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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/17/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the combination of Lee465 [US 2023/0085465 A1] and Tseng [US 2021/0329510 A1] teaches the limitations claimed.
Regarding claim 1:
A) applicant argues on page 10 “Lee465 passages however do not expressly state that the PC5-RRC release in step 1330 includes an information field, for example, "sidelink reset configuration procedure" as recited in the amended claim 1. Lee465 simply describes that the RX UE receives the PC5-RRC release message and releases the PC5-RRC connection”, “Lee465 discloses the PC5-RRC release message is received at the RXUE”, and “Lee465 does not disclose that any information triggering a MAC reset is configured in a sidelink RRC reconfiguration message”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding A) in a review of arguments, amendments, and the summary of the interview on 7/7/2026, applicant is asserting there is no explicit bit/flag/indicator that explicitly signifies “sidelink reset configuration procedure”. Initially, the examiner notes the specification is silent with regards to any specific indication such as a bit/flag/indicator. Further, as admitted in applicant’s arguments, Lee465 discloses “PC5-RRC release message”, and Lee465 describes the message as part of a “MAC reset operation for sidelink data transmission” (cited para. 396 and cited Fig. 13) and thus, reasonably discloses “sidelink reset configuration procedure”. Still further, Lee465’s “PC5-RRC release message” can be considered an RRC message which is known to carry information element(s) (IEs) and some kind of identifier to convey the type of IE and thus, “PC5-RRC release message” at least suggests some kind of indication that informs the recipient the message is a “PC5-RRC release message”. Accordingly, cited para. [121, 433-434] and Fig. 13 including step S1330 reasonably discloses “sidelink reset configuration procedure”.
B) applicant argues on pages 10-11 “Neither explicitly nor implicitly, Lee465 does not disclose the content of the sidelink RRC reconfiguration message comprising sidelink reset configuration procedure as recited in the amended claim 1”, “Lee465 never discloses that the operations of releasing current sidelink radio configuration for a PC5-RRC connection, releasing a sidelink DRB for the PC5-RRC connection, and resetting a sidelink MAC entity for the PC5-RRC connection as recited in the amended claim 1”, and “Lee465 does not disclose that ... any information indicating or triggering the sidelink reset configuration procedure as recited in the amended claim 1”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding B) in a review of arguments, amendments, and the summary of the interview on 7/7/2026, applicant is asserting the limitations of “releasing a current sidelink radio configuration for a PC5-RRC connection with the second terminal, releasing a sidelink data radio bearer (DRB) for the PC5-RRC connection with the second terminal, and resetting a sidelink medium access control (MAC) entity for the PC5-RRC connection with the second terminal” are inextricably linked to each other and cannot be separated. In a review of the specification, nothing has been found indicating how or why all the limitations must be considered as a single, inextricable limitation and that no combination is permissible. The examiner also notes para. 33-36 of the specification discuss the functions represented in software and in particular para. 35 explicitly states “functions noted in the blocks may occur out of the order” and thus, does not limit the limitation as argued.
C) applicant argues on pages 10-11 “Neither explicitly nor implicitly, Lee465 does not disclose the content of the sidelink RRC reconfiguration message comprising sidelink reset configuration procedure as recited in the amended claim 1”, “Lee465 never discloses that the operations of releasing current sidelink radio configuration for a PC5-RRC connection, releasing a sidelink DRB for the PC5-RRC connection, and resetting a sidelink MAC entity for the PC5-RRC connection as recited in the amended claim 1”, and “Tseng simply discloses that a sidelink data radio bearer (DRB) for a PC5-RRC connection is released”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding C) in a review of arguments, amendments, and the summary of the interview on 7/7/2026, applicant is asserting neither Lee 465 and Tseng individually teach “releasing a current sidelink radio configuration for a PC5-RRC connection with the second terminal, releasing a sidelink data radio bearer (DRB) for the PC5-RRC connection with the second terminal, and resetting a sidelink medium access control (MAC) entity for the PC5-RRC connection with the second terminal”, and the combination of Lee465 and Tseng is improper. Notwithstanding applicant’s overlapping arguments of A-B which are addressed above, applicant has not provided evidence as to why the combination of Lee465 and Tseng is improper. Further, see MPEP 2145 Consideration of Applicant’s Rebuttal Arguments and Evidence, IV. ARGUING AGAINST REFERENCES INDIVIDUALLY, One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. Still further, see MPEP 2144 Supporting a Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103, IV. RATIONALE DIFFERENT FROM APPLICANT’S IS PERMISSIBLE, “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991)”. Further, a motivation to combine has been provided for the combination of Lee465 and Tseng with “Lee465’s MAC reset during sidelink link failure (para. 10-11) along with Tseng’s sidelink management for sidelink failure (para. [02, 128-133] and Table 8) improves interoperability between devices by different manufacturers by standardizing functionality in case of sidelink failure”. Accordingly, the combination of Lee465 and Tseng teaches the claimed limitation.
Accordingly, in light of the above, applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive and the combination of Lee465 and Tseng teach the amended limitation “releasing a current sidelink radio configuration for a PC5-RRC connection with the second terminal, releasing a sidelink data radio bearer (DRB) for the PC5-RRC connection with the second terminal, and resetting a sidelink medium access control (MAC) entity for the PC5-RRC connection with the second terminal” as shown in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below.
Further arguments rely on the above and thus, are correspondingly non-persuasive.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2023/0085465 A1) hereinafter Lee465 in view of Tseng et al. (US 2021/0329510 A1, all citations are supported by US Provisional Application No. 63/008,566, filed 4/10/2020).
Regarding claim 1, Lee465 teaches a method of a first terminal for a sidelink communication in a wireless communication system (RX UE [first terminal] communicating over sidelink with TX UE; para. 397-398 and Fig. 13 step S1300), the method comprising: receiving, from a second terminal, a sidelink radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message (RX UE receiving PC5-RRC Release from TX UE [second terminal]; para. 433 and Fig. 13 step S1330, PC5-RRC messages used for UE capability and sidelink configuration including sidelink radio bearer (SLRB) configuration; para. 121); identifying that sidelink reset configuration information indicating a sidelink reset configuration procedure is configured in the sidelink RRC reconfiguration message (RX UE performs media access control (MAC) reset in response to [identifying] receiving PC5-RRC message; para. 434 and Fig. 13 step S1332, Fig. 13 describing MAC reset for sidelink data transmission; para. 395-396); and based on an identification that the sidelink reset configuration information is configured in the sidelink RRC reconfiguration message, performing the sidelink reset configuration procedure (RX UE performs MAC reset in response to [based on] receiving PC5-RRC message; para. 434 and Fig. 13 step S1332, Fig. 13 describing MAC reset for sidelink data transmission; para. 395-396), wherein the sidelink reset configuration procedure comprises releasing a current sidelink radio configuration for a PC5-RRC connection with the second terminal (RX UE releases PC5-RRC connection with TX UE; para. 434 and Fig. 13 step S1334), and resetting a sidelink medium access control (MAC) entity for the PC5-RRC connection with the second terminal (RX UE receives PC5-RRC release message and performs MAC reset; para. [384, 395, 433-434, 444-445] and Fig. 13 steps S1330-S1334).
While Lee465 discloses SLRB and sidelink data radio bearer (SL DRB) and releasing sidelink connection, Lee465 does not explicitly disclose releasing a sidelink data radio bearer (DRB) for the PC5-RRC connection with the second terminal.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tseng teaches releasing a sidelink data radio bearer (DRB) for the PC5-RRC connection with the second terminal (RX UE receives RRC message from TX UE regarding PC5 RRC connection sidelink configuration, RX UE releases corresponding sidelink data radio bearer (DRB); para. 128-133 and Table 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Tseng to the system of Lee465, where Lee465’s MAC reset during sidelink link failure (para. 10-11) along with Tseng’s sidelink management for sidelink failure (para. [02, 128-133] and Table 8) improves interoperability between devices by different manufacturers by standardizing functionality in case of sidelink failure.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lee465 and Tseng teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Lee465 further teaches wherein the resetting of the sidelink MAC entity for the PC5-RRC connection with the second terminal (RX UE receives PC5-RRC release message and performs MAC reset; para. [384, 395, 433-434, 444-445] and Fig. 13 steps S1330-S1334) comprises at least one of: emptying a soft buffer of a sidelink process related to the PC5-RRC connection (reset of MAC includes flush soft buffers for downlink HARQ process; para. [309, 335, 425, 438], MAC reset for PC5 for sidelink data; para. [291-293, 353, 396-408, 431-444], examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference); cancelling a triggered scheduling request procedure related to the PC5-RRC connection (cancel triggered scheduling request procedure; para. [304, 324, 420, 439], MAC reset for PC5 for sidelink data; para. [291-293, 353, 396-408, 431-444]); cancelling a triggered sidelink buffer status report procedure related to the PC5-RRC connection (cancel triggered sidelink buffer status reporting procedure; para. [307, 329, 423, 440], MAC reset for PC5 for sidelink data; para. [291-293, 353, 396-408, 431-444]); stopping a timer related to the PC5-RRC connection (stop all timers [including any timer related to PC5 connection]; para. [297, 316, 413, 437], MAC reset for PC5 for sidelink data; para. [291-293, 353, 396-408, 431-444]); or initializing a parameter for a sidelink buffer for each logical channel related to the PC5-RRC connection (initialize Bj/SBj [buffer] for each logical channel to zero; para. [296, 314-315, 412, 431, 436], MAC reset for PC5 for sidelink data; para. [291-293, 353, 396-408, 431-444]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lee465 and Tseng teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Lee465 further teaches configuring a new sidelink radio bearer for the PC5-RRC connection with the second terminal (PC5-RRC connection established between RX UE and TX UE based on PC5-S signaling; para. 397-401 and Fig. 13 step S1300-1306, SLRB configured for PC5-RRC and PC5-S signaling; para. 93) based on sidelink configuration information (SLRB configuration included in dedicated signaling, in system information block (SIB); para. [71, 84], SLRB configuration preconfigured; para. 79).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lee465 and Tseng teaches the limitation of previous claim 3.
Lee465 further teaches wherein the sidelink configuration information is included in at least one of received sidelink dedicated configuration information (SLRB configuration included in dedicated signaling; para. [71, 84], examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference), a system information block (SIB) (SLRB configuration included in SIB; para. 84), or sidelink pre-configuration information (SLRB configuration preconfigured; para. 79).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lee465 and Tseng teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Lee465 further teaches further comprising, in case that a reset of a MAC entity of a Uu interface is triggered (sidelink resource allocation mode 1 configured; para. [56, 222, 228, 343] and Fig. 11 step S1110, MAC reset for Uu interface occurs; para. 221, method for Fig. 11 [mode 1]; para. 340), at least one of: initializing a parameter related to sidelink resource allocation mode 1 (sidelink resource allocation mode 1 configured; para. [222, 228, 343] and Fig. 11 step S1110, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference); cancelling a triggered procedure (cancel triggered procedures; para. 324-334, method for Fig. 11 [mode 1]; para. 340); or stopping a running timer (stop all timers; para. [297, 316], method for Fig. 11 [mode 1]; para. 340).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lee465 and Tseng teaches the limitation of previous claim 5.
Lee465 further teaches wherein the parameter related to the sidelink resource allocation mode 1 comprises a parameter for a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) configuration related to the sidelink resource allocation mode 1 (set NDI for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) to zero; para. 318-319, method for Fig. 11 [mode 1]; para. 340).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lee465 and Tseng teaches the limitation of previous claim 5.
Lee465 further teaches wherein the triggered procedure (cancel triggered procedures; para. 324-334, method for Fig. 11 [mode 1]; para. 340, examiner notes the use of alternative language of parent claim 6, thus, only one of the other alternative features of parent claim 6 need to be shown by reference) comprises at least one of a scheduling request procedure (cancel scheduling request procedure; para. 324, method for Fig. 11 [mode 1]; para. 340, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference), a sidelink buffer status report procedure (cancel buffer status reporting procedure; para. 325, method for Fig. 11 [mode 1]; para. 340), or a sidelink configured grant confirmation (cancel sidelink grant confirmation; para. 333, method for Fig. 11 [mode 1]; para. 340).
Regarding claim 8, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1, including first terminal (UE; para. 210-215 and Fig. 10: Lee465); transceiver (transceiver 106; para. 215 and Fig. 10: Lee465); processor coupled with transceiver (processor 102 coupled with transceiver 106; para. 215 and Fig. 10: Lee465).
Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 2023/0081644 A1) discloses soft buffer flushing based on MAC reset for RRC connection between wireless devices.
Pan et al. (US 2021/0037593 A1) discloses a method and apparatus for releasing sidelink radio bearer in a wireless communication system.
Lee et al. (US 2023/0070446 A1) discloses MAC reset for RRC connection between wireless devices.
Park et al. (US 2022/0338301 A1) discloses a method for transmitting/receiving signal in wireless communication system.
Hong et al. (US 2023/0156857 A1) discloses a method for controlling sidelink communication, and apparatus therefor.
Chen et al. (US 2020/0252989 A1) discloses unicast sidelink access stratum level connection maintenance.
US Provisional Application No. 63/008,566 (Tseng), having been included in the OA of 3/19/2026, is not included in the instant OA.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 pm.
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/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights