DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 17/976,297 filed on 10/28/2022 is presented for examination by the examiner.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 9, 10, 17 and 21 are amended. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed on 09/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-18 have been considered but are not persuasive because the arguments do not apply to the references as used in the current rejection. Examiner provides a new ground(s) of rejections to address Applicant’s arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0239112 A1 hereinafter Rao) in view of Sun et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0293951 A1 hereinafter Sun).
Regarding claim 1, Rao teaches “an apparatus, comprising at least one processor and an interface circuit,” as [(Para. 0205), Radio Access Network (RAN) node including at least one radio interface for communicating with UEs; a processor] “wherein the at least one processor is configured to communicate with another apparatus through the interface circuit” [(Para. 0205), Radio Access Network (RAN) node including at least one radio interface for communicating with UEs; a processor] “and perform: receiving indication information, wherein the indication information indicates that there is an association relationship between M quality of service (QoS) flows,” [(Para. 0202), The method further includes receiving an RRC sidelink configuration response sent by the RAN node, the RRC sidelink configuration response comprising the configuration information…the configuration information includes QoS class information indicative a set of QoS requirements supported by the one or more SL-RBs. In some embodiments, one or more QoS flows can be mapped to a QoS class.] “and M is an integer greater than 1;” [(Para. 0202), In some embodiments, one or more QoS flows can be mapped to a QoS class] “and processing the M QoS flows based on the indication information” [(Para. 0094-0097), The following describes the different types of SL-RBs configurations: … Note that each packet flow intended for either unicast or groupcast transmission may contain one or multiple QFIs/VQIs. This refers to the scenario where a particular connection with a certain L2 destination (e.g. unicast) may support multiple QoS packet flows simultaneously. While all of these packet flows with common L2 destination ID may be mapped to the same SL-RB, further QoS related indications may be used to support differentiated QoS for packet flows with different QFI/VQI. These QoS indicators may be included within the LCID or as a separate indicator/flag in the PDCP PDU header. Based on these indicators, different QoS handling (e.g. logical channel prioritization (LCP), buffer status report (BSR) generation, and resource allocation) may be supported at the MAC layer when performing scheduling… In the second embodiment pertaining to QoS-based SL-RB configuration, the packets with the same QoS indicators (e.g. QFI, VQI, PPPP, PPPR) in the upper layer packet headers are mapped to the same SL-RB configuration. In this case, similar to the DRBs used in the Uu interface, each SL-RB is customized to support a particular QoS flow. However, this approach maps different packet flows indicated with the same QFI to common SL-RBs even when the packets are intended for different L2 destination IDs and connection/transmission types.].
However, Rao does not specifically disclose the M QoS flows being associated with a same multimedia service.
In an analogous art, Sun teaches “the M QoS flows being associated with a same multimedia service” as [(Para. 0076), Specifically, the algorithm module of the synchronization managing unit may acquire the QoS information in sending the service from a Media Access Control (MAC) address of a sub-service-flow that is about to be sent, and determines the synchronization-control policy to be employed according to the QoS information. For example, in this embodiment, services are divided according to three QoS levels, namely, a high-QoS-level service sensitive to delay, for which rigorous synchronization control is required, such as synchronization between a video and an audio; a medium-QoS-level service, for which flexible synchronization control is required, wherein the medium-QoS-level service can tolerate a certain degree of delay, such as synchronization in matching a picture and a text; a low-QoS-level service for which basic synchronization control is required, wherein the low-QoS-level service has less requirement regarding delay, such as synchronization of data, files and the like].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings as in Rao to provide an effective technique as taught by Sun for synchronous service-flow transmission in a heterogeneous network, capable of implementing synchronous service-flow transmission, reducing delay as well as increasing a system throughput [Sun: Para. 0004].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Rao and Sun, specifically Rao teaches “wherein the processing the M QoS flows comprises: admitting or rejecting setup requests of the M QoS flows; or admitting or rejecting modification requests of the M QoS flows” as [(Para. 0094), For example a UE operating in Mode 1 (with RRC connection with the RAN node) may be provided with configuration information (i.e. rules, parameters, indicators) for certain SL-RBs capable of supporting more stringent QoS requirements (e.g. with packet duplication using high number of SCs). For other UEs operating in Mode 2, since the resources determined autonomously may be unreliable and restricted, the related configuration information for SL-RBs may only allow to satisfy limited QoS requirements (e.g. packet duplication with maximum 2 SCs)].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Rao and Sun, specifically Rao teaches “wherein the processing the M QoS flows comprises: determining bursts to which data packets in the M QoS flows belong;” as [(Para. 0089), The flow of packets generated by upper layers (i.e. V2X service/application or the V2X non-access stratum (NAS) layer) may contain QFI, transmission type indicator and the source and/or destination L2 ID in the packet header. These indications may be used to map the packets to a particular configured SL-RB.] “processing a first data packet in the M QoS flows that belongs to a first burst;” [(Para. 0089), Different types of SL-RBs may be configured by RRC on the basis of i) a connection type (i.e. transmission type such as unicast, groupcast or broadcast associated with certain L2 (source, destination) ID), ii) QoS requirements (associated with QFI, VQI, PPPP or PPPR) or iii) both connection type and QoS. The mapping from i) connection type indicator (i.e. destination L2 ID and transmission type) and ii) QoS indicator (i.e. QFI) to a particular SL-RB may be done sequentially or hierarchically at the SDAP.] “and after the processing the first data packet, processing a second data packet in the M QoS flows that belongs to a second burst” [(Para. 0089), Different types of SL-RBs may be configured by RRC on the basis of i) a connection type (i.e. transmission type such as unicast, groupcast or broadcast associated with certain L2 (source, destination) ID), ii) QoS requirements (associated with QFI, VQI, PPPP or PPPR) or iii) both connection type and QoS. The mapping from i) connection type indicator (i.e. destination L2 ID and transmission type) and ii) QoS indicator (i.e. QFI) to a particular SL-RB may be done sequentially or hierarchically at the SDAP..].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Rao and Sun, specifically Rao teaches “wherein the determining the bursts to which the data packets in the M QoS flows belong is based on: burst identifier information of the data packets in the M QoS flows, payload information of the data packets in the M QoS flows, a distinguishing identifier between different bursts, or a transmission time interval between data packets of different bursts” as [“a distinguishing identifier between different bursts” interpreted as (Para. 0089), The flow of packets generated by upper layers (i.e. V2X service/application or the V2X non-access stratum (NAS) layer) may contain QFI, transmission type indicator and the source and/or destination L2 ID in the packet header. These indications may be used to map the packets to a particular configured SL-RB].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Rao and Sun, specifically Rao teaches “wherein the processing the first data packet comprises: transmitting the first data packet,” as [(Para. 0016), transmitting packets to a Receiving Vehicle User Equipment (Rx V-UE), using the selected one or more CCs] “based on priorities of the M QoS flows, based on transmission ratio information of the M QoS flows, or in a first in first service manner” [(Para. 0086), The V2X services with URLLC requirements can be mapped to certain Pro-Se per packet priority (PPPP) values associated with one or multiple SL-RBs. Here, the PPPP value may represent the QoS requirement for a given service. For example, a PPPP=1 may require traffic handling with highest priority and lowest Packet Delay Bound (PDB).].
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Rao and Sun, specifically Rao teaches “wherein the processing the first data packet comprises: in response to determining that the first data packet exceeds a transmission delay requirement, discarding a further data packet in the M QoS flows that belongs to the first burst and that has not been transmitted” as [(Para. 0099), In the case when multiple subframes can be accommodated within the delay bound duration of a V2X service, the duplicate packets can be transmitted on alternating subframes and subchannels in different CCs to increase the time diversity as shown in FIG. 5.].
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Rao and Sun, specifically Rao teaches “wherein the indication information comprises M pieces of association information respectively corresponding to the M QoS flows, and the M pieces of association information are the same” as [(Para. 0096), In the second embodiment pertaining to QoS-based SL-RB configuration, the packets with the same QoS indicators (e.g. QFI, VQI, PPPP, PPPR) in the upper layer packet headers are mapped to the same SL-RB configuration. In this case, similar to the DRBs used in the Uu interface, each SL-RB is customized to support a particular QoS flow. However, this approach maps different packet flows indicated with the same QFI to common SL-RBs even when the packets are intended for different L2 destination IDs and connection/transmission types.].
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Rao and Sun, specifically Rao teaches “wherein the M QoS flows belong to a first protocol data unit (PDU) session;” as [(Para. 0092), The PDCP layer may be configured with another packet filter consisting of a QoS-based filter and filtering/mapping rules to filter/map packets received from SDAP (i.e. PDCP SDUs) to appropriate PDCP entities associated with SL-RBs based on QoS indicators (e.g. QFI, VQI, PPPP, PPPR) … (Para. 0093), At the PDCP layer, after undergoing through functions such as sequence number allocation and packet duplication, each PDCP PDU may carry a logical channel ID (LCID) in the packet header] “and the indication information comprises association information corresponding to the first PDU session, the association information indicates that the first PDU session is an associated session, and there is an association relationship between QoS flows comprised in the associated session” [(Para. 0095), his refers to the scenario where a particular connection with a certain L2 destination (e.g. unicast) may support multiple QoS packet flows simultaneously. While all of these packet flows with common L2 destination ID may be mapped to the same SL-RB, further QoS related indications may be used to support differentiated QoS for packet flows with different QFI/VQI. These QoS indicators may be included within the LCID or as a separate indicator/flag in the PDCP PDU header.].
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Rao and Sun, specifically Rao teaches “wherein the association information comprises at least one of an association-relationship identifier or association-relationship type information” as [(Para. 0089), These indications may be used to map the packets to a particular configured SL-RB. Different types of SL-RBs may be configured by RRC on the basis of i) a connection type (i.e. transmission type such as unicast, groupcast or broadcast associated with certain L2 (source, destination) ID), ii) QoS requirements (associated with QFI, VQI, PPPP or PPPR) or iii) both connection type and QoS. The mapping from i) connection type indicator (i.e. destination L2 ID and transmission type) and ii) QoS indicator (i.e. QFI) to a particular SL-RB may be done sequentially or hierarchically at the SDAP.].
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Rao and Sun, specifically Rao teaches “wherein the association information comprises the association-relationship type information” as [(Para. 0089), The flow of packets generated by upper layers (i.e. V2X service/application or the V2X non-access stratum (NAS) layer) may contain QFI, transmission type indicator and the source and/or destination L2 ID in the packet header] “the association-relationship type information indicates an association-relationship type,” [(Para. 0089), These indications may be used to map the packets to a particular configured SL-RB. Different types of SL-RBs may be configured by RRC on the basis of i) a connection type (i.e. transmission type such as unicast, groupcast or broadcast associated with certain L2 (source, destination) ID), ii) QoS requirements (associated with QFI, VQI, PPPP or PPPR) or iii) both connection type and QoS. The mapping from i) connection type indicator (i.e. destination L2 ID and transmission type) and ii) QoS indicator (i.e. QFI) to a particular SL-RB may be done sequentially or hierarchically at the SDAP] “and the association-relationship type comprises at least one of a first type, a second type, or a third type; the first type indicates to transmit, based on priorities of the M QoS flows, data packets that are in the M QoS flows and that belong to a same burst; the second type indicates to transmit, based on transmission ratio information of the M QoS flows, data packets that are in the M QoS flows and that belong to a same burst; and the third type indicates to transmit, in a first in first service manner, data packets that are in the M QoS flows and that belong to a same burst” [(Para. 0096), In the second embodiment pertaining to QoS-based SL-RB configuration, the packets with the same QoS indicators (e.g. QFI, VQI, PPPP, PPPR) in the upper layer packet headers are mapped to the same SL-RB configuration. In this case, similar to the DRBs used in the Uu interface, each SL-RB is customized to support a particular QoS flow. However, this approach maps different packet flows indicated with the same QFI to common SL-RBs even when the packets are intended for different L2 destination IDs and connection/transmission types.].
Regarding claim 11, Rao teaches “wherein the association-relationship type information indicates the second type,” as [(Para. 0125), The RAN (gNB) configures the SL-RBs and CCs for sidelink transmission (with and without PD). In some embodiments, the RAN configures the SL-RBs and CCs for sidelink transmission (with and without PD) by transmitting configuration information. The SL-RB configuration mapping (i.e. SL-RB-to-LCIDs, LCID-to-CCs) to support PD and multi-CC transmissions is provided to Tx UE and Rx UE. The RAN (gNB) may also request the transmission of the sidelink channel CBR and CQI for the configured CCs].
However, Rao does not specifically disclose the indication information further comprises the transmission ratio information.
In an analogous art, Sun teaches “the indication information further comprises the transmission ratio information” as [(Para. 0062), The parameter may include a serving interval S of a sub-service-flow and a transmission time T of the sub-service-flow. A minimal serving interval S is selected by measuring a sub-service-flow. The transmission time T in each sending of a sub-service-flow may be calculated according to various parameters such as S, an average service rate, a size of a maximal service data unit, a physical transmission rate, time overhead and the like.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings as in Rao to provide an effective technique as taught by Sun for synchronous service-flow transmission in a heterogeneous network, capable of implementing synchronous service-flow transmission, reducing delay as well as increasing a system throughput [Sun: Para. 0004].
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Rao and Sun, specifically Rao teaches “wherein the apparatus is a first network device, and the receiving the indication information comprises: receiving the indication information from a core network device; or receiving the indication information from a second network device, wherein the second network device is a primary network device of a terminal device, and the first network device is a secondary network device of the terminal device; or the second network device is a source network device of the terminal device, and the first network device is a target network device of the terminal device” as [(Para. 0015), receiving, from the RAN, any one or more of: a Sidelink Radio Bearer (SL-RB) configuration… (Para. 0202), In some embodiments, the configuration information includes QoS class information indicative a set of QoS requirements supported by the one or more SL-RBs. In some embodiments, one or more QoS flows can be mapped to a QoS class.].
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Rao and Sun, specifically Rao teaches “wherein the indication information comprises at least one of: an identifier of an associated session, wherein there is an association relationship between QoS flows comprised in the associated session, and the associated session comprises the M QoS flows; identifiers of a plurality of QoS flows between which there is an association relationship, wherein the plurality of QoS flows comprises the M QoS flows; identifiers of logical channels corresponding to a plurality of QoS flows between which there is an association relationship; identifiers of data radio bearers (DRBs) corresponding to a plurality of QoS flows between which there is an association relationship; or a plurality of traffic filtering templates (TFTs), wherein there is an association relationship between QoS flows respectively matching the plurality of TFTs, and the QoS flows respectively matching the plurality of TFTs comprise the M QoS flows” as [(Para. 0093), each PDCP PDU may carry a logical channel ID (LCID) in the packet header. Note that the LCID may be used as an identifier of the SL-RB and may only be visible in the access stratum (AS). …. (Para. 0125), The SL-RB configuration mapping (i.e. SL-RB-to-LCIDs, LCID-to-CCs) to support PD and multi-CC transmissions is provided to Tx UE and Rx UE.].
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Rao and Sun, specifically Rao teaches “wherein the indication information further comprises an association-relationship identifier and association-relationship type information” as [(Para. 0089), These indications may be used to map the packets to a particular configured SL-RB. Different types of SL-RBs may be configured by RRC on the basis of i) a connection type (i.e. transmission type such as unicast, groupcast or broadcast associated with certain L2 (source, destination) ID), ii) QoS requirements (associated with QFI, VQI, PPPP or PPPR) or iii) both connection type and QoS. The mapping from i) connection type indicator (i.e. destination L2 ID and transmission type) and ii) QoS indicator (i.e. QFI) to a particular SL-RB may be done sequentially or hierarchically at the SDAP.].
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Rao and Sun, specifically Rao teaches “wherein the receiving the indication information comprises: receiving the indication information from a terminal device” as [(Para. 0202), An aspect of the disclosure provides method, at a User Equipment (UE), for obtaining configuration information for one or more Sidelink Radio bearers (SL-RBs) used for sidelink communication..].
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Rao and Sun, specifically Rao teaches “wherein logical channels corresponding to the M QoS flows are located in different logical channel groups” as [(Para. 0094), The configuration information related to an SL-RB may include i) SL-RB ID (i.e LCD), ii) packet filtering rules based on connection-type indicators, destination L2 identifiers and QoS identifiers… (Para. 0202), the configuration information includes QoS class information indicative a set of QoS requirements supported by the one or more SL-RBs. In some embodiments, one or more QoS flows can be mapped to a QoS class.].
Regarding claim 17, Rao teaches “a communication apparatus, comprising at least one processor and an interface circuit,” as [(Para. 0205), Radio Access Network (RAN) node including at least one radio interface for communicating with UEs; a processor] “wherein the at least one processor is configured to communicate with another apparatus through the interface circuit” [(Para. 0205), Radio Access Network (RAN) node including at least one radio interface for communicating with UEs; a processor] and perform the following: receiving indication information, wherein the indication information indicates that there is an association relationship between M QoS flows, or the indication information indicates that there is an association relationship between DRBs or LCHs corresponding to M QoS flows,” [(Para. 0202), The method further includes receiving an RRC sidelink configuration response sent by the RAN node, the RRC sidelink configuration response comprising the configuration information…the configuration information includes QoS class information indicative a set of QoS requirements supported by the one or more SL-RBs. In some embodiments, one or more QoS flows can be mapped to a QoS class.] “and M is an integer greater than 1;” [(Para. 0202), In some embodiments, one or more QoS flows can be mapped to a QoS class] “and processing the M QoS flows based on the indication information” [(Para. 0094-0097), The following describes the different types of SL-RBs configurations: … Note that each packet flow intended for either unicast or groupcast transmission may contain one or multiple QFIs/VQIs. This refers to the scenario where a particular connection with a certain L2 destination (e.g. unicast) may support multiple QoS packet flows simultaneously. While all of these packet flows with common L2 destination ID may be mapped to the same SL-RB, further QoS related indications may be used to support differentiated QoS for packet flows with different QFI/VQI. These QoS indicators may be included within the LCID or as a separate indicator/flag in the PDCP PDU header. Based on these indicators, different QoS handling (e.g. logical channel prioritization (LCP), buffer status report (BSR) generation, and resource allocation) may be supported at the MAC layer when performing scheduling… In the second embodiment pertaining to QoS-based SL-RB configuration, the packets with the same QoS indicators (e.g. QFI, VQI, PPPP, PPPR) in the upper layer packet headers are mapped to the same SL-RB configuration. In this case, similar to the DRBs used in the Uu interface, each SL-RB is customized to support a particular QoS flow. However, this approach maps different packet flows indicated with the same QFI to common SL-RBs even when the packets are intended for different L2 destination IDs and connection/transmission types.].
However, Rao does not specifically disclose the M QoS flows being associated with a same multimedia service.
In an analogous art, Sun teaches “the M QoS flows being associated with a same multimedia service” as [(Para. 0076), Specifically, the algorithm module of the synchronization managing unit may acquire the QoS information in sending the service from a Media Access Control (MAC) address of a sub-service-flow that is about to be sent, and determines the synchronization-control policy to be employed according to the QoS information. For example, in this embodiment, services are divided according to three QoS levels, namely, a high-QoS-level service sensitive to delay, for which rigorous synchronization control is required, such as synchronization between a video and an audio; a medium-QoS-level service, for which flexible synchronization control is required, wherein the medium-QoS-level service can tolerate a certain degree of delay, such as synchronization in matching a picture and a text; a low-QoS-level service for which basic synchronization control is required, wherein the low-QoS-level service has less requirement regarding delay, such as synchronization of data, files and the like].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings as in Rao to provide an effective technique as taught by Sun for synchronous service-flow transmission in a heterogeneous network, capable of implementing synchronous service-flow transmission, reducing delay as well as increasing a system throughput [Sun: Para. 0004].
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Rao and Sun, specifically Rao teaches “wherein the association information comprises an association-relationship identifier and/or association-relationship type information” as [(Para. 0089), These indications may be used to map the packets to a particular configured SL-RB. Different types of SL-RBs may be configured by RRC on the basis of i) a connection type (i.e. transmission type such as unicast, groupcast or broadcast associated with certain L2 (source, destination) ID), ii) QoS requirements (associated with QFI, VQI, PPPP or PPPR) or iii) both connection type and QoS. The mapping from i) connection type indicator (i.e. destination L2 ID and transmission type) and ii) QoS indicator (i.e. QFI) to a particular SL-RB may be done sequentially or hierarchically at the SDAP.].
Regarding claim 21, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 10.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 11.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Rao and Sun, specifically Rao teaches “wherein the processing a data packet in the M QoS flows that belongs to a first burst comprises: receiving an uplink grant from a network device;” as [(Para. 0073), the RAN node (e.g., gNB) determines the CCs and subchannels/resources and responds with the SL grants to be used by the Tx UE on sidelink.] “and transmitting, based on the priorities of the M QoS flows and on a resource indicated by the uplink grant, the data packet in the M QoS flows that belongs to the first burst; transmitting, based on the transmission ratio information of the M QoS flows and on a resource indicated by the uplink grant, the data packet in the M QoS flows that belongs to the first burst; or transmitting, in the first in first service manner and on a resource indicated by the uplink grant, the data packet in the M QoS flows that belongs to the first burst” [(Para. 0015), Accordingly, an aspect of the present disclosure provides a method at a transmitting Vehicle User Equipment (Tx V-UE). The method comprises: transmitting, to a Radio Access Network (RAN) a set of parameters comprising any one or more of: a capability of the Tx V-UE, V2X service information and channel information; receiving, from the RAN, any one or more of: a Sidelink Radio Bearer (SL-RB) configuration; an activation status of a primary Sidelink (SL) channel; —a respective activation status of one or more secondary SL channels, and at least one grant for SL radio resources associated with each activated SL channel; and transmitting, to a Receiving Vehicle User Equipment (Rx V-UE), duplicated packets using SL radio resources of the primary SL channel and the one or more secondary SL channels].
Regarding claim 26, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
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 NATALI N PASCUAL PEGUERO whose telephone number is (571)272-4691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11AM-9PM.
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, ASAD M NAWAZ can be reached at (571)272-3988. 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.
/NATALI PASCUAL PEGUERO/Examiner, Art Unit 2463
/ASAD M NAWAZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2463