DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The amendment submitted on 03/10/2026 has been received and considered by the Examiner. Claims 4, 25, and 32 were amended, and claims 6, 27, and 34 were cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-20, 26, and 33 were previously cancelled. Claims 4, 21-25, 28-32, and 35-37 remain pending.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 4, 21-25, 28-32, and 34-37 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 4, 21, 25, 28, 32, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0376761 A1, hereinafter “Lee2”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0201558 A1, hereinafter “Lee1”) and further in view of Nam et al. (US 2021/0320700 A1, hereinafter “Nam”).
As to Claims 4, 25, and 32:
Lee2 describes a method for a UE to request a CSI report from another UE via sidelink.
Specifically, Lee2 teaches:
A user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE
Fig. 13 in Lee2 shows block diagrams of two UEs communicating via sidelink. UE 100 in Fig. 13 corresponds to the “user equipment (UE)”, “Memory(s)” 104 corresponds to “at least one memory”, and “Processor(s)” 102 map to “at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured”.
Transmit sidelink control information (SCI) to the destination that ... trigger a channel state information (CSI) feedback response from the destination
Fig. 11 in Lee2 shows a method for a UE to respond to a request for a CSI report. In explaining Fig. 11, Lee2 teaches that “[t]he CSI-RS may be transmitted on the associated PSSCH when a ‘CSI-REQUEST’ field included in 2ND SCI (transmitted on the PSSCH) is set to 1” (Lee2, 0136).
Here, the “2nd SCI” including a “‘CSI-REQEST’ field” corresponds to “sidelink control information (SCI) to the destination that ... trigger a channel state information (CSI) feedback response”.
The SCI comprises a single CSI request bit that indicates a request for a CSI feedback response
Fig. 11 in Lee2 shows a method for a UE to respond to a request for a CSI report. In explaining Fig. 11, Lee2 teaches that “[t]he CSI-RS may be transmitted on the associated PSSCH when a ‘CSI-REQUEST’ field included in 2ND SCI (transmitted on the PSSCH) is set to 1” (Lee2, 0136).
Here, the “‘CSI-REQUEST’ field” that “is set to 1” corresponds to “a single CSI request bit that indicates a request for a CSI feedback response”.
Monitor for reception of the CSI feedback response from the destination
The S1103 in Fig. 11 when the UE providing the CSI report is “deriv[ing] CSI Information based on CSI-RS” corresponds to the period when the UE receiving the report would be “monitor[ing] for reception of the CSI feedback response from the destination”.
Lee2 does not explicitly disclose:
Determine that there is no sidelink data available for a destination
Transmit sidelink control information (SCI) to the destination that indicates that there is no sidelink data available
However, Lee1 does describe a method for a UE to send sidelink control information (SCI) indicating it has no available sidelink data.
Specifically, Lee1 teaches:
Determine that there is no sidelink data available for a destination
Lee1 describes “transmission of sidelink control information (SCI) based on that sidelink data is not available” (Lee1, 0008).
Transmit sidelink control information (SCI) to the destination that indicates that there is no sidelink data available
Lee1 describes “transmission of sidelink control information (SCI) based on that sidelink data is not available” (Lee1, 0008).
Thus, 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 functionality of the CSI in Lee2 and Lee1 to create a unified SCI that both indicates a lack of available data and requests a CSI report. Both functions are useful for a UE, and combining them can reduce overhead signaling and streamline sidelink communication.
The combination of Lee2 and Lee1 also does not explicitly disclose:
In response to monitoring for reception of the CSI feedback response resulting in not receiving the CSI feedback response, indicate a discontinuous transmission
However, Nam does describe a method to elevate the priority of CSI to ensure its successful discontinuous transmission.
Specifically, Nam teaches:
In response to monitoring for reception of the CSI feedback response resulting in not receiving the CSI feedback response, indicate a discontinuous transmission
Nam teaches that “[i]f a condition is met, the UE and the base station may determine to change the priority of the CSI reporting from a low priority level ... to a high priority level ... if the CSI reporting occurs during a discontinuous reception (DRX) inactive time” (Nam, 0005). Nam later clarifies that “determining that the condition may be met may include ... determining that the amount of time since transmitting the prior CSI report satisfies the threshold”, and that “the threshold may include ... a threshold number of missed reporting occasions for the CSI reporting” (Nam, 0015-0016).
Here, “a threshold number of missed reporting occasions” indicates that the UE has already “monitor[ed] for reception of the CSI feedback response” and “not receiv[ed] the CSI feedback response”.
Also, “CSI reporting” after “chang[ing] the priority ... from a low priority level ... to a high priority level” corresponds to “indicat[ing] a discontinuous transmission” because sending the CSI report entails transitioning to the active DRX state.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nam’s practice of initiating a discontinuous transmission upon failing to receive a CSI report into Lee2’s method for requesting CSI. As taught in Nam, periodically waking up to send CSI may help prevent “beam failure or link failure” (Nam, 0004).
Claim 25 requires the same limitations as Claim 4 as well as:
At least one controller coupled with at least one memory and configured to cause the processor
Fig. 13 in Lee2 shows block diagrams of two UEs communicating via sidelink. UE 100 in Fig. 13 corresponds to the “user equipment (UE)”, “Memory(s)” 104 corresponds to “at least one memory”, and “Processor(s)” 102 map to “at least one controller”.
Claim 32 requires substantially the same limitations as Claim 4 in the form of a method claim.
As to Claims 21, 28, and 35:
The combination of Lee2 and Lee1 does not explicitly disclose:
Receive information indicating a discontinuous transmission
However, Nam does teach:
Receive information indicating a discontinuous transmission
Nam teaches that “the UE may be configured for a DRX mode that may be associated with a WUS [wake-up signal]” (Nam, 0012).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nam’s practice of initiating a discontinuous transmission upon failing to receive a CSI report into Lee2’s method for requesting CSI. As taught in Nam, periodically waking up to send CSI may help prevent “beam failure or link failure” (Nam, 0004).
Claim 26 contains substantially the same limitations as Claim 21.
Claim 35 contains substantially the same limitations as Claim 21 in the form of a method claim.
Claim(s) 22-24, 29-31, and 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee2 (US 2022/0376761 A1) in view of Lee1 (US 2022/0201558 A1) and Nam (US 2021/0320700 A1) and further in view of Tooher et al. (US 2021/0176710 A1, hereinafter “Tooher”).
As to Claims 22, 29, and 36:
The combination of Lee2, Lee1, and Nam does not explicitly disclose:
Increment a discontinuous transmission counter of a radio link failure procedure
However, Tooher does teach:
Increment a discontinuous transmission counter of a radio link failure procedure
Tooher teaches that “[u]pon expiration of the new DRX cycle timer, the WTRU may declare RLF” (Tooher, 0117).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the radio link failure timer taught in Tooher into Lee2’s method for triggering CSI feedback. The timer can help distinguish a link failure from normal DRX operation.
Claim 29 contains substantially the same limitations as Claim 22.
Claim 36 contains substantially the same limitations as Claim 22 in the form of a method claim.
As to Claims 23, 30, and 37:
The combination of Lee2, Lee1, and Nam does not explicitly disclose:
Start a discontinuous transmission timer
However, Tooher does teach:
Start a discontinuous transmission timer
Table 1 in Tooher describes a UE that may “start or restart a timer” such as a “drx-HARQ-RTT-TimerDL or drx-HARQ-RTT-TimerUL” (Tooher, Table 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the HARQ round trip time timer described in Tooher into Lee2’s method for triggering CSI feedback. Determining radio link failure based on failing to receive HARQ feedback can help distinguish link failure from normal DRX operation.
Claim 30 contains substantially the same limitations as Claim 23.
Claim 37 contains substantially the same limitations as Claim 23 in the form of a method claim.
As to Claims 24 and 31:
The combination of Lee2, Lee1, and Nam does not explicitly disclose:
Stop the discontinuous transmission timer in response to receiving hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback
However, Tooher does teach:
Stop the discontinuous transmission timer in response to receiving hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback
Table 1 in Tooher describes a UE that may “start or restart a timer” such as a “drx-HARQ-RTT-TimerDL or drx-HARQ-RTT-TimerUL” (Tooher, Table 1).
By definition, either HARQ-RTT timer will “stop” when a UE “receiv[es] hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the HARQ round trip time timer described in Tooher into Lee2’s method for triggering CSI feedback. Determining radio link failure based on failing to receive HARQ feedback can help distinguish link failure from normal DRX operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Peter Welte whose telephone number is (703)756-5965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, EST.
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.
/B.P.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2477
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights