DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1-15, the original specification and/or the original claims do not provide proper support for the added limitation “determine a result of the feedback request at the second sidelink UE by evaluating whether the second sidelink UE successfully decodes the first data packet and the feedback received from the at least one third sidelink UE, wherein the result indicates whether the first data packet is considered successfully delivered beyond the second sidelink UE.”
Similar arguments apply to claims 16-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2021/0028891 A1, hereinafter “Zhou”) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2009/0217119 A1, hereinafter “Zhang”) and Wang et al. (US 20220217612 A1, hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Zhou teaches a second sidelink user equipment (UE), the apparatus further comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the second sidelink UE to: receive a first data packet from a first equipment; and receive a feedback request associated with the first data packet (¶ [0235], ¶ [0354], the scheduling information indicated by the SLG1 includes a Physical Sidelink Shared Channel (PSSCH) resource. This PSSCH resource is used for one transmission of one sidelink TB of UE1 (referred to as SLTB1). ¶ [0356], [0356] The scheduling information indicated in the SLG1 may also include whether the transmission of SLTB1 enables the HARQ-ACK feedback. If the information enabling/disabling the HARQ-ACK feedback is indicated in the SLG1, the UE1 determines whether the transmission of SLTB1 enables the HARQ-ACK feedback according to the information indicated by the SLG1. ¶ [0358] If the UE1 indicates the information of enabling/disabling HARQ-ACK feedback to the UE2, a feasible method is that the UE1 indicates the information enabling/disabling HARQ-ACK feedback in the SCI associated with the PSSCH scheduled by the SLG1 (or the SLTB1 carried by the PSSCH), ¶ [0360]); transmit the first data packet to at least one third sidelink UE (figs. 1 and 5), receive, from the at least one third sidelink UE, feedback indicating a decoding status of the first data packet; determine a result of the feedback request at the second sidelink UE based on the feedback (¶ [0361], based on the result of monitoring of the HARQ-ACK feedback transmitted by the UE2, the UE1 determines whether to report the HARQ-ACK feedback from the UE2 to the base station, ¶ [0362], The UE1 receives the ACK feedback from the UE2, the UE1 transmits the ACK feedback of the sidelink transmission corresponding to the SLG1 to the base station, and the transmission process of LTB1 ends successfully. ¶ [0365] ¶ [0397]); and transmit the result of the feedback request to the first equipment (figs. 1 and 5, ¶ [0362], ¶ [0365], ¶ [0397]).
Zhou does not explicitly teach determine a result of the feedback request at the second sidelink UE by evaluating whether the second sidelink UE successfully decodes the first data packet and the feedback received from the at least one third sidelink UE, wherein the result indicates whether the first data packet is considered successfully delivered beyond the second sidelink UE.
Zhang teaches determine a result of the feedback request at the relay station by evaluating whether the relay station successfully decodes the first data packet and the feedback received from the at least one third UE, wherein the result indicates whether the first data packet is considered successfully delivered beyond the relay station (figs. 7-9, ¶ [0038], At Step 103, the relay station determines if the HARQ data block has been correctly received and demodulated. ¶ [0042], If the data block passes the verification, the terminal may feed back acknowledge (ACK) information in a HARQ sub-channel; otherwise, the terminal may feed back non-acknowledge (NAK) information. ¶ [0043] At Step 106, the relay station sets three types of receiving status to mark the data block according to the feedback information received from the terminal and receiving status information of the relay station. The three types of receiving status of the HARQ data block may be: an ACK, which indicates that the data block has been received by the terminal correctly; a NAK, which indicates that the data block has not been received by the relay station correctly; and a RACK, which indicates that the data block has been received by the relay station correctly, but has not been received by the terminal correctly. ¶ [0044] and ¶ [0046).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to determine a result of the feedback request at the second sidelink UE by evaluating whether the second sidelink UE successfully decodes the first data packet and the feedback received from the at least one third sidelink UE, where the result indicates whether the first data packet is considered successfully delivered beyond the second sidelink UE in the system of Zhou to enhance system performance and improve transmission quality (¶ [0016] of Zhang).
Zhou does not explicitly teach the first equipment is a first sidelink user equipment.
However, it is well known in the art, to receive, at a second/relay sidelink user equipment, a packet from a first sidelink user equipment and relay/forward the packet to a third sidelink user equipment, as evidenced by figs. 1-4, 7-11 of Wang.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the method of Zhou in view of Zhang in a relay sidelink user equipment to further enhance industrial applicability.
9. Claims 2-7 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view Zhang and Wang of as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 112567796 A, hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Zhou in view of Zhang and Wang teaches the second sidelink UE of claim 1.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the second sidelink UE to receive a quality of service indicator corresponding to an interface used for transmitting the first data packet to the at least one third sidelink UE.
Chen teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the second sidelink UE to receive a quality of service indicator for transmitting the first data packet to the at least one equipment (Page 13, each QoS flow is associated with QoS index, the value defines the packet time delay budget (PDB), Page 3, Page 15, PDB margin can be based on the hop of transmission path)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to receive a quality of service indicator corresponding to an interface used for transmitting the first data packet to the at least one third sidelink user equipment in the system of Zhou in view of Zhang and Wang to further enhance system efficiency and reliability.
Regarding claim 3, 4, 18 and 19, Zhou in view of Zhang, Wang and Chen teaches the second sidelink UE of claim 2.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the second UE to calculate a remaining packet delay budget based on a packet delay budget corresponding to the quality of service indicator.
Chen teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the second sidelink UE to calculate a remaining packet delay budget based on a packet delay budget corresponding to the quality of service indicator, wherein the remaining packet delay budget comprises a packet delay budget minus average link delay (Page 16, the donor DU may be the estimated packet transmission start time as a time stamp included in header or MAC sub-header. Assuming that the IAB node 2 receives the data packet at t2,, the IAB node 2 many use the time stamp (t2-timestamp) to determine the remaining PDB…the first IAB node can send the time delay detection control PDU comprising the current timestamp information to the peer IAB node. Then, the peer IAB node can calculate the one-way time delay according to the time difference between the receiving time and the time stamp contained in the time delay detection control PDU. On the other hand, the one-way time delay detection may be estimated by a time difference between a data packet arrival time and a data packet leaving time in an IAB node. Page 17, applying the QoS configuration…In order to predict the potential time delay and check whether the multi-hop IAB network can satisfy PDB, the average time delay of each RLC bearer/channel is determined to make routing and scheduling decisions. The time delay detection process can be periodically triggered or triggered by the event. In still some embodiments, considering the time delay fluctuation, average time delay of each RLC bearer can be the value after filtering).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to calculate a remaining packet delay budget based on a packet delay budget corresponding to the quality of service indicator, wherein the remaining packet delay budget comprises a packet delay budget minus average link delay in the system of Zhou in view of Zhang, Wang and Chen to ensure QoS/PDB (Chen: Page 15 When the data packet is continuously forwarded to the service IAB node along the data path, the remaining PDB is updated, and the discard timer is started to check whether PDB can be ensured.).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Zhou in view of Zhang, Wang and Chen teaches the second sidelink UE of claim 4.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the average link delay is determined based on a delay between the first sidelink UE transmitting a plurality of data packets and the second sidelink UE receiving the plurality of data packet.
Chen teaches the average link delay is determined based on a delay between the first equipment transmitting a plurality of data packets and the second equipment receiving the plurality of data packet (Page 16, page 17, the time delay detection process can be periodically triggered or triggered by the event. In still some embodiments, considering the time delay fluctuation, average time delay of each RLC bearer can be the value after filtering).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to determine the average link delay based on a delay between the first sidelink UE transmitting a plurality of data packets and the second sidelink UE receiving the plurality of data packet in the system of Zhou in view of Zhang, Wang and Chen to utilize conventional techniques in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Zhou in view of Zhang, Wang and Chen teaches the second sidelink UE of claim 2.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein a remaining packet delay budget comprises a packet delay budget minus a fixed time.
However, Chen teaches wherein a remaining packet delay budget comprises a packet delay budget minus a link delay, as set forth above.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to determine a remaining packet delay budget by subtracting a fixed time from the packet delay budget in the system of Zhou in view of Zhang, Wang and Chen. The motivation for doing this is a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 7, Zhou in view of Zhang, Wang and Chen teaches second sidelink UE of claim 2,
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein a remaining packet delay budget comprises a packet delay budget minus a variable time determined based on at least one timer, and the at least one timer comprises a first timer T1 and a second timer T2.
Chen teaches wherein a remaining packet delay budget comprises a packet delay budget minus a variable time determined based on at least one timer, and the at least one timer comprises a first timer T1 and a second timer T2 (Page 13, the PDB corresponding to the data packet comprises the time delay component of Tuu and Tng… According to the current LTE/5G specification, through the PDCP discard timer associated with each UE bearer (discardTimer) to reflect UL Tuu requirement. Page 14, the gNB may estimate Tng based on implementation, and then configure the discard timer using a value lower than (PDB-Tng)… In addition to the time delay component Tuu discussed above (between the UE 802 and IAB 804) and Tng (between the donor CU 810 and the UPF 812), it should also consider the time delay component such as Tun and Tf1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to determine a packet delay budget minus a variable time based on at least one timer in the system of Zhou in view of Zhang, Wang and Chen. The motivation for ding this is a matter of design choice.
10. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Zhang and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Freda et al. (US 2021/0329596 A1, hereinafter “Freda”).
Regarding claim 8, Zhou in view of Zhang and Wang teaches the second sidelink UE of claim 1.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the second UE to receive a minimum communication range and group size information in response to the at least one third sidelink UE being part of a group.
Freda teaches the receiver receives a minimum communication range and group size information (¶ [0174]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to receive a minimum communication range and group size information in response to the at least one third sidelink UE being part of a group in the system of Zhou in view of Zhang, Wang to meet the QoS requirement for sidelink communications (¶ [0174] o Freda).
11. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Zhang and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2023/0209317 A1, hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou in view of Zhang and Wang teaches the second sidelink UE of claim 1.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the second sidelink UE to receive a second data packet from a fourth sidelink UE, and transmit the second data packet with the first data packet to the at least one third sidelink UE in response to the fourth sidelink UE having a feedback configuration that matches a feedback configuration for the first sidelink UE.
Liu teaches wherein the receiver receives a second data packet from a fourth sidelink user equipment, and the transmitter transmits the second data packet with the first data packet to the at least one third sidelink user equipment in response to the fourth sidelink user equipment having a feedback configuration that matches a feedback configuration for the first sidelink user equipment (i.e., in response to sending ACK to the first sidelink user equipment and the fourth sidelink user equipment in acknowledge mode) (fig. 8, ¶ [0089], upon successfully decoding the set of encoded packets associated with the first V2X communication, the relay device 805 may transmit an acknowledgment (ACK) message to the first UE 120 indicating that the first V2X communication was successfully received and successfully decoded by the relay device 805. ¶ [0093], upon successfully decoding the set of encoded packets associated with the second V2X communication, the relay device 805 may transmit an ACK message to the second UE 120 indicating that the second V2X communication was successfully received and successfully decoded by the relay device 805. ¶ [0094], the relay device 805 may combine the first V2X communication and the second V2X communication, both the first V2X communication and the second V2X communication may be intended for the third UE 120 ).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to receive a second data packet from a fourth sidelink UE, and to transmit the second data packet with the first data packet to the at least one third sidelink UE in response to the fourth sidelink UE having a feedback configuration that matches a feedback configuration for the first sidelink UE (i.e., in response to sending ACK to the first sidelink user equipment and the fourth sidelink user equipment in an acknowledge mode) in the system of Zhou in view of Zhang and Wang to reduce a quantity of transmissions and/or retransmissions (¶ [0094] of Liu).
12. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Zhang and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (2021/0160879 A1, hereinafter “Lin”).
Regarding claim 10, Zhou in view Zhang and Wang teaches the second sidelink UE of claim 1.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the result of the feedback request comprises a sidelink shared channel subheader corresponding to each third sidelink UE of the at least one third sidelink UE, and each sidelink shared channel subheader comprises a member identifier corresponding to a third sidelink UE of the at least one third sidelink UE.
Lin teaches wherein the result of the feedback request comprises a shared channel subheader corresponding to each third user equipment of the at least one third user equipment, and each shared channel subheader comprises a member identifier corresponding to a third user equipment of the at least one third user equipment (figs. 7 and 8, 13, ¶ [0156], a HARQ retransmission can be enabled or disabled by an RRC parameter; if HARQ retransmission is enabled (or if a HARQ disabling configuration is not provided), the UE can use different HARQ feedback schemes, such as alternative (1) or (2) or (3) above, and determine the actual HARQ feedback schemes based on a gNB signalling, ¶ [0157], when shared resources are used to report a HARQ feedback for a shared DL SPS configuration in the aforementioned example, the HARQ feedback from UEs additionally includes some notion of the UE identity).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include, in the result of the feedback request, a sidelink shared channel subheader including a member identifier, corresponding to each third sidelink UE of the at least one third sidelink UE in the system of Zhou in view of Zhang and Wang to distinguish the third user equipment among third user equipment group members (¶ [0157] of Lin).
13. Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Zhang and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0060292 A1, hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 11, Zhou in view Zhang and Wang teaches the second UE of claim 1.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the second UE to flush a feedback buffer in response to receiving an acknowledgment for a corresponding third sidelink UE of the at least one third sidelink UE.
However, it is well known in the art to flush a feedback buffer in response to receiving an acknowledgment for a corresponding equipment of the at least one equipment (¶ [0264], UE may flush the HARQ buffer, if one of the following conditions is met: ¶ [0265] when the number of maximum retransmissions of the MAC PDU was reached regardless of positive acknowledgement, ¶ [0267] when a positive acknowledgement is received).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to flush a feedback buffer in response to receiving an acknowledgment for a corresponding third sidelink UE of the at least one third sidelink UE in the system of Zhou in view of Zhang and Wang to provide efficient buffer/memory utilization.
Regarding claim 13, Zhou in view Zhang and Wang teaches second sidelink UE of claim 1.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the second sidelink UE to flush a feedback buffer in response to a maximum number of hybrid automatic repeat request retransmissions being reached for a corresponding third sidelink UE of the at least one third sidelink UE.
However, it is well known in the art to flush a feedback buffer in response to a maximum number of hybrid automatic repeat request retransmissions being reached for a corresponding equipment ( ¶ [0264], UE may flush the HARQ buffer, if one of the following conditions is met: [0265] when the number of maximum retransmissions of the MAC PDU was reached regardless of positive acknowledgement. [0267] when a positive acknowledgement is received )
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to flush a feedback buffer in response to a maximum number of hybrid automatic repeat request retransmissions being reached for a corresponding third sidelink user equipment of the at least one third sidelink user equipment in the system of Zhou in view of Zhang and Wang to provide efficient buffer/memory utilization.
14. Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Zhang and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2024/0048284 A1, hereinafter “Lee’84”).
Regarding claims 11-13, Zhou in view of Zhang and Wang teaches apparatus of claim 1.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the second sidelink UE to flush a feedback buffer in response to a corresponding packet delay budget being reached for a corresponding third sidelink UE of the at least one third sidelink UE
Lee’84 teaches wherein the processor flushes a feedback buffer in response to a corresponding packet delay budget being reached for a corresponding equipment, a maximum number of hybrid automatic repeat request retransmissions being reached or in response to receiving an acknowledgment for a corresponding the equipment (¶ [0323], when the first wireless device receives ACK in response to transmission of the first MAC PDU, the UE flushes a buffer of the HARQ process. ¶ [0369], upon receiving receives ACK to the (re-)transmission of the first MAC PDU, if the number of retransmissions of the first MAC PDU stored in a sidelink process reaches the maximum number of retransmissions and/or delay requirement of the first MAC PDU is fulfilled, the UE may flush the buffer of the HARQ process).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to flush a feedback buffer in response to a corresponding packet delay budget being reached, a maximum number of hybrid automatic repeat request retransmissions being reached or in response to receiving an acknowledgment for a corresponding third sidelink user equipment of the at least one third sidelink user equipment in the system of Zhou in view of Zhang and Wang to provide efficient buffer/memory utilization.
15. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Zhang and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sammour et al. (US 2009/0103478 A1, hereinafter “Sammour”).
Regarding claim 14, Zhou in view of Zhang and Wang teaches the second sidelink UE of claim 1.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the second sidelink UE to receive a packet data convergence protocol discard message in response to a corresponding discard timer expiring at the first sidelink UE, and the processor, in response to transmission of a packet data convergence protocol protocol data unit not having started at a time at which the packet data convergence protocol discard message is received, not transmit the packet data convergence protocol protocol data unit.
Sammour teaches wherein the receiver receives a packet data convergence protocol discard message in response to a corresponding discard timer expiring at the first equipment, and the processor, in response to receiving the discard message, adjusts its operations accordingly (¶ [0137]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to receives a packet data convergence protocol discard message in response to a corresponding discard timer expiring at the first sidelink user equipment, and the processor, in response to receiving the discard message adjust its operations accordingly (i.e., in response to transmission of a packet data convergence protocol protocol data unit not having started at a time at which the packet data convergence protocol discard message is received, not transmit the packet data convergence protocol protocol data unit) in the system of Zhou in view of Zhang and Wang to further enhance system efficiency.
Regarding claim 15, Zhou in view of Zhang and Wang teaches the second sidelink UE of claim 1.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the second UE to not transmit a packet data convergence protocol protocol data unit based on at least one timer.
However, it is well known in the art to not transmit a packet data convergence protocol protocol data unit based on at least one timer, as evidenced by ¶ [0046] of Sammour.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to not transmit a packet data convergence protocol protocol data unit based on at least one timer in the system of Zhou in view of Zhang and Wang to comply with 3GPP/the packet data convergence protocol requirements.
Response to Arguments
16. Applicant’s arguments filed on January 20, 2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
17. Applicant argues “…The Office Action rejected Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Applicant has amended the claims as set forth above making this rejection moot… The originally filed specification provides clear written-description support for each of these elements. In particular, the disclosure repeatedly describes a relay sidelink UE that decodes a transport block received from an upstream sidelink UE, receives HARQ feedback from one or more downstream sidelink UEs, and determines when and how to send feedback upstream based on both the relay's own decoding outcome and the downstream transmission results. The specification further describes forwarding aggregated ACK/NACK feedback from multiple downstream sidelink UEs and generating relay-side feedback behavior reflecting whether transmission to downstream UEs was successful. Accordingly, the amended claim language does not introduce new matter and merely clarifies functionality that is described in the original disclosure. A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the inventors were in possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. The § 112(a) rejection should therefore be withdrawn…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the original specification and/or the original claims do not provide proper support for the added limitation “determine a result of the feedback request at the second sidelink UE by evaluating whether the second sidelink UE successfully decodes the first data packet and the feedback received from the at least one third sidelink UE, wherein the result indicates whether the first data packet is considered successfully delivered beyond the second sidelink UE.”
18. Applicant argues “…Specifically, none of the cited references teach or suggest at least "determine a result of the feedback request at the second sidelink UE by evaluating whether the second sidelink UE successfully decodes the first data packet and the feedback received from the at least one third sidelink UE, wherein the result indicates whether the first data packet is considered successfully delivered beyond the second sidelink UE," as found in the independent Claim 1 (and similarly recited in Claim 16)…
Zhou discloses determining HARQ retransmission behavior at a transmitting UE based on HARQ feedback, but does not teach or suggest relay-side synthesis of feedback derived from multiple downstream sidelink UEs combined with the relay's own decoding status. Zhang discloses a relay reporting its own reception status to an upstream node, but does not disclose receiving and evaluating decoding feedback from further downstream sidelink UEs, nor forming a unified feedback result indicative of delivery beyond the relay. Wang describes cooperative or relayed communications, but likewise fails to teach a sidelink relay UE that aggregates downstream HARQ feedback and combines it with its own decoding outcome to determine an upstream feedback result…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Zhang teaches determine a result of the feedback request at the relay station by evaluating whether the relay station successfully decodes the first data packet and the feedback received from the at least one third UE, wherein the result indicates whether the first data packet is considered successfully delivered beyond the relay station (figs. 7-9, ¶ [0038], At Step 103, the relay station determines if the HARQ data block has been correctly received and demodulated. ¶ [0042], If the data block passes the verification, the terminal may feed back acknowledge (ACK) information in a HARQ sub-channel; otherwise, the terminal may feed back non-acknowledge (NAK) information. ¶ [0043] At Step 106, the relay station sets three types of receiving status to mark the data block according to the feedback information received from the terminal and receiving status information of the relay station. The three types of receiving status of the HARQ data block may be: an ACK, which indicates that the data block has been received by the terminal correctly; a NAK, which indicates that the data block has not been received by the relay station correctly; and a RACK, which indicates that the data block has been received by the relay station correctly, but has not been received by the terminal correctly. ¶ [0044] and ¶ [0046).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to determine a result of the feedback request at the second sidelink UE by evaluating whether the second sidelink UE successfully decodes the first data packet and the feedback received from the at least one third sidelink UE, where the result indicates whether the first data packet is considered successfully delivered beyond the second sidelink UE in the system of Zhou to enhance system performance and improve transmission quality (¶ [0016] of Zhang).
Therefore, Zhou in view of Zhang and Wang render obvious the amended claims 1 and 16, as set forth above.
Conclusion
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDISH RANDHAWA whose telephone number is (571)270-5650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (9 AM-7 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/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MANDISH K RANDHAWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477