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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on 05/06/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments/remarks filed on 05/06/2026 with respect to claim(s) 14 and the similarly amended independent claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8-9, 14, 16 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US. Pub. 20200403731) in view of Chae et al. (US. Pub. 20210289380), further in view of Farag (US. Pub. 20230319849), further in view of Liu et al. (US. Pub. 20240244512).
Regarding claim 14 Zhang disclose, an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) read as: “terminal devices - UEs 102-1-n” see para. 78, comprising: one or more memories and one or more processors para. 37, “a terminal device, including a processor and a memory”, coupled with the one or more memories, the one or more processors configured to cause the UE to:
select between random selection and partial sensing based at least in part on a block error ratio (BLER) and a channel busy ratio (CBR) associated with a sidelink channel para. 156, “Alternatively, the configuration or definition may also indicate (such as, either dynamically or semi-statically) the carrier (e.g. the serving cell index, or the frequency) in which the duplicated sidelink data packet should be transmitted. Alternatively, the terminal device may autonomously determine in which carrier the duplicated sidelink data packet should be transmitted depending on radio conditions, e.g., interference level, and/or CBR, and/or block error rate (BLER)”; and
transmit on the sidelink channel using the sidelink resources para. 172, “regardless of which split bearer mechanism is used, the MAC entity may just transmit the data from the higher layer regardless whether sidelink data duplication has been performed or not”.
Zhang do not specifically disclose, wherein the one or more processors are configured to use the random selection is used to select sidelink resources of the sidelink channel when the BLER is less than or equal to a BLER threshold. However, Chae teach, “The UE may measure an average/maximum/minimum BLER of a packet received during a predetermined time duration or the number of occurrences of a BLER equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold”. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the second of the alternatives.
Zhang and Chae do not specifically disclose, wherein the one or more processors are configured to use the partial sensing to select the sidelink resources when the BLER is greater than the BLER threshold and the CBR is less than or equal to greater than a CBR threshold. However, Farag teaches, para. 242, “The condition to trigger the sending the sensing results (sensing information) from the LTE SL module to the NR SL module can be one or more of: (1) CBR on the LTE SL interface exceeds a threshold, (2) BLER averaged over N subframes for the LTE SL interface exceeds a threshold”.
Zhang, Chae and Farag are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to sidelink configuration parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chae and Farag in the system of Zhang so the system can choose the sidelink resources needed to transmit from of all potential candidate resources for the sidelink channel transmission selected according to the restrictions or limitations of the selected channel with the established configuration. The motivation for doing so would have been to managing the selection of the available resources and deliver the data in the corresponding order of priority preconfigured.
Zhang, Chae and Farag do not specifically disclose, wherein the partial sensing occasions are separated from one another by time gaps. However, Liu teaches, “a gap between the second sensing occasion and a moment n is greater than or equal to processing time, where the moment n is a triggering moment of the first procedure, and the processing time is greater than or equal to time required for decoding sidelink control information SCI and/or time required for reporting a target resource”, see para. 398,
Zhang, Chae, Farag and Liu are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to sidelink configuration parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Liu in the system of Chae, Farag and Zhang so the system can choose the sidelink resources needed to transmit from of all potential candidate resources for the sidelink channel transmission selected according to the restrictions or limitations of the selected channel with the established configuration. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the system to adapt to specific environmental trigger.
Regarding claim 16 Zhang disclose, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit the message on the sidelink channel using the other sidelink resources. para. 172, “regardless of which split bearer mechanism is used, the MAC entity may just transmit the data from the higher layer regardless whether sidelink data duplication has been performed or not”.
Zhang and Chae do not specifically disclose, use partial sensing to select other sidelink resources when a priority associated with a message satisfies a priority threshold. However, Farag teach, para. 242, “The condition to trigger the sending the sensing results (sensing information) from the LTE SL module to the NR SL module can be one or more of: (1) CBR on the LTE SL interface exceeds a threshold, (2) BLER averaged over N subframes for the LTE SL interface exceeds a threshold”.
Zhang, Chae, Farag and Liu are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to sidelink configuration parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Farag in the system of Zhang, Chae, and Liu so the system can select the sidelink resources needed to transmit from of all potential candidate resources for the sidelink channel transmission and send data on the selected channel according to the established configuration. The motivation for doing so would have been to managing the selection of the available resources and deliver the data in the corresponding order of priority preconfigured to maintain levels of quality of services.
Claim 1 recites a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 14 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 14.
Regarding claim 3 and 9 the limitations of claim 3 and 9 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 16.
Regarding claim 8 the limitations of claim 8 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 21.
Claim 21 recites a apparatus corresponding to the apparatus of claim 14 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 14.
Claim(s) 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US. Pub. 20200403731) in view of Chae et al. (US. Pub. 20210289380), further in view of Farag (US. Pub. 20230319849), further in view of Liu et al. (US. Pub. 20240244512), further in view of Lee at al. (U.S. Pub. 20210377956).
Regarding claim 18 Zhang, Chae, Farag and Liu does not specifically disclose, wherein the CBR fails to satisfy is greater than the CBR threshold based on a hysteresis value. However, Lee teach, para. 146, “the CBR value of the current carrier does not exceed a second CBR threshold value (e.g., a type of hysteresis margin) related to an additionally configured specific PPPP, the UE may maintain the current carrier”.
Zhang, Chae, Farag, Liu and Lee are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to sidelink configuration parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee in the system of Zhang, Chae, Farag and Liu so the system can update the channel configuration according to change on the variation of relevant parameters values. The motivation for doing so would have been to maintain the quality of service on the communication channel available.
Regarding claim 5 the limitations of claim 5 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 18.
Claim(s) 7, 13, 20 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US. Pub. 20200403731) in view of Chae et al. (US. Pub. 20210289380), further in view of Farag (US. Pub. 20230319849), further in view of Liu et al. (US. Pub. 20240244512), further in view of Lee at al. (U.S. Pub. 20210336688), hereafter, “Lee688”.
Regarding claim 20 Zhang, Chae, Farag and Liu does not specifically disclose, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: apply a hidden node remediation when a block error ratio (BLER) associated with the sidelink channel fails to satisfy a BLER threshold para. 8, “a UE in a wireless communication system supporting a sidelink comprises the steps of configuring a beam failure recovery (BFR) parameter for each of a plurality of services on the basis of service attributes, and independently detecting a beam failure for at least one beam corresponding to each service on the basis of a block error ratio (BLER) threshold value”.
Zhang, Chae, Farag, Liu and Lee688 are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to sidelink configuration parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee688 in the system of Zhang, Chae and Farag so the system can update the channel configuration according to changing transmission parameters. The motivation for doing so would have been to dynamically modify the communication parameters with variations of the channel conditions.
Regarding claim 7, 13 and 26 the limitations of claim 7, 13 and 26 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 10-12, 15, 22-25 and 27-30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ko et al. (U.S. Pub. 20230389122) which disclose(s) method and device for reevaluating and preempting mode2 resource during SL DRX operation in NR V2X.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chi Pham can be reached on (571) 272–3179. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing 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.
/R.R/ Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights