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 .
DETAILED ACTION
a. Claims 1-36 in the present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA :
- claims 1, 16, 31, and 33 are amended
- claims 14-15, 28-30, and 32 are canceled
- claim 36 is new
b. This is a final action on the merits based on Applicant’s claims submitted on 12/31/2025.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claims 33-35 previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant's arguments, see “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” on page 16, filed on 12/31/2025 are persuasive, and thus the previous rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding claims 1-7, 16-21, 31, and 33 previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant's arguments, see “Applicant respectfully submits that WANG, CHIN, and ZHOU do not disclose each and every feature recited in amended claim 1. For example, WANG, CHIN, and ZHOU, taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not disclose at least "the channel access procedure includ[ing] performing one or more measurements associated with the sidelink channel," "determin[ing] whether the channel access procedure is successful or unsuccessful using the resources associated with the first configured grant configuration based at least in part on the one or more measurements," and "chang[ing] a state associated with the HARQ process identifier to pending from not pending based at least in part on determining that the channel access procedure is unsuccessful when values associated with the one or more measurements satisfy a threshold," as recited in amended claim 1.” on page 17, filed on 12/31/2025, with respect to , have been fully considered but are moot, over the limitations of “the channel access procedure includes performing one or more measurements associated with the sidelink channel; determine whether the channel access procedure is successful or unsuccessful using the resources associated with the first configured grant configuration based at least in part on the one or more measurements; change a state associated with the HARQ process identifier to pending from not pending based at least in part on determining that the channel access procedure is unsuccessful when values associated with the one or more measurements satisfy a threshold”. Said limitations are newly added to the amended Claims 1, 16, 31, and 33 and have been addressed in instant office action, as shown in section 35 USC 103 rejection below, with newly identified disclosures from previously applied references Wang and Chin, thus rendering said Applicant’s arguments moot.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical error. Claims 1 and 31 recite the features “… with the HARQ process identifier being changed to pending,” (underlined emphasis). The examiner suggests that this sentence is ended with a semi-colon instead of a comma. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 16-21, 31, 33, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. US Pub 2024/0014942 (hereinafter “Wang”), in view of Chin et al. US Pub 2022/0116987 (hereinafter “Chin”), and further in view of Zhou et al. US Pub 2021/0028891 (hereinafter “Zhou”).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended)
Wang discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (“UE 200” in Fig. 3; [0159]), comprising:
one or more memories (“memory 215” in Fig. 3; [0159]); and
one or more processors (“multiple processors” [0159]), coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the UE to:
perform a channel access procedure (i.e. “resource allocation”) associated with a transmission of a sidelink communication (“Similar as for PRoSE in LTE, NR sidelink transmissions have two modes of resource allocations. In Mode 1, sidelink resources are scheduled by a gNB. In Mode 2, the UE autonomously selects sidelink resources from a (pre-)configured sidelink resource pool(s) based on the channel sensing mechanism.” [0021]), on a sidelink channel (“For unicast and groupcast, the physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) is used for a receiver UE to send the decoding status to a transmitter UE” [0011]), that is to be associated with resources that are associated with a first configured grant configuration (“As in LTE, scheduling over the sidelink in NR is done in different ways for Mode 1 and Mode 2. Mode 1 supports dynamic grant and configured grant. For dynamic grant, when traffic to be sent over sidelink arrives at a transmitter UE, the transmitter UE launches the four-message exchange procedure to request sidelink resources from a gNB (SR on UL, grant, BSR on UL, grant for data on SL sent to UE).” [0022]), wherein the sidelink communication is associated with a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier (“a sidelink configured grant includes one or more HARQ process identifiers” [0071]), and wherein the channel access procedure includes performing one or more measurements associated with the sidelink channel (“The channel sensing algorithm involves measuring reference signal received power (RSRP) on different subchannels and requires knowledge of the different UEs power levels of DMRS on the PSSCH or the DMRS on the PSCCH depending on the configuration.” [0028]);
Wang does not specifically teach determine whether the channel access procedure is successful or unsuccessful using the resources associated with the first configured grant configuration based at least in part on the one or more measurements; change a state associated with the HARQ process identifier to pending from not pending based at least in part on determining that the channel access procedure is unsuccessful when values associated with the one or more measurements satisfy a threshold; transmit, based at least in part on successfully performing another channel access procedure, a retransmission of the sidelink communication using resources associated with the first configured grant configuration or a second configured grant configuration based at least in part on the state associated with the HARQ process identifier being changed to pending, change the state associated with the HARQ process identifier to not pending based at least in part on the retransmission; receive, from another UE, a sidelink feedback communication indicating that the retransmission of the sidelink communication has been successfully received; and transmit, to a network node, an indication associated with the sidelink feedback communication.
In an analogous art, Chin discloses determine whether the channel access procedure is successful or unsuccessful using the resources associated with the first configured grant configuration based at least in part on the one or more measurements (para. [0234-0247] UE performs channel access for the HARQ for a pending PDU following the transmission failure of para. [0241-0243] for the configured grant configuration of para. [0234-0235]);
change a state associated with the HARQ process identifier (“when the LCH-based prioritization indication is configured, selecting a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) process identifier (ID) of the CG PUSCH based on a priority of the HARQ process ID.” [0014]) to pending (“When cg-Retransmission Timer is configured and the HARQ entity obtains a MAC PDU to transmit, the corresponding HARQ process is considered to be pending.” [0404]) from not pending (“For a configured uplink grant, configured with cg-Retransmission Timer, each associated HARQ process is considered as not pending when any of the following conditions is satisfied: A transmission is performed on that HARQ process and LBT failure indication is not received from lower layers; The configured uplink grant is initialized and this HARQ process is not associated with another active configured uplink grant; A HARQ buffer for this HARQ process is flushed.” [0404-0407]) based at least in part on determining that the channel access procedure is unsuccessful (“Otherwise, an LBT failure may be considered. The MAC entity of the UE may receive an LBT failure indication from the PHY layer of the UE upon one or multiple LBT failures.” [0080]) when values associated with the one or more measurements (“At time T706, the UE may select a HARQ process ID of PUSCH 2 of CG configuration 2 for retransmission of the pending MAC PDU if at least one of the following conditions is satisfied (e.g., conditions 2-1 through 2-4 below)” [0277-0327]) satisfy a threshold (“LBT may be considered successful if the channel is sensed to be idle (e.g., the power detected by a UE, which intends to perform a UL transmission, is less than a predetermined/configured power threshold) for a predetermined/configured duration of time during an LBT procedure, if LBT category 2/3/4 is performed. LBT may be considered successful if the UE performs LBT category 1. Otherwise, an LBT failure may be considered.” [0080]);
transmit, based at least in part on successfully performing another channel access procedure (“In one example, the cg-RetransmissionTimer of a HARQ process may be (re)started when transmission (e.g., new transmission or retransmission) on a configured uplink grant of the HARQ process is performed successfully (e.g., the UE does not receive a LBT failure indication for the corresponding transmission).” [0125]), a retransmission of the sidelink communication using resources associated with the first configured grant configuration (i.e. “using a first CG PUSCH, which corresponds to a first configured grant configuration”) or a second configured grant configuration (i.e. “using a first CG PUSCH, which corresponds to a first configured grant configuration”) or a second configured grant configuration (similarly to a first configured grant configuration) based at least in part on the state associated with the HARQ process identifier being changed to pending (“In one implementation, a HARQ process ID (of a configured grant configuration) may be considered for retransmission if either one of the following conditions is satisfied: configuredGrantTimer of the HARQ process ID is running (and the HARQ process is pending/not pending); configuredGrantTimer for the HARQ process ID is not running and the HARQ process is pending.” ([0408-0409] and furthermore “In one implementation, if a UE determines that transmission of a MAC PDU using a first CG PUSCH, which corresponds to a first configured grant configuration, has not been successfully performed, the UE may perform retransmission or autonomous transmission of the MAC PDU on a second CG PUSCH, which corresponds to a second configured grant configuration different from the first configured grant configuration, if the value of the cg-Retransmission Timer or the configuredGrantTimer configured for the first and/or second configured grant configuration is equal to a certain value (e.g., 0). Otherwise, the UE may not perform (re)transmission of the MAC PDU on the second CG PUSCH.” [0314]),
change the state associated with the HARQ process identifier to not pending based at least in part on the retransmission (“configuredGrantTimer of the HARQ process ID is running (and the HARQ process is pending/not pending)” [0409]);
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang’s method for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process handling upon configured grant (CG) deactivation, to include Chin’s method for selecting a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) process identifier (ID) of the CG PUSCH based on a priority of the HARQ process ID, in order to determining whether a logical channel (LCH)-based prioritization indication is configured (Chin [0014]).
Wang and Chin do not specifically teach receive, from another UE, a sidelink feedback communication indicating that the retransmission of the sidelink communication has been successfully received; and transmit, to a network node, an indication associated with the sidelink feedback communication.
In an analogous art, Zhou discloses receive, from another UE, a sidelink feedback communication (i.e. “first HARQ-ACK feedback information”) indicating that the retransmission of the sidelink communication has been successfully received (“transmitting the sidelink transmission to a second UE according to the scheduling information carried in the sidelink grant; receiving first HARQ-ACK feedback information transmitted by the second UE, wherein the first HARQ-ACK feedback information is used to determine whether the first UE needs to retransmit the sidelink transmission; reporting second HARQ-ACK feedback information to the base station, and the second HARQ-ACK feedback information is used to indicate whether the sidelink transmission succeeds, the sidelink resources for retransmission are quickly requested after the sidelink transmission fails, so that the timeliness of retransmission of the sidelink transmission is improved.” [0077]); and
transmit, to a network node (i.e. “base station”), an indication (i.e. “second HARQ-ACK feedback information”) associated with the sidelink feedback communication (“reporting second HARQ-ACK feedback information to the base station, and the second HARQ-ACK feedback information is used to indicate whether the sidelink transmission succeeds, the sidelink resources for retransmission are quickly requested after the sidelink transmission fails, so that the timeliness of retransmission of the sidelink transmission is improved.” [0077]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang’s method for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process handling upon configured grant (CG) deactivation, as modified by Chin, to include Zhou’s method for sidelink transmission, in order to determine sidelink retransmissions between different UEs (Zhou [0014-0015]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Zhou’s method for sidelink transmission into Wang’s method for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process handling upon configured grant (CG) deactivation since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2
Wang, as modified by Chin and Zhou, previously discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
Wang further discloses initiate a timer associated with at least one of the HARQ process identifier or the sidelink communication based at least in part on transmitting the retransmission of the sidelink communication, wherein the timer is associated with an amount of time that the UE is to keep data associated with the sidelink communication stored in a HARQ buffer (“the method further comprises starting a timer and prior to flushing the one or more HARQ buffers of the one or more pending HARQ processes, determining that the timer has expired and that the wireless device has not received a dynamic grant for the one or more pending HARQ processes. A duration of the timer may be based on a remaining packet delay budget for the TBs that are being transmitted/retransmitted using the configured sidelink grant.” [0068]; [0109]).
Regarding claim 3
Wang, as modified by Chin and Zhou, previously discloses the UE of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to at least one of:
Chin further discloses provide, from a medium access control (MAC) entity associated with the UE to an upper layer entity associated with the UE, an indication that the timer has expired based at least in part on the timer expiring (“Nevertheless, an unacknowledged (and pending) MAC PDU of a HARQ process may be considered as being acknowledged by the network upon expiration of the configuredGrantTimer for the HARQ process” [0178]); or
transmit, to the network node, an indication that the timer has expired based at least in part on the timer expiring (“Nevertheless, an unacknowledged (and pending) MAC PDU of a HARQ process may be considered as being acknowledged by the network upon expiration of the configuredGrantTimer for the HARQ process” [0178]).
Regarding claim 4
Wang, as modified by Chin and Zhou, previously discloses the UE of claim 2,
Wang further discloses wherein the timer is stopped based at least in part on receiving the sidelink feedback communication (“For Option 2, a new timer may be defined for each non-idle HARQ process. The timer is started after the UE has sent the signaling to the gNB. While the timer is running, the UE does not flush the HARQ buffer of those pending HARQ processes. While the timer is running, if the UE receives a dynamic grant for a pending HARQ process, the UE uses the grant to retransmit the TB. Meanwhile, the timer is stopped. If the time is expired, while the UE has not received any dynamic grant for a pending HARQ process, the UE flushes the HARQ buffer of the pending HARQ process.” [0109]).
Regarding claim 5
Wang, as modified by Chin and Zhou, previously discloses the UE of claim 1,
Wang further discloses wherein a timer is associated with the HARQ process identifier being initiated and is not expired when the channel access procedure associated with the transmission of the sidelink communication is performed (“the method further comprises starting a timer and prior to flushing the one or more HARQ buffers of the one or more pending HARQ processes, determining that the timer has expired and that the wireless device has not received a dynamic grant for the one or more pending HARQ processes. A duration of the timer may be based on a remaining packet delay budget for the TBs that are being transmitted/retransmitted using the configured sidelink grant.” [0068]), and wherein the timer is stopped based at least in part on the channel access procedure being unsuccessful (“For Option 2, a new timer may be defined for each non-idle HARQ process. The timer is started after the UE has sent the signaling to the gNB. While the timer is running, the UE does not flush the HARQ buffer of those pending HARQ processes. While the timer is running, if the UE receives a dynamic grant for a pending HARQ process, the UE uses the grant to retransmit the TB. Meanwhile, the timer is stopped. If the time is expired, while the UE has not received any dynamic grant for a pending HARQ process, the UE flushes the HARQ buffer of the pending HARQ process.” [0109]).
Regarding claim 6
Wang, as modified by Chin and Zhou, previously discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
Chin further discloses initiate a retransmission timer (i.e. “cg-Retransmission Timer”) associated with at least one of the HARQ process identifier or the sidelink communication based at least in part on transmitting the retransmission of the sidelink communication (“In one implementation, if a UE determines to select a HARQ process ID of a CG PUSCH based on UE implementation, the UE may either prioritize the HARQ process ID(s) of retransmission over the HARQ process ID(s) of initial transmission when selecting the HARQ process ID of the CG PUSCH, or vice versa, based on the value of the cg-Retransmission Timer (or the configuredGrantTimer configured in the same configured grant configuration).” [0234]), wherein the retransmission timer is associated with an amount of time after which the UE is to automatically transmit another retransmission of the sidelink communication (“In one implementation, if a cg-Retransmission Timer is configured in a configured grant configuration (e.g., ConfiguredGrantConfig IE), a UE may derive a HARQ process ID of a CG PUSCH of the configured grant configuration based on UE implementation. Furthermore, based on the presence of specific IE(s), the UE may determine whether to prioritize the HARQ process ID(s) of initial transmission over the HARQ process ID(s) of retransmission when selecting the HARQ process ID of the CG PUSCH.” [0235]).
Regarding claim 7
Wang, as modified by Chin and Zhou, previously discloses the UE of claim 6, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
Chin further discloses transmit another retransmission of the sidelink communication using resources associated with the first configured grant configuration (i.e. “a first CG PUSCH, which corresponds to a first configured grant configuration”), the second configured grant configuration (i.e. “a second CG PUSCH, which corresponds to a second configured grant configuration different from the first configured grant configuration”), or a third configured grant configuration based at least in part on the retransmission timer expiring (“In one implementation, if a UE determines that transmission of a MAC PDU using a first CG PUSCH, which corresponds to a first configured grant configuration, has not been successfully performed, the UE may perform retransmission or autonomous transmission of the MAC PDU on a second CG PUSCH, which corresponds to a second configured grant configuration different from the first configured grant configuration, if the value of the cg-Retransmission Timer or the configuredGrantTimer configured for the first and/or second configured grant configuration is equal to a certain value (e.g., 0). Otherwise, the UE may not perform (re)transmission of the MAC PDU on the second CG PUSCH.” [0314]).
Regarding claim 16 (Currently Amended)
A method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
performing a channel access procedure associated with a transmission of a sidelink communication, on a sidelink channel, that is to be associated with resources that are associated with a first configured grant configuration, wherein the sidelink communication is associated with a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier, and wherein the channel access procedure includes performing one or more measurements associated with the sidelink channel;
determining whether a transmission is performable using the resources associated with the first configured grant configuration based at least in part on the one or more measurements;
changing a state associated with the HARQ process identifier to pending from not pending based at least in part on the channel access procedure being unsuccessful when values associated with the one or more measurements satisfy a threshold;
transmitting, based at least in part on successfully performing another channel access procedure, a retransmission of the sidelink communication using resources associated with the first configured grant configuration or a second configured grant configuration based at least in part on the state associated with the HARQ process identifier being changed to pending;
changing the state associated with the HARQ process identifier to not pending based at least in part on the retransmission;
receiving, from another UE, a sidelink feedback communication indicating that the retransmission of the sidelink communication has been successfully received; and
transmitting, to a network node, an indication associated with the sidelink feedback communication.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 16 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore method claim 16 corresponds to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding claim 17
The method of claim 16, further comprising:
initiating a timer associated with at least one of the HARQ process identifier or the sidelink communication based at least in part on transmitting the retransmission of the sidelink communication, wherein the timer is associated with an amount of time that the UE is to keep data associated with the sidelink communication stored in a HARQ buffer.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 17 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 2. Therefore method claim 17 corresponds to apparatus claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 2 rejection above.
Regarding claim 18
Wang, as modified by Chin and Zhou, previously discloses the method of claim 17,
Wang further discloses wherein an amount of time associated with the timer is based at least in part on a periodicity associated with the first configured grant configuration (“The value of the timer may be in absolute time units (e.g., ms) or in multiples of the CG periodicity.” [0110]).
Regarding claim 19
Wang, as modified by Chin and Zhou, previously discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising:
Wang further discloses receiving, from a network node, a downlink communication indicating a sidelink grant associated with at least one of the sidelink communication or the HARQ process identifier (“the UE receives a dynamic grant for a pending HARQ process”), wherein the timer is stopped based at least in part on receiving the downlink communication (“For Option 2, a new timer may be defined for each non-idle HARQ process. The timer is started after the UE has sent the signaling to the gNB. While the timer is running, the UE does not flush the HARQ buffer of those pending HARQ processes. While the timer is running, if the UE receives a dynamic grant for a pending HARQ process, the UE uses the grant to retransmit the TB. Meanwhile, the timer is stopped. If the time is expired, while the UE has not received any dynamic grant for a pending HARQ process, the UE flushes the HARQ buffer of the pending HARQ process.” [0109]).
Regarding claim 20
The method of claim 16, further comprising:
initiating a retransmission timer associated with at least one of the HARQ process identifier or the sidelink communication based at least in part on transmitting the retransmission of the sidelink communication, wherein the retransmission timer is associated with an amount of time after which the UE is to automatically transmit another retransmission of the sidelink communication.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 20 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 6. Therefore method claim 20 corresponds to apparatus claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 6 rejection above.
Regarding claim 21
The method of claim 20, further comprising:
transmitting another retransmission of the sidelink communication using resources associated with the first configured grant configuration, the second configured grant configuration, or a third configured grant configuration based at least in part on the retransmission timer expiring.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 21 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 7. Therefore method claim 21 corresponds to apparatus claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 7 rejection above.
Regarding claim 31 (Currently Amended)
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication, the set of instructions comprising:
one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a user equipment (UE), cause the UE to:
perform a channel access procedure associated with a transmission of a sidelink communication, on a sidelink channel, that is to be associated with resources that are associated with a first configured grant configuration, wherein the sidelink communication is associated with a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier, and wherein the channel access procedure includes performing one or more measurements associated with the sidelink channel;
determine whether the channel access procedure is successful or unsuccessful using the resources associated with the first configured grant configuration based at least in part on the one or more measurements;
change a state associated with the HARQ process identifier to pending from not pending based at least in part on determining that the channel access procedure is unsuccessful when values associated with the one or more measurements satisfy a threshold;
transmit, based at least in part on successfully performing another channel access procedure, a retransmission of the sidelink communication using resources associated with the first configured grant configuration or a second configured grant configuration based at least in part on the state associated with the HARQ process identifier being changed to pending,
change the state associated with the HARQ process identifier to not pending based at least in part on the retransmission;
receive, from another UE, a sidelink feedback communication indicating that the retransmission of the sidelink communication has been successfully received; and
transmit, to a network node, an indication associated with the sidelink feedback communication.
The scope and subject matter of non-transitory computer readable medium claim 31 is drawn to the computer program product of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore computer program product claim 31 corresponds to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding claim 33 (Currently Amended)
An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising:
means for performing a channel access procedure associated with a transmission of a sidelink communication, on a sidelink channel that is to be associated with resources that are associated with a first configured grant configuration, wherein the sidelink communication is associated with a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier, and wherein the channel access procedure includes performing one or more measurements associated with the sidelink channel;
means for determining whether the channel access procedure is successful or unsuccessful using the resources associated with the first configured grant configuration based at least in part on the one or more measurements;
means for changing a state associated with the HARQ process identifier to pending from not pending based at least in part on determining that the channel access procedure is unsuccessful when values associated with the one or more measurements satisfy a threshold;
means for transmitting, based at least in part on successfully performing another channel access procedure, a retransmission of the sidelink communication using resources associated with the first configured grant configuration or a second configured grant configuration based at least in part on the state associated with the HARQ process identifier being changed to pending,
means for changing the state associated with the HARQ process identifier to not pending based at least in part on the retransmission;
means for receiving a sidelink feedback communication indicating that the retransmission of the sidelink communication has been successfully received; and
means for transmitting, to a network node, an indication associated with the sidelink feedback communication.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 33 are similar to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 1. Therefore apparatus claim 33 corresponds to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding claim 36 (New)
Wang, as modified by Chin and Zhou, previously discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein at least one of:
Chin further discloses the channel access procedure is unsuccessful if the one or more measurements indicate that the sidelink channel is busy or congested (“If the channel is sensed to be busy (after performing channel access), the initiating device (e.g., gNB) shall not perform any transmission during the current COT. [0396] The initiating device (e.g., gNB) may transmit a DL (or UL) transmission burst(s) within the COT immediately after performing channel access and senses the channel to be idle for at least a sensing slot duration T_sl=9 μs if the gap between the DL (or UL) transmission burst(s) and any previous transmission burst is more than 16 μs.” [0395-0396]); or
the channel access procedure is successful if the one or more measurements indicate that the sidelink channel is not busy (“LBT may be considered successful if the channel is sensed to be idle (e.g., the power detected by a UE, which intends to perform a UL transmission, is less than a predetermined/configured power threshold) for a predetermined/configured duration of time during an LBT procedure, if LBT category 2/3/4 is performed.” [0080]).
Claims 8-10, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of Chin and Zhou, and further in view of Loehr et al. US Pub 2022/0345252 (hereinafter “Loehr”).
Regarding claim 8
Wang, as modified by Chin and Zhou, previously discloses the UE of claim 1,
Wang, Chin, and Zhou do not specifically teach wherein the retransmission of the sidelink communication is transmitted using resources associated with the second configured grant configuration, and wherein an attempted transmission is not counted for the first configured grant configuration.
In an analogous art, Loehr discloses wherein the retransmission of the sidelink communication is transmitted using resources (e.g. “Transport Block (TB)” [0050]) associated with the second configured grant configuration, and wherein an attempted transmission is not counted for the first configured grant configuration (“Methods for determining data transmission preemption are disclosed. Apparatuses and systems also perform the functions of the methods. One embodiment of a method includes receiving a first uplink grant (i.e. “first configured grant configuration”) for a first hybrid automatic repeat request process. In some embodiments, the method includes determining that a first data transmission corresponding to the first uplink grant is preempted (i.e. an attempted transmission is not counted for the first configured grant configuration) by a second data transmission corresponding to a second uplink grant (i.e. “second configured grant configuration”) for a second hybrid automatic repeat request process. In certain embodiments, the method includes, in response to determining that the first data transmission is preempted by the second data transmission: not generating a transport block for the first uplink grant” [0005]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang’s method for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process handling upon configured grant (CG) deactivation, as modified by Chin and Zhou, to include Loehr’s method for determining data transmission preemption, in order to efficiently prioritize data transmission preemption (Loehr [Abstract]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Loehr’s method for determining data transmission preemption into Wang’s method for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process handling upon configured grant (CG) deactivation since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 9
Wang, as modified by Chin and Zhou, previously discloses the UE of claim 1,
Wang, Chin, and Zhou do not specifically teach wherein the retransmission of the sidelink communication is transmitted using resources associated with the second configured grant configuration, and wherein the indication associated with the sidelink feedback communication comprises an indication that the first configured grant configuration is not used for the sidelink communication or the HARQ process identifier.
In an analogous art, Loehr discloses wherein the retransmission of the sidelink communication is transmitted using resources (i.e. “new TB” [0056]) associated with the second configured grant configuration (“a retransmission grant (e.g., UL) for a HARQ process ID” [0056]),
and wherein the indication associated with the sidelink feedback communication comprises an indication (i.e. “second data transmission corresponding to a second uplink grant for a second hybrid automatic repeat request process”) that the first configured grant configuration is not used for the sidelink communication or the HARQ process identifier (“he method 400 includes receiving 402 a first uplink grant for a first hybrid automatic repeat request process. In some embodiments, the method 400 includes determining 404 that a first data transmission corresponding to the first uplink grant is preempted by a second data transmission corresponding to a second uplink grant for a second hybrid automatic repeat request process. In some embodiments, the method 400 includes, in response to determining that the first data transmission is preempted by the second data transmission: not generating 406 a transport block for the first uplink grant; and flushing a hybrid automatic repeat request buffer corresponding to the first hybrid automatic repeat request process.” [0071]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang’s method for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process handling upon configured grant (CG) deactivation, as modified by Chin and Zhou, to include Loehr’s method for determining data transmission preemption, in order to efficiently prioritize data transmission preemption (Loehr [Abstract]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Loehr’s method for determining data transmission preemption into Wang’s method for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process handling upon configured grant (CG) deactivation since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 10
Wang, as modified by Chin and Zhou, previously discloses the UE of claim 1,
Wang, Chin, and Zhou do not specifically teach wherein the retransmission of the sidelink communication is transmitted using resources associated with the second configured grant configuration, wherein the first configured grant configuration is associated with one or more uplink resources associated with providing feedback associated with the first sidelink feedback communication, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
refrain from using a first uplink resource of the one or more uplink resources to transmit the feedback associated with the sidelink feedback based at least in part on one or more conditions being met; and
transmit, to the network node, the feedback associated with the sidelink feedback communication using a second uplink resource of the one or more uplink resources.
In an analogous art, Loehr discloses wherein the retransmission of the sidelink communication is transmitted using resources (i.e. “new TB” [0056]) associated with the second configured grant configuration (“a retransmission grant (e.g., UL) for a HARQ process ID” [0056]), wherein the first configured grant configuration is associated with one or more uplink resources (i.e. “stored TB”) associated with providing feedback associated with the sidelink feedback communication (“due to a higher priority UL grant having preempted a transmission of a TB for that HARQ process ID, the UE generates a new TB according to the retransmission grant and transmits the TB on the scheduled resources” [0056]), and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
refrain from using a first uplink resource (i.e. “pending TB”) of the one or more uplink resources to transmit the feedback associated with the sidelink feedback based at least in part on one or more conditions being met (“a UE may transmit a TB pending for transmission due to an LBT failure in a HARQ buffer of a HARQ process associated with a configured grant if a grant size matches a size of a stored TB” [0067]); and
transmit, to the network node, the feedback associated with the sidelink feedback communication (“a UE generates and transmits a new TB and/or MAC PDU according to a received initial UL grant for a HARQ process for which a TB is pending in a HARQ buffer due to an LBT failure and moves the pending TB to another HARQ process available for transmission (e.g., configuredGrantTimer is not running for the HARQ process or empty HARQ buffer).” [0068]) using a second uplink resource of the one or more uplink resources (i.e. “new TB”).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang’s method for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process handling upon configured grant (CG) deactivation, as modified by Chin and Zhou, to include Loehr’s method for determining data transmission preemption, in order to efficiently prioritize data transmission preemption (Loehr [Abstract]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Loehr’s method for determining data transmission preemption into Wang’s method for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process handling upon configured grant (CG) deactivation since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 22
Wang, as modified by Chin and Zhou, previously discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the retransmission of the sidelink communication is transmitted using resources associated with the second configured grant configuration, and wherein a logical channel priority associated with the first configured grant configuration is modified based at least in part on the channel access procedure being unsuccessful.
Wang, Chin, and Zhou do not specifically teach wherein the retransmission of the sidelink communication is transmitted using resources associated with the second configured grant configuration, and wherein a logical channel priority associated with the first configured grant configuration is modified based at least in part on the channel access procedure being unsuccessful.
In an analogous art, Loehr discloses wherein the retransmission of the sidelink communication is transmitted using resources (e.g. “Transport Block (TB)” [0050]) associated with the second configured grant configuration (“Methods for determining data transmission preemption are disclosed. Apparatuses and systems also perform the functions of the methods. One embodiment of a method includes receiving a first uplink grant (i.e. “first configured grant configuration”) for a first hybrid automatic repeat request process. In some embodiments, the method includes determining that a first data transmission corresponding to the first uplink grant is preempted (i.e. an attempted transmission is not counted for the first configured grant configuration) by a second data transmission corresponding to a second uplink grant (i.e. “second configured grant configuration”) for a second hybrid automatic repeat request process. In certain embodiments, the method includes, in response to determining that the first data transmission is preempted by the second data transmission: not generating a transport block for the first uplink grant” [0005]), and wherein a logical channel priority associated with the first configured grant configuration is modified based at least in part on the channel access procedure being unsuccessful (“In various embodiments, a UE flushes a HARQ buffer of a HARQ process for which no new TB has been generated due to some higher priority UL grant preempting a transmission for the HARQ process. In such embodiments, if an UL configured grant is preempted by some higher priority UL grant (e.g., dynamic grant or configured grant), and a UE doesn't generate a TB for the preempted CG, the UE may flush the HARQ buffer of the HARQ process associated with the preempted CG.” [0059]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang’s method for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process handling upon configured grant (CG) deactivation, as modified by Chin and Zhou, to include Loehr’s method for determining data transmission preemption, in order to efficiently prioritize data transmission preemption (Loehr [Abstract]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Loehr’s method for determining data transmission preemption into Wang’s method for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process handling upon configured grant (CG) deactivation since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 23
The method of claim 16, wherein the retransmission of the sidelink communication is transmitted using resources associated with the second configured grant configuration, and wherein the indication associated with the sidelink feedback communication comprises an indication that the first configured grant configuration is not used for the sidelink communication or the HARQ process identifier.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 23 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 9. Therefore method claim 23 corresponds to apparatus claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 9 rejection above.
Regarding claim 24
The method of claim 16, wherein the retransmission of the sidelink communication is transmitted using resources associated with the second configured grant configuration, wherein the first configured grant configuration is associated with one or more uplink resources associated with providing feedback associated with the sidelink feedback communication, and the method further comprising:
refraining from using a first uplink resource of the one or more uplink resources to transmit the feedback associated with the sidelink feedback based at least in part on one or more conditions being met; and
transmitting, to the network node, the feedback associated with the sidelink feedback communication using a second uplink resource of the one or more uplink resources.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 24 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 10. Therefore method claim 24 corresponds to apparatus claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 10 rejection above.
Regarding claim 25
Wang, as modified by Chin, Zhou, and Loehr, previously discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the one or more conditions include at least one of: a quantity of sidelink transmissions associated with the UE being less than a maximum quantity of sidelink transmissions, or
the sidelink feedback communication having not been received by the UE, or
Chin further discloses sidelink feedback communication having not been received by the UE or having not been received based at least in part on the channel access procedure being unsuccessful (“In one implementation, if a UE determines that transmission of a MAC PDU using a first CG PUSCH, which corresponds to a first configured grant configuration, has not been successfully performed (i.e. the first configured grant configuration having not been received), the UE may perform retransmission or autonomous transmission of the MAC PDU on a second CG PUSCH, which corresponds to a second configured grant configuration different from the first configured grant configuration, if the value of the cg-Retransmission Timer or the configuredGrantTimer configured for the first and/or second configured grant configuration is equal to a certain value (e.g., 0). Otherwise, the UE may not perform (re)transmission of the MAC PDU on the second CG PUSCH.” [0314]).
Claims 11, 12, 26, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of Chin and Zhou, and further in view of El Hamss et al. US Pub 2021/0377912 (hereinafter “El Hamss”).
Regarding claim 11
Wang, as modified by Chin and Zhou, previously discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
Wang, Chin, and Zhou do not specifically teach receive, from another UE, a feedback communication using a HARQ codebook that is associated with multiple HARQ process identifiers including the HARQ process identifier.
In an analogous art, El Hamss discloses receive, from another UE (i.e. “a group of WTRUs”), a feedback communication using a HARQ codebook that is associated with multiple HARQ process identifiers including the HARQ process identifier (“A WTRU may be configured to transmit HARQ-ACK feedback while operating in a groupcast mode. A WTRU may be communicating with a group of WTRUs on sidelink. Each one of the WTRUs may be transmitting and/or receiving groupcast data. Instead of sending HARQ feedback for each groupcast packet on different channel(s), a WTRU may combine HARQ feedback in one HARQ codebook and transmit the HARQ codebook on a single channel. In order for a WTRU belonging to a group to determine its HARQ-ACK feedback within the HARQ codebook, different HARQ process IDs may be assigned to different WTRUs in an embodiment.” [0126]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang’s method for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process handling upon configured grant (CG) deactivation, as modified by Chin and Zhou, to include El Hamss’ method for an UE to transmit an SCI to another WTRU which indicates the HARQ feedback characteristics, in order to efficiently perform groupcast HARQ feedback to different WTRUs (El Hamss [Abstract]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate El Hamss’ method for an UE to transmit an SCI to another WTRU which indicates the HARQ feedback characteristics into Wang’s method for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process handling upon configured grant (CG) deactivation since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 12
Wang, as modified by Chin and El Hamss, previously discloses the UE of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
El Hamss further discloses transmit, to the other UE or a network node, a request for HARQ feedback using the HARQ codebook, wherein the feedback communication is received based at least in part on transmitting the request (“In some embodiments, a WTRU may be configured to transmit the HARQ feedback only for NACK states (i.e. request for HARQ feedback). In such cases, a WTRU may select a PUCCH resource based on the number of NACK(s) to be reported for sidelink transport block(s). For example, a V2X WTRU may be configured with multiple unicast sessions with a HARQ protocol enabled in more than one unicast session. After receiving sidelink feedback from other sidelink WTRUs which includes a number of NACKs, for example, M1 NACKs, a WTRU may select the PUCCH resource based on the number of received NACKS reaching a threshold, for example, M1 NACKs to be reported for sidelink transport blocks. It is noted that if no NACKs are received, M1=0 in this example.” [0116]).
Regarding claim 26
The method of claim 16, wherein receiving the sidelink feedback communication comprises:
receiving, from the other UE, the sidelink feedback communication using a HARQ codebook that is associated with multiple HARQ process identifiers including the HARQ process identifier.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 26 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 11. Therefore method claim 26 corresponds to apparatus claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 11 rejection above.
Regarding claim 35
The apparatus of claim 33, wherein the means for receiving the sidelink feedback communication comprise means for receiving feedback using a HARQ codebook that is associated with multiple HARQ process identifiers including the HARQ process identifier.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 35 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 11. Therefore apparatus claim 35 corresponds to apparatus claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 11 rejection above.
Claims 13, 27, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of Chin and Zhou, and further in view of Chen et al. US Pub 2020/0221495 (hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 13
Wang, as modified by Chin and Zhou, previously discloses the UE of claim 1,
Wang, Chin, and Zhou do not specifically teach wherein the indication comprises an indication of persistent channel access failures based at least in part on a quantity of channel access procedures that are unsuccessful, including the channel access procedure, satisfying a threshold.
In an analogous art, Chen discloses a method for sidelink communication (“The base station can communicate with one or more UEs in the radio communication system through the plurality of cells. A cell may allocate sidelink (SL) resources for supporting Proximity Service (ProSe) or Vehicle to Everything (V2X) service.” [0023]) wherein the indication comprises an indication of persistent channel access failures (“The LBT failure event may also be referred to as a “consistent LBT failure” since the MAC entity consistently receives the LBT failure indication” [0037]) based at least in part on a quantity of channel access procedures that are unsuccessful (“the LBT failure counter is greater than or equal to the threshold”), including the channel access procedure, satisfying a threshold (“In one implementation, when an upper layer (e.g., the RRC layer) receives an LBT failure problem indication or the LBT failure event occurs because the LBT failure counter is greater than or equal to the threshold, the UE (e.g., the RRC layer of the UE) may transmit an LBT failure problem report to the network. The LBT failure problem report may include information of which LBT channel/carrier/BWP/unit suffers from the LBT failure problem, or which operation suffers from the LBT failure problem.” [0047]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang’s method for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process handling upon configured grant (CG) deactivation, as modified by Chin and Zhou, to include Chen’s method for LBT failure detection performed by a UE, in order to send LBT failure report to network in a timely manner (Chen [Abstract]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Chen’s method for LBT failure detection performed by a UE into Wang’s method for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process handling upon configured grant (CG) deactivation since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 27
The method of claim 16, wherein the indication associated with the sidelink feedback communication comprises an indication of persistent channel access failures based at least in part on a quantity of channel access procedures that are unsuccessful, including the channel access procedure, satisfying a threshold.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 27 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in method claim 13. Therefore method claim 27 corresponds to method claim 13 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 13 rejection above.
Regarding claim 34
The apparatus of claim 33, wherein the means for transmitting the indication associated with the sidelink feedback communication comprise means for transmitting an indication of persistent channel access failures based at least in part on a quantity of channel access procedures that are unsuccessful, including the channel access procedure, satisfying a threshold.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 34 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in method claim 13. Therefore apparatus claim 34 corresponds to method claim 13 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 13 rejection above.
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 CHUONG M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am - 6:30pm.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/CHUONG M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411