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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of amendment filed on 10/21/2025. The amendments of Applicant are entered and have been considered by Examiner. Claims 1, 3-10, 12-19 were previously pending. Claims 1, 10, 19 have been amended. Claims 3 and 12 are canceled. Claims 1, 4-10, 13-19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 6-8 of applicants remarks:
As can be seen from above, Loehr discloses the V2X Tx UE 205 maps the first HARQ process ID (HPID=X) to the second HARQ process ID (HPID=Y) for sidelink transmission between the V2X Tx UE 205 and the V2X Rx UE 215. In other words, in Loehr, there is a mapping correspondence between the first HARQ process ID and the second HARQ process ID and the second HARQ process ID is selected by the V2X Tx UE 205 for the first HARQ process ID. However, Loehr does not disclose further details of the mapping correspondence between the first HARQ process ID and the second HARQ process ID, i.e., a rule for selecting the second HARQ process ID for the first HARQ process ID.
In contrast, in distinguishing features of claim 1 of the present application, when the first HARQ process identifier is used by the first terminal device, the second HARQ process identifier is determined to be an unused HARQ process identifier other than the first HARQ process identifier. But in Loehr, for the mapping correspondence there is no limitation on the usage situation of the first HARQ process identifier, that is, the usage situation of the first HARQ process identifier has nothing with the mapping correspondence, which is different from the distinguishing features of claim 1 of the present application in essence. In the distinguishing features of claim 1 of the present application, the second HARQ process identifier is determined to be an unused HARQ process identifier other than the first HARQ process identifier when the first HARQ process identifier is used by the first terminal device, which is benefit for monitoring the state of the sidelink transmission of the first terminal device in real time according to the second HARQ process identifier, so as to discover abnormal or fault situation in time, thereby improving system reliability and maintainablitiy. Loehr neither discloses the distinguishing features of claim 1 of the present application nor achieves the above technology effects.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed in [0108] of Loehr:
[0108] In some embodiments, the first HARQ process identifier received in the SL grant (e.g., received in DCI) is different than the second HARQ process identifier signaled within the SCI. In some embodiments, the selected HARQ process is associated with a second HARQ process for which there is no pending HARQ retransmission. In various embodiments, the processor maps the first HARQ process to the second HARQ process, where the second HARQ process is selected independently from the first HARQ process.
Loehr specifically teaches “the selected HARQ process is associated with a second HARQ process for which there is no pending HARQ retransmission”. Examiner notes that this is analogous to the claim element “wherein when the first HARQ process identifier is used by the first terminal device, the second HARQ process identifier is determined to be an unused HARQ process identifier other than the first HARQ process identifier;”. Furthermore, Loehr teaches that the first HARQ process ID is different than the second HARQ process ID. These are both limitations for determining the second HARQ process ID. Loehr also teaches mapping the first HARQ process to the second HARQ process, which depicts a correspondence between the first and second HARQ process IDs. However, “correspondence” can be interpreted as any relation between the first HARQ and second process IDs, which can include the first HARQ process identifier being different from the second HARQ process ID or the second HARQ process is selected independently from the first HARQ process.
As such, examiner maintains that the prior art teaches the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2020/0304247 A1 (provisional application no. 62/822,546, field on Mar. 22, 2019) to Loehr et al. (hereinafter “Loehr”)
Regarding Claim 1, Loehr teaches A method for determining Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest (HARQ) process information, comprising:
determining, by a first terminal device, a second HARQ process identifier corresponding to a sidelink transmission according to a first HARQ process identifier indicated by a network device; (Figure 3 and [0066], discloses RAN node 210 (i.e. network device) indicates a first HARQ process ID (e.g., HPID=X) (i.e. claimed first HARQ process ID) in the SL grant. The V2X Tx UE 205 (i.e. first terminal device) maps the first HARQ process ID to a SL HARQ process having a second HARQ process ID (e.g., HPID=Y) for the SL transmission on the PC5 interface (i.e. determining a second HARQ process ID corresponding to a sidelink transmission))
wherein when the first HARQ process identifier is used by the first terminal device, the second HARQ process identifier is determined to be an unused HARQ process identifier other than the first HARQ process identifier; ([0108], discloses the first HARQ process identifier received in the SL grant (e.g., received in DCI) is different than the second HARQ process identifier signaled within the SCI. In some embodiments, the selected HARQ process is associated with a second HARQ process for which there is no pending HARQ retransmission. In various embodiments, the processor maps the first HARQ process to the second HARQ process, where the second HARQ process is selected independently from the first HARQ process)
wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the first terminal device, a retransmission scheduling indication sent by the network device, wherein the retransmission scheduling indication indicates the first HARQ process identifier, and (Figure 3 and [0068], The RAN node 210 then allocates SL resources to the V2X Tx UE 205 (see messaging 335). Note that in this case, the SL resources are for the HARQ retransmission of the TB-A (i.e. retransmission scheduling indication sent by the network device). Again, the SL grant also allocates a PUCCH resource for HARQ feedback (i.e., ACK/NACK) and a SL resource for SL HARQ feedback. Note that the SL grant is for the same HARQ process (i.e., HPID=‘X’) (i.e. retransmission scheduling indication indicates first HARQ process ID))
a new data indicator field in the retransmission scheduling indication is not toggled. (Figure 3 and [0068], illustrates step 335 for retransmission, where step 335 in Figure 3 illustrates an NDI=1, which is not toggled from the initial SL grant in step 310, showing an NDI=1)
determining, by the first terminal device, to retransmit sidelink data corresponding to the second HARQ process identifier according to correspondence between the first HARQ process identifier and the second HARQ process identifier. (Figure 3 and [0069], discloses The V2X Tx UE 205 transmits SCI to the V2X Rx UE(s) 215 and further retransmits the TB-A on PSSCH (i.e. retransmits sidelink data) (see messaging 340 and 345). Again, the SCI indicates the same second HARQ process ID (i.e., HPID=‘Y’) (i.e. according to correspondence between first and second HARQ process IDs) and a non-toggled NDI (see messaging 340))
Regarding Claim 4, Loehr teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the first HARQ process identifier is indicated through Downlink Control Information (DCI). ([0057]-[0058], discloses the RAN node 210 may allocate SL resources for the transmission of the indicated SL data by sending a SL grant 225 (i.e., in DCI) on the PDCCH. The SL grant 225 contains an indication of a HARQ process ID and a New Data Indicator (NDI))
Regarding Claim 5, Loehr teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the first HARQ process identifier is indicated by configuration information of sidelink configured grant. ([0057]-[0058], discloses the RAN node 210 may allocate SL resources for the transmission of the indicated SL data by sending a SL grant 225 (i.e., in DCI) on the PDCCH. The SL grant 225 contains an indication of a HARQ process ID and a New Data Indicator (NDI))
Regarding Claim 10, Loehr teaches A terminal device, (Figure 3, illustrates V2X Tx UE 205)
comprising a processor, (Figure 4, discloses UE comprising processor)configured to
determine a second Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest (HARQ) process identifier corresponding to a sidelink transmission according to a first HARQ process identifier indicated by a network device; (Figure 3 and [0066], discloses RAN node 210 (i.e. network device) indicates a first HARQ process ID (e.g., HPID=X) (i.e. claimed first HARQ process ID) in the SL grant. The V2X Tx UE 205 (i.e. first terminal device) maps the first HARQ process ID to a SL HARQ process having a second HARQ process ID (e.g., HPID=Y) for the SL transmission on the PC5 interface (i.e. determining a second HARQ process ID corresponding to a sidelink transmission))
wherein when the first HARQ process identifier is used by the first terminal device, the second HARQ process identifier is determined to be an unused HARQ process identifier other than the first HARQ process identifier; ([0108], discloses the first HARQ process identifier received in the SL grant (e.g., received in DCI) is different than the second HARQ process identifier signaled within the SCI. In some embodiments, the selected HARQ process is associated with a second HARQ process for which there is no pending HARQ retransmission. In various embodiments, the processor maps the first HARQ process to the second HARQ process, where the second HARQ process is selected independently from the first HARQ process)
wherein the terminal device further comprises: a receiver, (Figure 4, discloses UE comprising receiver) configured to
receive retransmission scheduling indication sent by the network device, wherein the retransmission scheduling indication indicates the first HARQ process identifier, and (Figure 3 and [0068], The RAN node 210 then allocates SL resources to the V2X Tx UE 205 (see messaging 335). Note that in this case, the SL resources are for the HARQ retransmission of the TB-A (i.e. retransmission scheduling indication sent by the network device). Again, the SL grant also allocates a PUCCH resource for HARQ feedback (i.e., ACK/NACK) and a SL resource for SL HARQ feedback. Note that the SL grant is for the same HARQ process (i.e., HPID=‘X’) (i.e. retransmission scheduling indication indicates first HARQ process ID))
a new data indicator field in the retransmission scheduling indication is not toggled. (Figure 3 and [0068], illustrates step 335 for retransmission, where step 335 in Figure 3 illustrates an NDI=1, which is not toggled from the initial SL grant in step 310, showing an NDI=1)
the processor is further configured to determine to retransmit sidelink data corresponding to the second HARQ process identifier according to correspondence between the first HARQ process identifier and the second HARQ process identifier. (Figure 3 and [0069], discloses The V2X Tx UE 205 transmits SCI to the V2X Rx UE(s) 215 and further retransmits the TB-A on PSSCH (i.e. retransmits sidelink data) (see messaging 340 and 345). Again, the SCI indicates the same second HARQ process ID (i.e., HPID=‘Y’) (i.e. according to correspondence between first and second HARQ process IDs) and a non-toggled NDI (see messaging 340))
Claims 13-14 are rejected for having the same limitations as claims 4-5, respectively, except the claims are in terminal device format.
Regarding Claim 19, Loehr teaches A method for determining Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest (HARQ) process information, comprising:
sending, by a network device, a first HARQ process identifier to a first terminal device, wherein the first HARQ process identifier is used for the first terminal device to determine a second HARQ process identifier corresponding to a sidelink transmission; (Figure 3 and [0066], discloses RAN node 210 (i.e. network device) indicates a first HARQ process ID (e.g., HPID=X) (i.e. claimed first HARQ process ID) in the SL grant. The V2X Tx UE 205 (i.e. first terminal device) maps the first HARQ process ID to a SL HARQ process having a second HARQ process ID (e.g., HPID=Y) for the SL transmission on the PC5 interface (i.e. determining a second HARQ process ID corresponding to a sidelink transmission))
wherein when the first HARQ process identifier is used by the first terminal device, the second HARQ process identifier is determined to be an unused HARQ process identifier other than the first HARQ process identifier; ([0108], discloses the first HARQ process identifier received in the SL grant (e.g., received in DCI) is different than the second HARQ process identifier signaled within the SCI. In some embodiments, the selected HARQ process is associated with a second HARQ process for which there is no pending HARQ retransmission. In various embodiments, the processor maps the first HARQ process to the second HARQ process, where the second HARQ process is selected independently from the first HARQ process)
wherein the method further comprises: sending, by the network device, a retransmission scheduling indication to the first terminal device, wherein the retransmission scheduling indication indicates the first HARQ process identifier, and (Figure 3 and [0068], The RAN node 210 then allocates SL resources to the V2X Tx UE 205 (see messaging 335). Note that in this case, the SL resources are for the HARQ retransmission of the TB-A (i.e. retransmission scheduling indication sent by the network device). Again, the SL grant also allocates a PUCCH resource for HARQ feedback (i.e., ACK/NACK) and a SL resource for SL HARQ feedback. Note that the SL grant is for the same HARQ process (i.e., HPID=‘X’) (i.e. retransmission scheduling indication indicates first HARQ process ID))
a new data indicator field in the retransmission scheduling indication is not toggled. (Figure 3 and [0068], illustrates step 335 for retransmission, where step 335 in Figure 3 illustrates an NDI=1, which is not toggled from the initial SL grant in step 310, showing an NDI=1)
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) 6-9, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loehr in view of US 2022/0217768 A1 to Liu et al. (hereinafter “Liu”)
Regarding Claim 6, Loehr teaches The method of claim 5, wherein
Loehr further teaches the configuration information is used to indicate a first HARQ process identifier ([0057]-[0058], discloses the RAN node 210 may allocate SL resources for the transmission of the indicated SL data by sending a SL grant 225 (i.e., in DCI) on the PDCCH. The SL grant 225 contains an indication of a HARQ process ID and a New Data Indicator (NDI)) but does not explicitly teach the configuration information is used to indicate a first HARQ process identifier with a smallest sequence number of at least two first HARQ process identifiers.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Liu discloses in [0140], discloses Both the terminal and a network device may calculate, according to the preset algorithm 1, the HARQ process ID corresponding to each uplink grant. [0150], HARQ process IDs associated with sidelink grants on different CG resources are calculated according to a preset algorithm 2. The preset algorithm 2 may be adding an offset (offset) to the preset algorithm 1. The network device may configure a quantity of HARQ processes and an offset that are available for each CG resource, so that HARQ process IDs associated with sidelink grants on different CG resources are different. For example, for CG1, an available quantity of HARQ processes is 4 (i.e. at least two), and an available offset 1 is 0 (i.e. HARQ process identifier with smallest sequence number), for CG2, an available quantity of HARQ processes is 8, and an available offset 2 is 4. In this case, HARQ process IDs available for CG1 are 0 to 3, and HARQ process IDs available for CG2 are 4 to 11. In this way, the HARQ process IDs for CG1 are distinguished from the HARQ process IDs for CG2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Loehr to include the above limitations as suggested by Liu, thus improving transmission efficiency of the terminal as indicated in [0203] of Liu.
Regarding Claim 7, Loehr/Liu teaches The method of claim 6, wherein Liu further teaches the configuration information is further used to indicate a quantity of first HARQ processes. ([0150], discloses The network device may configure a quantity of HARQ processes and an offset that are available for each CG resource) Examiner maintains same motivation to combine as indicated in Claim 6 above.
Regarding Claim 8, Loehr/Liu teaches The method of claim 7, further comprising: Liu further teaches determining, by the first terminal device, other first HARQ process identifiers in the first HARQ process identifiers except the first HARQ process identifier with the smallest sequence number according to the first HARQ process identifier with the smallest sequence number and the quantity of the first HARQ processes. ([0150], discloses The network device may configure a quantity of HARQ processes and an offset that are available for each CG resource, so that HARQ process IDs associated with sidelink grants on different CG resources are different. For example, for CG1, an available quantity of HARQ processes is 4 (i.e. at least two), and an available offset 1 is 0 (i.e. HARQ process identifier with smallest sequence number), for CG2, an available quantity of HARQ processes is 8, and an available offset 2 is 4. In this case, HARQ process IDs available for CG1 are 0 to 3, and HARQ process IDs available for CG2 are 4 to 11. In this way, the HARQ process IDs for CG1 are distinguished from the HARQ process IDs for CG2)) Examiner maintains same motivation to combine as indicated in Claim 6 above.
Regarding Claim 9, Loehr teaches The method of claim 5,
wherein Loehr does not explicitly teach the configuration information is used to indicate all of first HARQ process identifiers.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Liu discloses in [0142], discloses For a SL, a plurality of CG resources coexist on one carrier. In this case, a HARQ process ID associated with each sidelink grant may be calculated in the following Manner C or Manner D (in the following content, a HARQ process is a SL HARQ process, and a HARQ process ID is a SL HARQ process ID). [0146], discloses a HARQ process ID associated with each sidelink grant in a mode-1 resource of the SL may be indicated by a network device (i.e. indicate all HARQ process IDs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Loehr to include the above limitations as suggested by Liu, thus improving transmission efficiency of the terminal as indicated in [0203] of Liu.
Claims 15-18 are rejected for having the same limitations as claims 6-9, respectively, except the claims are in terminal device format.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENKEY VAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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.
/JENKEY VAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477