DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2/6/2026 has been entered.
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 have been cancelled.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1-6, 9-16 and 19-20 remain pending in the application.
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 .
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.
Claims 1-5, 9-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agiwal et al. (US 2021/0195613 A1); in view of Yoshioka et al. (US 2023/0055200 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11; Agiwal discloses receiving a channel state information (CSI) request (receiving SL CQI/RI report MAC CE at step 710; see paragraphs [0145], [0149] and Fig. 7); determining whether a resource for the CSI reporting is available (determining SL-SCH resource is available for a new transmission; see paragraphs [0145], [0149] – [0151] and Fig. 7); triggering a scheduling request (SR) for the CSI reporting based on the maximum latency time for the CSI reporting and in response to determining that no resource for the CSI reporting is available (if the SL-SCH resource is not available for a new transmission within a timer interval T, trigger scheduling request for SL CQI/RI report; the timer interval T is configured via RRC signaling and starts when SL CQI/RI report is triggered; the value of the timer T is the same as the latency requirement of the SL-CSI reporting configured by the RRC; see paragraphs [0149] – [0151], [0167] and Fig. 7).
Agiwal discloses the value of timer interval used to trigger scheduling request for SL CSI report is the same as the latency requirement of the SL-CSI reporting.
Agiwal does not explicitly disclose receiving the maximum latency time for CSI reporting.
Yoshioka discloses receiving a maximum latency time for CSI reporting (a latency bound specifies a time limit before which the SL-CSI report is to be transmitted; the latency bound may be configured in an RRC signaling to terminal 20B; see paragraphs [0088] and [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Agiwal and Yoshioka to receive the maximum latency time for CSI reporting to avoid delay in subsequent data transmission (see paragraph [0007] of Yoshioka).
Specifically for claim 11; Agiwal discloses a user equipment (UE) (a terminal; see paragraph [0223] and Fig. 12), comprising: at least one memory (memory 1230; see Fig. 12); and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (controller 1220; see Fig. 12).
Regarding claims 2 and 12; Agiwal discloses wherein the CSI report is transmitted using a medium access control control element (MAC CE) (SL CQI/RI report MAC CE is transmitted from a RX UE to a TX UE; see paragraphs [0145], [0149] and Fig. 7).
Regarding claims 3 and 13; Agiwal discloses transmitting the scheduling request to request a new resource for transmitting the CSI report (trigger scheduling request (SR) for SL CQI/RI report; upon receiving the SR, network schedules SL grant to the UE, the UE transmits SL CQI/RI report MAC CE in SL grant; see paragraphs [0145], [0149] and Fig. 7).
Regarding claims 4 and 14; Agiwal discloses wherein the new resource comprises a sidelink shared channel (SLSCH) resource (the resource is SL shared channel resource; see paragraph [0149]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15; Agiwal discloses wherein determining that no resource for transmitting the CSI report is available comprises determining that there are no sidelink shared channel (SLSCH) resources allocated for accommodating a sidelink CSI reporting medium access control control element (MAC CE) and a subheader corresponding to the MAC CE) (determining if SL-SCH resource can accommodate the SL CQI/RI report MAC CE plus its subheader; see paragraphs [0050], [0149] and Fig. 7).
Regarding claims 9 and 19; Agiwal discloses in response to determining that a resource for transmitting the CSI report, the medium access control control element (MAC CE), or the combination thereof is available, triggering a scheduling request to request a new resource for transmitting the CSI report, the MAC CE, or the combination thereof in response to a sidelink logical channel (LCH) restriction parameter (if SL-SCH resource is available for a new transmission, determining SL-SCH resource can accommodate the SL CQI/RI report MACCE plus its subheader; the MAC sublayer provides SL CSI reporting over the PC5 interface; with logical channel priority restriction in MAC, only SL logical channels (LCH) belonging to the same destination can be multiplexed into a MAC PDU; a SL-SCH MAC header include portions of both source ID and a destination ID; see paragraphs [0050], [0149] and Fig. 7).
Regarding claims 10 and 20; Agiwal discloses wherein the sidelink LCH restriction parameter comprises a PC5 LCH restriction parameter (a logical channel prioritization restrictions in MAC over PC5 interface; see paragraph [0050]).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agiwal; in view of Yoshioka; and in further view of Yoshioka2 et al. (US 2022/0217741 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 16; the combination of Agiwal and Yoshioka discloses a RX UE reports SL CQI/RI report after receiving a CSI request.
The combination of Agiwal and Yoshioka does not explicitly disclose identifying a maximum time to respond to the CSI request.
Yoshioka2 discloses identifying a maximum time to respond to the CSI request (a maximum time for reporting SL CSI is defined; see paragraph [0152] and Fig. 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Agiwal, Yoshioka and Yoshioka2 to identify a maximum time to responds to the CSI request to optimize the scheduling timing (see paragraph [0006] of Yoshioka).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of a new reference Yoshioka et al. (US 2023/0055200 A1) being used in the current rejection.
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 NING LI whose telephone number is (571)270-0624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/N.L/Examiner, Art Unit 2415
/MANSOUR OVEISSI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights