmitting, on a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), the retransmission control related response is determined based on a number of slots [¶0363, UE1 determines a slot to carry the PUCCH based on a value indicating the number of slots from the PSFCH to the PUCCH, and transmits feedback information based on the PSFCH on the PUCCH in the slot; further see ¶0359, the feedback information may be HARQ-ACK information (i.e., retransmission control related response) related to the PSFCH for the PSSCH].
On page 14 of Remarks, Applicant argued:
Further, even assuming arguendo a skilled person were to combine Hwang and Chen
in the manner suggested by the Examiner, the combination would still fail to render amended
independent claim 1 obvious, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no
motivation to supply the missing elements without the benefit of Applicant's own disclosure as a
guide.
In response to Applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the combination of Hwang and Chen, it is Applicant’s opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no motivation to supply the missing elements without the benefit of Applicant's own disclosure as a guide.
However, the examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, and in many cases will be able to fit teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressively suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, Chen provides motivation for a side/ink frame number being aligned to an uplink frame number, as doing so provides the system of Hwang with enhanced capability of avoiding delaying of urgent data transmission, as indicated in the outstanding Office Action (it suffices that there is motivation to combine the teachings of Hwang and Chen to arrive at the claimed invention as taught by the recited limitations). Furthermore, there is no reasons to compel a person having an ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the references in the specific manner set forth by the applicant.
On page 14 of Remarks, Applicant argued:
In view of the above, amended independent claim 1 is patentable over Hwang and Chen, whether considered alone or in combination. Likewise, amended independent claims 5, 7, and 8, which recite substantially similar limitations, are patentable over Hwang and Chen for at least the same reasons.
In response to the above Applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Since claims 5 and 7-8 recite similar features to claim 1 without further patentable features, claims 5 and 7-8 are unpatentable in view of the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5 and 7-8 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1 recites, “determining a second timing” (third line from the bottom in page 2). It is suggested to replace it with “determining the second timing” for more clarity. Claims 5 and 7-8 are objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claim 8 recites, “information related to second offset” (third line from the bottom in page 7). It is suggested to replace it with “information related to a second offset” for more clarity.
Claim 8 recites, “based on the information related to the a second offset,” (second line from the top in page 8). It is suggested to replace it with “based on the information related to the second offset,” for more clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “a timing for transmitting, on a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), the retransmission control related response is determined based on a number of slots” (last two lines). It is unclear what relationship “a timing for transmitting” is associated with “a second timing of transmitting” (line 7). Is “a timing for transmitting referring to “a second timing of transmitting”? Claims 5 and 7-8 are rejected at least based on a similar rational applied to claim 1. For the sake of examination purpose only, it is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 8 recites, “the offset” (last line). It is unclear whether “the offset” refers to “a first offset” or “a second offset” in the preceding limitations of claim 8. For the sake of examination purpose only, it is interpreted as best understood.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang’279 et al (US Publication No. 2022/0095279) in view of Chen et al (US Publication No. 2021/0153170).
Regarding claim 8, Hwang teaches, a wireless communication system comprising: a plurality of terminals performing direct communication between the terminals [FIGS. 34-35; their related descriptions; ¶0355; claim 1, a wireless communication system comprising UE1 and UE2 performing sidelink (SL) communication between the UE1 and UE2]; and a base station [FIGS. 34-35; their related descriptions; ¶0355; claim 1, gNB],
wherein a terminal [FIGS. 34-35; their related descriptions; ¶0355; claim 1, UE1] includes:
a receiver [FIGS. 12 and 42; their related descriptions; ¶0142 and 0409, transceiver 106; note that every terminal has at least one receiver] configured to receive, from the base station, information indicating a first offset between [FIGS. 34-35; their related descriptions; ¶0356; claim 1, the UE1 receives, from the gNB, information about an offset between]:
a first timing of receiving a retransmission control related response corresponding to a physical shared channel from another terminal in a first channel for direct communication between the terminal and the another terminal [FIGS. 34-35; a slot for carrying/receiving the PSFCH/feedback information for the PSSCH transmitted from the UE2 in a SL channel for SL direction communication between the UE1 and UE2 (S3403); further see ¶0359, the feedback information may be HARQ-ACK information related to the PSFCH for the PSSCH], and
a second timing of transmitting the retransmission control related response to the base station in a second channel for communication between the terminal and the base station [FIGS. 34-35; their related descriptions; ¶0356; claim 1, a slot for reporting/transmitting the UCI (the PUCCH carrying the feedback information based on the PSFCH) to the gNB in an Uu channel for UL communication between the UE1 and the gNB (S3404); further see ¶0359, the feedback information may be HARQ-ACK information related to the PSFCH for the PSSCH], wherein the receiver receives the information indicating the first offset in downlink control information (DCI) used for scheduling the physical shared channel [¶0357, the offset information indicating the number of slots from the PSFCH to the UCI (the PUCCH carrying the feedback information based on the PSFCH); further see ¶0360, the offset information may be included in the DCI received by UE1, and the DCI may be received on the PDCCH related to the PSSCH . . . For example, the PUCCH resources for transmitting the UCI may be indicated by a corresponding indicator, including a PUCCH resource indicator in the DCI for allocating the SL resources”; note that the DCI includes the number of slots (i.e., offset), and the DCI is for allocation SL resources; further see ¶0353, Direct communication may be conducted between UEs on SL. For example, a gNB may indicate time and frequency resources and/or a transmission scheme (e.g., an MCS, the number of transmission layers, the number of codewords, CBG information, HARQ process information, PMI information, and the like) for SL transmission to a specific UE (by higher layer signaling and/or a DCI indication), and the UE may transmit a PSCCH and a PSSCH to another UE based on the indicated information“; note that the indicated information of Hwang is considered as DCI which is a basis for the UE to transmit the PSCCH and the PSSCH (i.e., physical shared channel)],
a processor [FIGS. 12 and 42; their related descriptions; ¶0142 and 0409, processor 106; note that every terminal has at least one controller/processor] configured to:
determine the second timing of the second channel, based on the first timing of the first channel and the information indicating the first offset [FIGS. 34-35; their related descriptions; ¶0356 and 0363-0365 the UE1 determines the slot for transmitting the PUCCH based on the slot for the PSFCH and the offset],
wherein:
a slot index of the direct communication between the terminal and the another terminal is aligned to a slot index of the communication between the terminal and the base station [FIG. 35; its related descriptions; ¶0368, the slot for the PUCCH and the slot for the PSFCH are synchronized; further see ¶00357, referring to FIG. 35, after receiving a PDCCH from the gNB, UE1 transmits a PSSCH to UE2. UE1 receives a PSFCH for the PSSCH from UE2. UE1 then transmits feedback information based on the PSFCH to the gNB on a PUCCH, and the transmission timing of the PUCCH (i.e., slot index of the communication) may be determined by offset information or a value K=4 which is information indicating the number of slots from the PSFCH (i.e., slot index of the direct communication) to the PUCCH. with reference to FIG. 35; noting the square boxes of FIG. 35 are slots, the slot index of transmitting the PUCCH is determined by offset offset information from the slot index of transmitting the PSFCH which means that the slot index of transmitting the PUCCH is offset by a value K=4 (i.e., aligned with) from the slot index of transmitting the PSFCH; regarding “the slot indices being aligned with each other”, further see ¶0268, “when the transmitting UE transmits the PSSCH in slot #X to slot #N to the receiving UE, the receiving UE may transmit an HARQ feedback for the PSSCH in slot #(N+A) to the transmitting UE. For example, slot #(N+A) may include PSFCH resources. For example, A may be a smallest integer greater than or equal to K”]; and
a slot boundary of the direct communication between the terminal and the another terminal is same as a slot boundary of the communication between the terminal and the base station [FIGS. 34-35; their related descriptions; ¶0363-0365 and 0369-0370; claim 1, a slot boundary of the SL channel is aligned with a slot boundary of the UL channel], and
a transmitter [FIGS. 12 and 42; their related descriptions; ¶0142 and 0409, transceiver 106; note that every terminal has at least one transmitter] configured to transmit the retransmission control related response to the base station in the second channel [FIGS. 34-35; their related descriptions; ¶0356; claim 1, the UE1 reports/transmits the PUCCH carrying the feedback information based on the PSFCH to the gNB in the UL channel (S3404); further see ¶0359, the feedback information may be HARQ-ACK information related to the PSFCH for the PSSCH],
wherein:
the receiver [FIGS. 12 and 42; their related descriptions; note that every gNB/base station has at least one receiver] receives, from the base station, information related to a second offset between a user to universal radio access network (Uu) carrier and a sidelink (SL) carrier [¶0160 (further see ¶00158 and ¶0360, receiving the DCI including the offset information), receiving a slot offset between the DCI reception (i.e., UU carrier) and a first SL transmission (i.e., SL carrier)],
the transmitter [FIGS. 12 and 42; their related descriptions; note that every gNB/base station has at least one transmitter] transmits, to the another terminal, the physical shared channel on the SL carrier based on the information related to the second offset [¶0160, the UE transmits (to another UE) the PSSCH on the SL carrier based on the slot offset; further see ¶0158, UE1 may perform V2X or SL communication with UE2 according to the resource scheduling made through the DCI; further see ¶0353, Direct communication may be conducted between UEs on SL. For example, a gNB may indicate time and frequency resources and/or a transmission scheme (e.g., an MCS, the number of transmission layers, the number of codewords, CBG information, HARQ process information, PMI information, and the like) for SL transmission to a specific UE (by higher layer signaling and/or a DCI indication), and the UE may transmit a PSCCH and a PSSCH to another UE based on the indicated information“], and
a timing for transmitting, on a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), the retransmission control related response is determined based on a number of slots [¶0363, UE1 determines a slot to carry the PUCCH based on a value indicating the number of slots from the PSFCH to the PUCCH, and transmits feedback information based on the PSFCH on the PUCCH in the slot; further see ¶0359, the feedback information may be HARQ-ACK information (i.e., retransmission control related response) related to the PSFCH for the PSSCH], and
the base station [FIGS. 34-35; their related descriptions; ¶0355; claim 1, gNB] includes:
a transmitter configured to transmit, to the terminal, the information indicating the offset [FIGS. 34-35; their related descriptions; ¶0356; claim 1, the UE1 (or the gNB) receives (or transmits), from the gNB (or to the UE1), information about an offset between].
Hwang does not explicitly teach (see, italicized and bold limitations), wherein a sidelink
frame number is aligned to an uplink frame number.
However, Chen teaches, wherein a sidelink frame number is aligned to an uplink frame number [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0084, In the subframe pattern after the change, as compared to the subframe pattern before the change, subframe 15 is changed from an uplink subframe (a radio resource for terminal-to-base station communication) to a sidelink subframe (a radio resource for terminal-to-terminal communication); ¶0085, in FIG. 5, …, the terminal devices 100-1 to 100-3 receive a new subframe pattern (a bitmap pattern after the change) at timing T12 and recognize the new subframe pattern. The terminal device 100-1 is notified by the base-station device 200 at around timing T12 that use of the changed sidelink subframe 15 is permitted. Then, the terminal device 100-1 uses sidelink subframe 15 to perform transmission to the terminal devices 100-2 and 100-3 at timing T13; note that since the subframe 15 is used for the uplink transmission before the subframe type change and is used for the sidelink transmission after the subframe type change, the subframe number 15 used for the uplink transmission (see, upper portion of FIG. 5) is aligned with the subframe number 15 used for the sidelink transmission (see, lower portion of FIG. 5)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Chen in the system of Hwang in order to cause the system to be able to avoid delaying of urgent data transmission [e.g., ¶0082 of Chen].
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites similar features to claim 8 without further additional features. Thus, claim 1 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 8.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites similar features to claim 8 without further additional features. Thus, claim 5 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 8.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites similar features to claim 8 without further additional features. Thus, claim 7 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ye et al (US Publication No. 2021/0250136 A1) [¶0049].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm (M-T).
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.f attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights