DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s RCE filed 1/23/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 1 and 13 are amended.
Claims 1-13 and 18-24 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 13 (pages 7-9) in a reply filed 12/23/2025 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are based on newly changed limitations in the amendment and new ground of rejections using newly introduced references or a newly introduced portion of an existing reference are applied in the current rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 18 (pages 9-10) in a reply filed 12/23/2025 have been considered but they are not persuasive. On page 9-10 of the remarks, in regard to claim 18, the Applicant disagrees with the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoryaev et al. US 20200220694 (hereinafter “Khoryaev”) in view of Shin et al. US 20230020105 (hereinafter “Shin2”)
Specifically, the Applicant remarks:
None of the cited references teach or suggest calculating the minimum time duration using a sum of: a first time to receive HARQ feedback; a second time to determine whether to perform retransmissions of the transport block; and a third time to retransmit the TB.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding (1), the applicant continues to argue that the references do not teach a “three-part summation” performed at the UE. First, in Table 8, Shin2 mentions that “the UE shall ensure a minimum time gap…” and the variables in the minimum time gap equation is “…determined by UE implementation” which implies that the minimum time gap is determined at the UE. Second, even though Shin2 teaches a two-part summation or “a+b” (vs. three-part summation), Shin2 combines the “time to determine whether to perform retransmission of the transport block” and “time to retransmit the TB” into a single variable ‘b’ since ‘b’ is “PSFCH processing plus PSSCH retransmission preparation time in slots determined by UE implementation” as mentioned by Shin in Table 8. In addition, variable ‘a’ maps to “time to receive HARQ feedback” since ‘a’ is defined as “a time gap between PSSCH transmission and correspond PSFCH reception” where HARQ feedback maps to PSFCH reception.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/23/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As amended, claim 1 recites:
A method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: determining, for a first logical channel, a number of blind retransmissions to perform in a blind retransmission mode, wherein the number of blind retransmissions is based on one or more of a link budget requirement, a sidelink pathloss, a code rate, a transmit power, a packet delay budget, or a remaining packet delay budget; performing, by the first logical channel, the number of blind retransmissions in the blind retransmission mode; in response to performing the number of blind retransmission in the blind retransmission mode and in response to the remaining packet delay budget for the first logical channel falling below a threshold, switching, for the first logical channel, from the blind retransmission mode to a feedback based retransmission mode; and performing, by the first logical channel, one or more feedback based retransmissions in the feedback based retransmission mode.
After carefully examining the instant disclosure, the examiner respectfully submits that support for this amendment is lacking and the addition of said limitation is new matter. The specification does not disclose:
and in response to the remaining packet delay budget for the first logical channel falling below a threshold, switching, for the first logical channel, from the blind retransmission mode to a feedback based retransmission mode; and performing, by the first logical channel, one or more feedback based retransmissions in the feedback based retransmission mode.
Claim 13 was amended in a similar manner. Claim 2-11, 13, and 21-24 are rejected because they carry the same limitations as the rejected claims.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 13, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. US 20230362893 (hereinafter “Shin”) in view of Rezagah et al. US 20220224457 (hereinafter “Rezagah”) and in further view of Saur et al. WO 2019032087 (hereinafter “Saur”)
As to claim 1 and 13 (claim 1 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 13):
Shin discloses:
A method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: determining, for a first logical channel, a number of blind retransmissions to perform in a blind retransmission mode, (“In Mode 2, a UE may directly determine configuration of the maximum number of retransmissions and indicate the configuration of maximum number of retransmissions via SCI.”, Shin [0117])
performing, by the first logical channel, the number of blind retransmissions in the blind retransmission mode; . (“In the case in which the blind retransmission and the HARQ feedback-based retransmission are simultaneously configured and used, when maximum four retransmissions are allowed, the blind retransmission may be used up to two retransmissions and additional retransmission may be determined based on HARQ feedback. In other words, whether to perform the additional retransmission may be determined based on a HARQ feedback result. The blind retransmission may be performed up to first two retransmissions and when NACK is continuously received, additional HARQ feedback-based retransmission may be performed or two blind retransmissions may be performed. Generally, the number of blind retransmissions and the number of HARQ feedback-based retransmissions may be configured. When the number of blind retransmissions is configured to be A and the number of HARQ feedback-based retransmissions is configured to be B, when maximum 4 retransmissions are allowed, A and B may be configured as follows: A=0, B=4; A=1, B=1; A=1, B=2; and A=2, B=0.”, Shin [0355])
and performing, by the first logical channel, one or more feedback based retransmissions in the feedback based retransmission mode. (“A=0 denotes a case in which the blind retransmission is off, A=1 denotes a case in which the blind retransmission is performed two times consecutively, and A=2 denotes a case in which the blind retransmission is performed four times consecutively. Also, B=1 denotes a case in which HARQ feedback-based retransmission is off and B=1 denotes a case in which after the blind retransmission is performed two times first, it is determined whether to perform the blind retransmission two times after, based on HARQ feedback. Also, B=2 denotes a case in which after the blind retransmission is performed two times first, third and fourth retransmissions are determined based on HARQ feedback. Also, B=4 denotes a case in which four retransmissions are all determined based on HARQ feedback.”, Shin [0356])
Shin as described above does not explicitly teach:
wherein the number of blind retransmissions is based on one or more of a link budget requirement, a sidelink pathloss, a code rate, a transmit power, a packet delay budget, or a remaining packet delay budget;
in response to performing the number of blind retransmission in the blind retransmission mode and in response to the remaining packet delay budget for the first logical channel falling below a threshold, switching, for the first logical channel, from the blind retransmission mode to a feedback based retransmission mode;
However, Rezagah further teaches determining the number of blind retransmissions based on a requirement which includes:
wherein the number of blind retransmissions is based on one or more of a link budget requirement, a sidelink pathloss, a code rate, a transmit power, a packet delay budget, or a remaining packet delay budget; (“In accordance with embodiments (see for example aspect 2), in the transceiver, the one or more transmission requirements include one or more of: [0079] whether the packet requires HARQ feedback or blind retransmissions, e.g., based on reliability requirements, like QoS or channel conditions, [0080] a number of retransmissions for the HARQ feedback scheme and/or for the blind retransmissions scheme, e.g., based on the Packet Delay Budget, PDB, requirements, [0081] resources to be used for the transmission and the retransmissions using the sidelink, e.g., based on an availability of resources, like a congestion situation of the resources.”, Rezagah [0078])
Rezagah and Shin are analogous because they pertain to performing blind retransmissions.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining the number of blind retransmissions based on a requirement as described in Rezagah into Shin. By modifying the method to include determining the number of blind retransmissions based on a requirement as taught by Rezagah, the benefits of optimized retransmissions (Rezagah [0078] and Shin [0356]) are achieved.
The combination of Rezagah and Shin as described above does not explicitly teach:
in response to performing the number of blind retransmission in the blind retransmission mode and in response to the remaining packet delay budget for the first logical channel falling below a threshold, switching, for the first logical channel, from the blind retransmission mode to a feedback based retransmission mode;
However, Saur further teaches switching retransmission mode based on the packet delay budget crossing a threshold which includes:
in response to performing the number of blind retransmission in the blind retransmission mode and in response to the remaining packet delay budget for the first logical channel falling below a threshold, switching, for the first logical channel, from the blind retransmission mode to a feedback based retransmission mode; (Examiner’s Note: the Examiner interpreted this amendment as switching from blind to feedback-based retransmission mode when time is limited or there is not enough time remaining to retransmit the packet – this is counterintuitive since blind retransmissions are used when there is not enough time to wait for feedback. In other words, the amended limitation is now saying that when there is not a lot of time left, switch from a transmission mode that takes less time (or blind mode) to a mode that takes more time (or feedback-based mode). It would make more sense to switch from feedback-based mode to blind mode when there is not a lot of time left. In addition, the Examiner reviewed the specification to try and better understand the concept proposed by this amendment but there is no support for this amendment which is why 112(a) rejection was added above.) (“Thus, for example, when an amount of time has elapsed (e.g., since some reference point, such as the initial data transmission) that is a threshold percentage (e.g., 60%) of the latency budget for the data, this may cause the first network node to switch modes, e.g., from the NACK- based retransmission mode to the blind retransmission mode. Thus, if a latency budget for data is 5 ms, the first network node may, if an ACK has not been received yet, begin using the blind retransmission mode after 3 ms (60% of 5 ms) have elapsed, or when only 2 ms of the latency budget remains, so as to apply more resources to ensure the successful transmission of the data. Note that the switching may depend also on the absolute amount the time missing before the latency budget, rather than the threshold percentage mentioned above.”, Saur [0040]) (“Thus, in this illustrative example, the transmitter may transmit to the receiver an indicated number of transmissions (N) to be used for a first retransmission mode, and then both transmitter and receiver will switch for any subsequent retransmissions. The transmitter may, for example, indicate a number of retransmissions or a certain point in time where transmitter will switch to second retransmission mode, or it may be known in advance by both transmitter and receiver that N retransmission attempts will be performed before switching retransmission modes. The Proactive scheme may include a case where the transmitted information may communicate the total time during which the first retransmission mode/scheme must be used (e.g. 1 ms for the NACK-based retransmissions) before switching to the second retransmission mode/scheme (e.g. blind retransmission mode).”, Saur [0049]) (Examiner’s Note: since there is no support for this limitation in the specification, the Examiner interpreted this limitation in the best way possible i.e. in a way that makes more sense)
Rezagah, Saur, and Shin are analogous because they pertain to performing blind retransmissions.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include switching retransmission mode based on the packet delay budget crossing a threshold as described in Saur into Shin as modified by Rezagah. By modifying the method to include switching retransmission mode based on the packet delay budget crossing a threshold as taught by Saur, the benefits of optimized retransmissions (Rezagah [0078], Saur [0049], and Shin [0356]) are achieved.
As to claim 2 and 21 (claim 2 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 21):
Shin discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first logical channel is part of a plurality of logical channels, and the plurality of logical channels comprises a second logical channel that only operates in the feedback based retransmission mode. (“B=4 denotes a case in which four retransmissions are all determined based on HARQ feedback.”, Shin [0356])
As to claim 3 and 22 (claim 3 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 22):
Shin discloses:
The method of claim 2, wherein the second logical channel operates with feedback enabled. (“B=4 denotes a case in which four retransmissions are all determined based on HARQ feedback.”, Shin [0356])
As to claim 4 and 23 (claim 4 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 23):
Shin discloses:
The method of claim 2, wherein the second logical channel operates with feedback disabled. (“and A=2 denotes a case in which the blind retransmission is performed four times consecutively.”, Shin [0356])
As to claim 5 and 24 (claim 5 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 24):
Shin discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more feedback based retransmissions in the feedback based retransmission mode comprises only one feedback based retransmission. (“In Mode 2, a UE may directly determine configuration of the maximum number of retransmissions and indicate the configuration of maximum number of retransmissions via SCI.”, Shin [0117]) (“When the number of blind retransmissions is configured to be A and the number of HARQ feedback-based retransmissions is configured to be B, when maximum 4 retransmissions are allowed, A and B may be configured as follows: A=0, B=4; A=1, B=1; A=1, B=2; and A=2, B=0.”, Shin [0355])
As to claim 6:
Shin discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the number of blind retransmissions is predetermined, variable, or calculated, or a combination thereof. (“In Mode 2, a UE may directly determine configuration of the maximum number of retransmissions and indicate the configuration of maximum number of retransmissions via SCI.”, Shin [0117]) (“When the number of blind retransmissions is configured to be A and the number of HARQ feedback-based retransmissions is configured to be B, when maximum 4 retransmissions are allowed, A and B may be configured as follows: A=0, B=4; A=1, B=1; A=1, B=2; and A=2, B=0.”, Shin [0355])
As to claim 7:
Shin discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first logical channel is part of a plurality of logical channels, the plurality of logical channels is used for resource allocation of the first logical channel, (“identifying a resource allocation mode; identifying physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) information, wherein the PSFCH information includes information for a PSFCH period; and selecting, by the UE, a resource for transmission based on the information for the PSFCH period, and a time required for a PSFCH reception and decoding, in case that the resource allocation mode is resource allocation mode 2.”, Shin [0009]) and the plurality of logical channels comprises at least one channel that only operates in the feedback based retransmission mode. (“In Mode 2, a UE may directly determine configuration of the maximum number of retransmissions and indicate the configuration of maximum number of retransmissions via SCI.”, Shin [0117]) (“When the number of blind retransmissions is configured to be A and the number of HARQ feedback-based retransmissions is configured to be B, when maximum 4 retransmissions are allowed, A and B may be configured as follows: A=0, B=4; A=1, B=1; A=1, B=2; and A=2, B=0.”, Shin [0355])
As to claim 8:
Shin discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first logical channel is part of a plurality of logical channels, the plurality of logical channels is used for resource allocation of the first logical channel, (“identifying a resource allocation mode; identifying physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) information, wherein the PSFCH information includes information for a PSFCH period; and selecting, by the UE, a resource for transmission based on the information for the PSFCH period, and a time required for a PSFCH reception and decoding, in case that the resource allocation mode is resource allocation mode 2.”, Shin [0009]) and the plurality of logical channels comprises only channels that operate in both of the blind retransmission mode and the feedback based retransmission mode. (“In Mode 2, a UE may directly determine configuration of the maximum number of retransmissions and indicate the configuration of maximum number of retransmissions via SCI.”, Shin [0117]) (“When the number of blind retransmissions is configured to be A and the number of HARQ feedback-based retransmissions is configured to be B, when maximum 4 retransmissions are allowed, A and B may be configured as follows: A=0, B=4; A=1, B=1; A=1, B=2; and A=2, B=0.”, Shin [0355])
As to claim 9:
Shin discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining whether to operate in a mixed mode comprising the blind retransmission mode and the feedback based retransmission mode. (“In Mode 2, a UE may directly determine configuration of the maximum number of retransmissions and indicate the configuration of maximum number of retransmissions via SCI.”, Shin [0117]) (“When the number of blind retransmissions is configured to be A and the number of HARQ feedback-based retransmissions is configured to be B, when maximum 4 retransmissions are allowed, A and B may be configured as follows: A=0, B=4; A=1, B=1; A=1, B=2; and A=2, B=0.”, Shin [0355])
As to claim 11:
Shin discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein performing the number of blind retransmissions in the blind retransmission mode comprises a physical layer indicating a negative acknowledgment to a medium access control layer for each blind retransmission of the number of blind retransmissions. (“The blind retransmission may be performed up to first two retransmissions and when NACK is continuously received, additional HARQ feedback-based retransmission may be performed or two blind retransmissions may be performed.”, Shin [0355])
Claim(s) 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoryaev et al. US 20200220694 (hereinafter “Khoryaev”) in view of Shin et al. US 20230020105 (hereinafter “Shin2”).
As to claim 18:
Khoryaev discloses:
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 to: calculate a minimum time duration between a first resource for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) transmission of a transport block (TB)and a second resource for HARQ transmission of the TB, (“In some embodiments, a minimum time gap, N_sens_proc, may be introduced between blind retransmissions for the resource selection procedure. The minimum time gap may accommodate at least the Sidelink Control Information (SCI) processing time and sensing/resource selection decision time. The time gap may depend on UE implementation. In other embodiments, however, the time gap may be specified as a minimum value, e.g. 2, 3 slots. The time gap may also be a function of subcarrier spacing and frequency range (FR1 and FR2). In further embodiments, the time gap may be (pre)-configured via RRC signaling or may be fixed in the 3GPP specification.”, Khoryaev [0043])
Khoryaev as described above does not explicitly teach:
wherein the minimum time duration comprises a sum of: a first time to receive HARQ feedback; a second time to determine whether to perform retransmissions of the TB; and a third time to retransmit the TB
However, Shin2 further teaches minimum time gap which includes:
(“the condition in which the UE maintains the minimum time gap considering the time for two selected resources in order to select transmission resources for another transmission opportunity by considering the period N of resources for transmitting and receiving the PSFCH in relation to the HARQ feedback, the offset value K between the slot for receiving the PSSCH and the slot for transmitting the PSFCH, and the preparation time for PSSCH retransmission (including the time during which the HARQ ACK/NACK is received and decoded) may be defined as shown in Table 8. A condition in which PSFCH transmission is enabled in the resource pool may be handled equally to the condition in which the HARQ feedback is enabled. Also, MinTimeGapPSFCH may be a parameter corresponding to the offset value K between the slot for receiving the PSSCH and the slot for transmitting the PSFCH, and periodPSFCHresource may be a parameter corresponding to the period N of resources for transmitting and receiving the PSFCH.”, Shin2 [0160]) (“If PSFCH transmission in the resource pool is enabled, the UE shall ensure a minimum time gap k = a + b between any two transmission opportunities of PSSCH where a is a time gap between PSSCH transmission and corresponding PSFCH reception in slots determined by high layer parameter of MinTimeGapPSFCH and periodPSFCHresource. b is a PSFCH processing plus PSSCH retransmission preparation time in slots determined by UE implementation.” Shin2 [Table 8])
Khoryaev and Shin2 are analogous because they pertain to determining the minimum time gap for feedback based retransmissions.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include minimum time gap as described in Shin2 into Khoryaev. By modifying the method to include minimum time gap as taught by Shin2, the benefits of maintaining minimum time gap in between transmissions (Shin2 [0160] and Khoryaev [0073]) are achieved.
As to claim 20:
Khoryaev discloses:
The UE of claim 18, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to select the first resource and the second resource based on the minimum time duration. (“In some embodiments, a minimum time gap, N_sens_proc, may be introduced between blind retransmissions for the resource selection procedure. The minimum time gap may accommodate at least the Sidelink Control Information (SCI) processing time and sensing/resource selection decision time. The time gap may depend on UE implementation. In other embodiments, however, the time gap may be specified as a minimum value, e.g. 2, 3 slots. The time gap may also be a function of subcarrier spacing and frequency range (FR1 and FR2). In further embodiments, the time gap may be (pre)-configured via RRC signaling or may be fixed in the 3GPP specification.”, Khoryaev [0043])
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Rezagah and Saur, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cao et al. US 20210144750 (hereinafter “Cao”)
As to claim 10:
The combination of Shin, Rezagah, and Saur as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 9, wherein determining whether to operate in the mixed mode comprises determining whether to operate in the mixed mode based on a channel condition, a priority of a transport block, or a combination thereof.
However, Cao further teaches operating in mixed mode based on channel condition and priority which includes:
The method of claim 9, wherein determining whether to operate in the mixed mode comprises determining whether to operate in the mixed mode based on a channel condition, a priority of a transport block, or a combination thereof. (“The maximum number of HARQ (re-)transmissions (including both blind and feedback-based HARQ (re)-transmission) may be (pre-)configured per priority per CBR range per transmission resource pool, the priority being the one signaled in SCI. The value range may be any value from 1 to 32. If the HARQ (re)transmissions for a TB can have a mixed blind and feedback-based approached, the counter applies to the combined total.”, Cao [0276]) (“As the maximum number of HARQ retransmission is to be (pre)configured per priority per CBR range within a range of 1 to 32, it is stipulated that a mixed blind and feedback-based approach may be supported. Even in the case where HARQ feedback is enabled, UE can still benefit from blind retransmission which can reduce the latency similar to the repetition that is supported in Uu. However, performing more blind retransmissions than necessary may waste retransmission resources and add more load to the system. Therefore, a mixed approach can be useful. For example, a UE can choose to reserve two blind transmissions of a TB where no feedback is expected for the first transmission, and at the end of the second transmission, UE wait for a feedback and performs another 2 transmissions if a NACK is received after the second transmission.”, Cao [0277])
Shin, Rezagah, Saur, and Cao are analogous because they both pertain to blind and feedback based retransmissions.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include operating in mixed mode based on channel condition and priority as described in Cao into Shin as modified by Rezagah and Saur. By modifying the method to include operating in mixed mode based on channel condition and priority as taught by Cao, the benefits of minimized load (Cao [0277]) and optimized retransmissions (Rezagah [0078], Saur [0049], and Shin [0356]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Rezagah and Saur, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung et al. US 20210306111 (hereinafter “Jung”)
As to claim 12:
The combination of Shin, Rezagah, and Saur as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the number of blind retransmissions is based on a link budget requirement, a sidelink pathloss, a code rate, a transmit power, a reliability, a packet delay budget, or a remaining packet delay budget, or a combination
However, Jung further teaches setting the number of blind retransmissions based on conditions to improve reliability and QoS which includes:
The method of claim 1, wherein the number of blind retransmissions is based on a link budget requirement, a sidelink pathloss, a code rate, a transmit power, a reliability, a packet delay budget, or a remaining packet delay budget, or a combination thereof. (“the number of blind retransmissions of the first information may increase as the reliability requirement increases or the congestion level increases”, Jung [0184]) (“number of allowed blind retransmissions to satisfy a service-related QoS requirement”, Jung [0157])
Shin, Rezagah, Saur, and Jung are analogous because they both pertain to blind retransmissions.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include setting the number of blind retransmissions based on conditions to improve reliability and QoS as described in Jung into Shin as modified by Rezagah and Saur. By modifying the method to include setting the number of blind retransmissions based on conditions to improve reliability and QoS as taught by Jung, the benefits of improved performance (Jung [0157]) and optimized retransmissions (Rezagah [0078], Saur [0049], and Shin [0356]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoryaev in view of Shin2, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Koskela et al. US 20220110166 (hereinafter “Koskela”)
As to claim 19:
Khoryaev discloses determining the minimum time duration as recited in claim 18. (“In some embodiments, a minimum time gap, N_sens_proc, may be introduced between blind retransmissions for the resource selection procedure. The minimum time gap may accommodate at least the Sidelink Control Information (SCI) processing time and sensing/resource selection decision time. The time gap may depend on UE implementation. In other embodiments, however, the time gap may be specified as a minimum value, e.g. 2, 3 slots. The time gap may also be a function of subcarrier spacing and frequency range (FR1 and FR2). In further embodiments, the time gap may be (pre)-configured via RRC signaling or may be fixed in the 3GPP specification.”, Khoryaev [0043])
The combination of Khoryaev and Shin2 as described above does not explicitly teach:
The UE of claim 18, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to send the
However, Koskela further teaches sending an indication from the physical layer to a MAC layer which includes:
The UE of claim 18, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to send the (“MAC layer implements a counter to count the BFI indications from the PHY layer and if the BFI counter reaches a maximum value (configured by the network or predefined) a beam failure is declared. This counter may be supervised by a timer: each time MAC receives BFI indication from lower layer the timer is started. Once the timer expires, the BFI counter is reset (counter value is set to zero).”, Koskela [0052]) (“Network may provide UE with a list of candidate RSs (candidate beams) for failure recovery purposes. The candidates in the provided list may be indicated using a dedicated signal. UE's PHY layer may provide candidate beam L1-RSRP measurements to MAC layer which performs the selection of a new candidate and determines the uplink resources to indicate the new candidate to network. Network may configure UE with dedicated signalling resources (PRACH resources) that are candidate beam specific i.e. UE can indicate that a specific candidate is suitable for recovery (i.e. the quality is above threshold) by sending a preamble on the specific PRACH resource (for CFRA access). For CBRA based recovery, UE selects an SSB with SS-RSRP above specific threshold (rsrp-ThresholdSSB).”, Koskela [0053])
Khoryaev, Shin2, and Koskela are analogous because they both pertain to a method for resource selection.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include sending an indication from the physical layer to a MAC layer as described in Koskela into Khoryaev as modified by Shin2. By modifying the method to include sending an indication from the physical layer to a MAC layer as taught by Koskela, the benefits of maintaining minimum time gap in between transmissions (Shin2 [0160]) and improved resource selection process (Khoryaev [0033] and Koskela [0005]) are achieved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW C KIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM (PST).
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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/A.C.K./
Examiner
Art Unit 2471
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights