DETAILED ACTION
Claims 10-29 are pending.
Notice of 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 6 May 2025 is acknowledged.
The Requirement for Restriction identified two inventions – one directed to a network node and one directed to a user equipment. Restriction, 3. In response, the Applicant elected the invention directed to a user equipment, but also added a new independent claim, claim 28, which is a directed to a “processor.” Presumably, the claimed processor could be in either a network node or a user equipment. Therefore, claim 28 is essentially a broader genus claim to the two inventions identified in the Requirement for Restriction. The presence of claim 28 opens up the possibility of a double patenting rejection in a future divisional application.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. In particular, this Application is the national stage application of an international application that claims a domestic benefit to a US provisional application filed on 17 Jun 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement, submitted on 15 Dec 2022, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In particular, Sun is now cited for an index for a COT table, which defines the structure of a COT (such as the one shown in figure 4 of Sun), which includes when transmission will resume within a COT after a COT pause.
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.
Claims 1-29 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 a result of the most recent amendment, the independent claims now recite, in part, “wherein the row indicator in combination with the table identifier indicate a start of sidelink transmission associated with the COT sharing.” E.g. claims 1 and 28. The Reply states “[s]upport for the amendment may be found at least in ¶¶[0076]-[0086].” Reply, 8. After reviewing the eleven paragraphs cited by the Reply, the Examiner contends the claimed subject matter of a table identifier in combination with a row identifier indicating the start of a sidelink transmission, as required by the claimed invention, is unsupported by the disclosure. Instead, the disclosure demonstrates possession of only “a table ID informing about a start of SL transmission,” without explicitly stating that a row ID is also involved. Spec., ¶76. Paragraphs 79 and 86 of the Specification similarly do not demonstrate possession of the combination of a table ID and a row ID indicating the start of a SL transmission, but rather further affirms the Examiner’s interpretation that only a table ID is used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 10-15, 17-24, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Zhang (US 20230189304) in view of Lin (US 20230232447), and further in view of Sun (US 20230164836).
Regarding claims 10, 19, and 28, Zhang teaches a method, a user equipment (UE), and a processor comprising at least one memory; and at least one processor/controller coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to perform the following method:
performing a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure (Zhang, ¶122 – UE performs CCA);
initiating channel occupancy time (COT) sharing for the UE based on the LBT procedure (Zhang, ¶122 – when CCA is successfully performed, the wireless device is given the COT, where the wireless device may share the COT with another wireless device),
wherein the COT sharing indicates sharing information for one or more of at least one uplink communication or at least one sidelink communication to be transmitted from the UE (Zhang, ¶169 – UE 115-d transmits an indication of the sharing conditions of the COT, where the indication includes one or more COT sharing parameters; or alternatively, Zhang, ¶162 – UE 115-c transmits COT sharing parameters via SCI); and
transmitting the one or more of the at least one uplink communication or the at least one sidelink communication based on the COT sharing. Zhang, figure 3 and ¶¶133, 153 (COT used by two UE to transmit sidelink communications).
Zhang does not explicitly teach “transmitting sidelink control information (SCI) comprising a COT sharing indicator, a table identifier indicating a table, and a row indicator that indicates a row of the table, wherein the row indicator in combination with the table identifier indicate a start of sidelink transmission associated with the COT sharing.” However, Lin teaches an SCI transmitted in a PSSCH. Lin, ¶47. The COT sharing information in the SCI indicates a row index of a table that corresponds to an offset where the second UE channel occupancy starts. Lin, ¶71. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the SCI, taught by Lin, to indicate COT sharing, taught by Zhang, in order to inform the other UE of a starting location for which the other UE can share the channel. Lin, ¶70.
The combination of Zhang and Lin does not explicitly teach “a table identifier indicating a table” with the table identifier involved in identifying the start of a transmission. However, Sun teaches a UE receiving structure information for a COT (COT-SI). Sun, figure 3 (COT-SIs transmitted in step 320). Each COT-SI identifies “an index value for a . . . COT table.” Id. at ¶¶60, 63. The UE determines communication parameters based on the COT-SIs. Ibid. The communication parameters may define the start and end of a COT pause. Id. at ¶¶9, 66-67. As shown in figure 4, the COT pause defines the start of next transmission within the COT. Id. at figure (“UL” slots after the pause are the start of a transmission and are defined by the COT pause parameters). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include an index of a COT, as taught by Sun, within the SCI when indicating COT sharing access parameters, as taught by the combination of Zhang and Lin, in order to enable the UE to identify structure of the COT. Id. at ¶¶32-33, 68.
Regarding claims 11, 20, and 29, the combination of Zhang, Lin, and Sun also teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit one or more of a first stage sidelink control information (SCI) or a second stage SCI indicating one or more of a remaining duration, or a channel access priority. Zhang, ¶128 (first and second stage SCIs, where first stage SCI includes priority) or Zhang, ¶148 (SCI includes one or more COT sharing parameters) and ¶146, last sentence (COT sharing parameters includes duration of COT sharing and types of transmissions that are allowed).
Regarding claims 12 and 21, the combination of Zhang, Lin, and Sun also teaches wherein the one or more of the first stage SCI or the second stage SCI is transmitted using a broadcast transmission, a groupcast transmission, or a unicast transmission. Zhang, figure 4 (the message sent at 415 is received by only UE 115-d [unicast], while the message sent at 440 is received by both UE 115-c and base station 105-b [groupcast or broadcast]).
Regarding claims 13 and 22, the combination of Zhang, Lin, and Sun also teaches wherein the one or more of the first stage SCI or the second stage SCI comprises an indicator that indicates a restriction of UEs that are to use the COT sharing. Zhang, ¶¶143-144 (SCI includes ED threshold, which is used to determine which types of transmissions can be transmitted during the COT [e.g. may restrict unicast transmissions to other nodes because UE 115-a]).
Regarding claims 14 and 23, the combination of Zhang, Lin, and Sun also teaches wherein the COT sharing applies to UEs that share one or more of a destination group identifier (ID) or a destination ID. Zhang, ¶¶142, 165-166 (zone ID is used to define the location of a UE, and based on how far a UE is from another UE, COT sharing may or may not be allowed).
Regarding claims 15 and 24, the combination of Zhang, Lin, and Sun also teaches wherein the sharing information comprises information indicating whether nested COT sharing is enabled. Zhang, ¶166 (UE can share its COT with multiple devices); Zhang, ¶¶148-149 (COT sharing parameters includes the lowest ED threshold when sharing among multiple nodes).
Regarding claims 17 and 26, the combination of Zhang, Lin, and Sun also teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit one or more of a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) transmission or a physical sidelink shared channel transmission (PSSCH) in a remaining channel occupancy only to a device that initiated the channel occupancy sharing. Zhang, ¶144 (UE 115-b can only transmit during the COT to UE 115-a, which is the device that acquired the COT and offered to share it); Zhang, ¶128 (when operating in the sidelink, a UE transmits either over a PSSCH or PSCCH).
Regarding claims 18 and 27, the combination of Zhang, Lin, and Sun also teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit one or more of a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) transmission or a physical sidelink shared channel transmission (PSSCH) in a remaining channel occupancy to any device within a destination identifier (ID). Zhang, ¶¶142, 165-166 (zone ID used to define the distance between two UEs, which dictates the sharing conditions for a sidelink transmission during a COT); Zhang, ¶128 (sidelink transmission may be either PSSCH or PSCCH).
Claims 16 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Lin and Sun (all of record) in view of Wang ‘827 (US 20220210827).
Regarding claims 16 and 25, the combination of Zhang, Lin, and Sun teaches the method of claim 15 and UE of claim 24 and a first and second stage SCI, where an SCI includes COT sharing information. Infra. (see rejection of claims 11 and 20). The combination of Zhang, Lin, and Sun does not explicitly teach its COT sharing information “indicat[ing] a number of nested COT sharing devices.” However, Wang ‘827 teaches COT information that includes UE identifiers of UEs that are allowed to share the COT. Wang ‘827, ¶¶98, 104. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include the COT information, taught by Wang ‘827, in the SCI, taught by the combination of Zhang, Lin, and Sun, in order to reduce or avoid LBT operations for the UEs that are sharing the same COT. Id. at ¶109.
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 BENJAMIN S LAMONT whose telephone number is (571)270-7514 and fax number is 571-270-8514 and email address is benjamin.lamont@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 for authorizing unsecure communication). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am to 3pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/Benjamin Lamont/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights