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 .
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 1-20 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. The limitation of claim 1 “wherein the determination is based on that sidelink (SL) communication has failed within the COT” Is not described in the specification. At best the specification states:
[0250] Meanwhile, even if a channel occupancy time (COT) is generated and/or shared, SL communication performed within the COT may (continuously) fail due to interference, transmission by other devices, etc. in an unlicensed band. Even if SL communication (continuously) fails within the COT due to transmission of traffic having high importance, aperiodic transmission by other devices, etc., if the UE (continuously) attempts SL communication within the COT, unnecessary waste of resources may occur and reliability of SL communication may not be guaranteed.
The above cited portions of the specification state it would be a waste of resources and low reliability to attempt SL communication when transmission is failing do to interference. However, does not teach determining to terminate the COT based on sidelink communication failing within the COT.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/29/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sun (Pub No 20240064713) further in view of Li (Pub No 20230232428), Zhang (Pub No 20200404586), and newly cited Tiirola (WO 2021044075 A1)
Regarding claim 1,
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach terminating the COT based on that sidelink (SL) communication has failed within the COT.
The examiner relies on newly cited Tiirola (WO 2021044075 A1) to teach the limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (Pub No 20240064713) further in view of Li (Pub No 20230232428), Zhang (Pub No 20200404586), Tiirola (WO 2021044075 A1)
Regarding claim 1 and 14 and 18,
Sun teaches A method comprising:
at least one transceiver; at least one processor; and
at least one memory connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, based on being executed by the at least one processor, perform operations comprising:
determining, by a first device, a channel occupancy time (COT) based on sensing for channel access; (interpreted as Upon passing the LBT (indicating the channel is clear for transmission), the initiating UE may transmit a sidelink transmission during the acquired COT, see para [0037]
transmitting, by a first device, to a second device, information related to the COT; (interpreted as In some aspects, the SCI may include a COT-SI including COT sharing information (e.g., a duration of the COT for sharing), see para [0048])
transmitting, by a first device, within the COT, first sidelink control information (SCI) for scheduling of a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) and second SCI through a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH); (interpreted as In a first-stage SCI (which may be referred to as SCI-1), the UE 115 may transmit SCI in PSCCH carrying information for resource allocation and decoding a second-stage SCI, see para [0071]. Also see PSSCH 420 may carry a second stage SCI, see para [0087]. Also see during COT fig. 5a)
transmitting, by a first device, within the COT, the second SCI through the PSSCH; (interpreted as the PSSCH 420 may carry a second stage SCI (e.g., transmission parameters such as MCS used for transmitting the data 435, see para [0087])
However Sun does not teach and a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) through the PSSCH;
Li teaches and a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) through the PSSCH; (interpreted as wherein the first SCI schedules a first PSSCH transmission for transmitting the MAC PDU, see para [0006])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the PSSCH taught by Sun with the PSSCH including MAC PDU as taught by Li with the motivation being to transmit other packets known in the art of communications.
However Sun in view of Li does not teach determining to terminate the COT; and
transmitting, to the second device, information related to COT termination based on the determination.
Zhang teaches determining to terminate the COT; and transmitting, to the second device, information related to COT termination based on the determination.(interpreted as In some examples, UE 115-i may receive a separate control message at the end of COT 610 from UE 115-h indicating the termination of COT 610, see para [0139])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the COT taught by Sun in view of Li with the COT termination as taught by Zhang with the motivation to mitigate collision by terminating the COT.
However Sun in view of Li and Zhang does not teach wherein the determination is based on that communication has failed within the COT.
Tiirola teaches wherein the determination is based on that communication has failed within the COT. (interpreted as The various techniques may support channel measurements during the COT, which allow for early collision detection and early ending of COT to mitigate collision impact., see pg. 14 line 26-29)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the COT taught by Sun in view of Li and Zhang with the COT termination as taught by Tiirola with the motivation to mitigate collision by terminating the COT.
Regarding claim 3 and 16 and 20,
Sun teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the information related to the COT termination is transmitted through the first SCI or the second SCI. (interpreted as the SCI may include a COT-SI including COT sharing information (e.g., a duration of the COT for sharing), see para [0048])
Regarding claim 5,
Sun teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the COT includes a first time before the second device receives the information related to the COT termination and a second time after the second device receives the information related to the COT termination (interpreted as In some aspects, the SCI may include a COT-SI including COT sharing information (e.g., a duration of the COT for sharing) and the indication of whether the first sidelink transmission is from a UE that initiated the COT, see para [0048]. Also see At action 512, upon passing the CAT4 LBT, the UE 502a transmits a sidelink transmission A (shown as 530 in FIG. 5B) during a portion 506 of the COT 524, see para [0099])
Regarding claim 6,
Sun teaches The method of claim 5, wherein SL communication within the second time included in the COT is performed based on a first type listen before talk (LBT). (interpreted as Also see At action 512, upon passing the CAT4 LBT, the UE 502a transmits a sidelink transmission A (shown as 530 in FIG. 5B) during a portion 506 of the COT 524, see para [0099]. A CAT4 LBT refers to an LBT with a random backoff and a variable contention window (CW), see para [0043]))
Regarding claim 7,
Sun teaches The method of claim 6, wherein the first type LBT is a random back-off based channel access procedure. (interpreted as Also see At action 512, upon passing the CAT4 LBT, the UE 502a transmits a sidelink transmission A (shown as 530 in FIG. 5B) during a portion 506 of the COT 524, see para [0099]. A CAT4 LBT refers to an LBT with a random backoff and a variable contention window (CW), see para [0043]))
Regarding claim 11,
Sun teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the information related to the COT is transmitted through SCI, a MAC control element (CE) or a PC5 radio resource control (RRC) message. (interpreted as In some aspects, the SCI may include a COT-SI including COT sharing information (e.g., a duration of the COT for sharing), see para [0048])
Claim(s) 2, 15, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (Pub No 20240064713) further in view of Li (Pub No 20230232428), Zhang (Pub No 2020040586), Tiirola (WO 2021044075 A1), and Luo (Pub No 20210400656)
Regarding claim 2 and 15 and 19,
Sun in view of Li, Zhang, and Tiirola teaches The method of claim 1, however does not teach wherein the information related to the COT termination is transmitted through a MAC control element (CE).
Luo teaches wherein the information related to the COT termination is transmitted through a MAC control element (CE). (interpreted as may identify the indication to perform uplink transmissions according to the first uplink configuration based on a termination of the COT, an expiration of a timer, MAC-CE messaging, UCI, DCI, or any combination thereof, see para [0153])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the COT termination taught by Sun in view of Li, Zhang, and Tiirola with the COT termination as taught by Luo since it would have been a substitution of one transmission packet format for another.
Claim(s) 4, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (Pub No 20240064713) further in view of Li (Pub No 20230232428), Zhang (Pub No 2020040586), Tiirola (WO 2021044075 A1), and Hwang (Pub No 20240334476)
Regarding claim 4 and 17,
Sun in view of Li, Zhang, and Tiirola teaches The method of claim 1, however does not teach wherein the information related to the COT termination is transmitted through a PC5 radio resource control (RRC) message.
Hwang teaches wherein the information related to the COT termination is transmitted through a PC5 radio resource control (RRC) message. (interpreted as The information on the COT duration may be transmitted via signaling (e.g., MAC-CE, PC5-RRC) other than the first SCI/second SCI, see para [0328])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the COT termination taught by Sun in view of Li, Zhang, and Tiirola with the COT duration information in RRC as taught by Hwang since it would have been a substitution of one transmission packet format for another to relay control information.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (Pub No 20240064713)
further in view of Li (Pub No 20230232428), Zhang (Pub No 2020040586), Tiirola (WO 2021044075 A1), and Wu (Pub No 20230007956)
Regarding claim 8,
Sun in view of Li, Zhang, and Tiirola teaches The method of claim 5, however does not teach wherein SL communication within the first time included in the COT is performed based on a second type listen before talk (LBT).
Wu teaches wherein SL communication within the first time included in the COT is performed based on a second type listen before talk (LBT). (interpreted as In some examples, a UE may determine an amount of available bandwidth on the unlicensed RF spectrum by performing a channel access procedure, such as a listen before talk (LBT) procedure (e.g., CAT 1 LBT, CAT 2 LBT, CAT 3 LBT, or CAT 4 LBT), a channel sensing procedure, or another type of channel access procedure to contend for and/or gain access to the unlicensed RF spectrum for transmission of a sidelink communication, see para [0065])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the LBT taught by Sun in view of Li, Zhang, and Tiirola with LBT channel access procedure as taught by Wu since it would have been since it would have been a simple modification producing expected results of using one type of LBT over another to achieve the same result.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (Pub No 20240064713)
further in view of Li (Pub No 20230232428) and Zhang (Pub No 2020040586), Tiirola (WO 2021044075 A1), and Wu (Pub No 20230007956) and Luo (Pub No 20210400720)
Regarding claim 9,
Sun in view of Li, Zhang, and Tiirola teaches The method of claim 8, however does not teach wherein the second type LBT is a channel sensing procedure performed during a predefined time
Luo teaches wherein the second type LBT is a channel sensing procedure performed during a predefined time. (interpreted as For example, the channel sensing configuration 401 may illustrate a channel sensing procedure having a duration of 25 microseconds, see para [0111]. Also see For example, the channel sensing configuration 402 may illustrate a channel sensing procedure having a duration of 16 microseconds, see para [0113])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the LBT taught by Sun in view of Li, Zhang, and Tiirola with LBT predefined time as taught by Luo with the motivation being to schedule transmissions and thereby mitigating collision.
Regarding claim 10,
Sun in view of Li, Zhang, and Tiirola teaches The method of claim 9, however does not teach wherein the predefined time is 25 microseconds, 16 microseconds or zero.
Luo teaches wherein the predefined time is 25 microseconds, 16 microseconds or zero. (interpreted as For example, the channel sensing configuration 401 may illustrate a channel sensing procedure having a duration of 25 microseconds, see para [0111]. Also see For example, the channel sensing configuration 402 may illustrate a channel sensing procedure having a duration of 16 microseconds, see para [0113])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the LBT taught by Sun in view of Li, Zhang, and Tiirola with LBT predefined time as taught by Luo with the motivation being to schedule transmissions and thereby mitigating collision.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (Pub No 20240064713)
further in view of Li (Pub No 20230232428) and Zhang (Pub No 2020040586), Tiirola (WO 2021044075 A1), and Deng (Pub No 20250142595)
Regarding claim 12,
Sun in view of Li, Zhang, and Tiirola teaches The method of claim 1, however does not teach wherein, based on that the COT is shared for unicast, the information related to the COT or the information related to the COT termination is transmitted for each pair of a destination ID and a source ID.
Deng teaches wherein, based on that the COT is shared for unicast, the information related to the COT or the information related to the COT termination is transmitted for each pair of a destination ID and a source ID (interpreted as WTRU may determine to share the current COT when the cast type of the TB(s) transmitted in the current COT is unicast and the pair of WTRU Source and Destination ID of the unicast transmission and the pair of WTRU Source and Destination ID of the TB(s) to transmit is associated with a same unicast SL (e.g., a WTRU may share the current COT for TB(s) associated with the same unicast link), see para [0170])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the COT sharing taught by Sun in view of Li, Zhang, and Tiirola with unicast transmission for COT sharing as taught by Deng with the motivation being to use source/destination to identify the links.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (Pub No 20240064713)
further in view of Li (Pub No 20230232428), Zhang (Pub No 2020040586), Tiirola (WO 2021044075 A1) and Deng (Pub No 20250142595)
Regarding claim 13,
Sun in view of Li, Zhang, and Tiirola teaches The method of claim 1, however does not teach wherein, based on that the COT is shared for groupcast or broadcast, the information related to the COT or the information related to the COT termination is transmitted for each destination ID.
Deng teaches wherein, based on that the COT is shared for groupcast or broadcast, the information related to the COT or the information related to the COT termination is transmitted for each destination ID. (interpreted as WTRU may determine to share the current COT when the cast type of the TB(s) transmitted in the current COT is groupcast and the WTRU Destination ID of the groupcast transmission is the same as the WTRU Destination ID of the TB(s) to transmit, such as a WTRU may share the current COT with transmission(s) of TB(s) associated with the same groupcast, see para [0172])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the COT sharing taught by Sun in view of Li, Zhang, and Tiirola with groupcast transmission for COT sharing as taught by Deng with the motivation being to use source/destination to identify the links.
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 BAO G NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10pm - 6:30pm.
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.
/BAO G NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2461
/HUY D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2461