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 .
DETAILED ACTION
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Status of Application/Amendments/claims
Applicant’s amendment filed on 6/16/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 13-29 are amended. Claims 1-12 and 30 are withdrawn.
In view of applicant’s election without traverse of claims 13-29 of group 3 in the reply filed on 2/20/2026, the examiner requests to cancel the withdrawn claims.
Claims 13-29 are pending and have been examined, of which claims 13 is independent.
Claim Rejections/Objections Withdrawn
In view of the amendment filed, the following rejections/objections are withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 35 USC 112(b) for claims 15-16 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections/Objections Maintained
In view of the amendment filed, the following rejections/objections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 17 recites “transmit” limitation: “transmit the feedback information for the first sidelink data in the first set of feedback transmission time intervals”, which is broader in claim scope than the “transmit” limitation in claim 13: “transmit feedback information for the first sidelink data in a first set of feedback transmission time intervals in a sidelink feedback channel based at least in part on a prioritization of the feedback information for the received first sidelink data wherein the prioritization of the feedback information is based at least in part on multiple received sidelink data”. Claim 17 limitation does not further limit the subject matter. Although the “receive” limitation is narrower than limitation in claim 14 as noted by the applicant, the “transmit” limitation does not limit the scope of claim 13 or 14. Claim 18 is rejected based on dependency.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
New Grounds of Rejection Necessitated by the Amendment
The following rejections are new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amendment filed. It is noted, that Lee reference is maintained for claim 13, however, the cited portions are new grounds of rejection in view of amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13, 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 20200396747)
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (abstract: a first terminal performing sidelink communication; fig 11-12), comprising:
at least one processor (para 19: a first terminal performing sidelink communication may comprise a processor; fig 2);
at least one memory coupled with the at least one processor (para 19: a memory electronically communication with the processor; fig 2); and
instructions stored in the at least one memory and executable by the at least one processor to cause the UE (para 19: when the instructions are executed by the processor, the instructions causes the first terminal to) to:
receive a first sidelink data in a sidelink channel (fig 11; para 158: the first terminal may receive sidelink data from the second terminal, and receive sidelink data from the third terminal); and
transmit feedback information for the first sidelink data in a first set of feedback transmission time intervals in a sidelink feedback channel (fig 11; para 158: the first terminal may transmit sidelink feedback information for the sidelink data received from the second terminal, and may transmit sidelink feedback information for the sidelink data received from the third terminal) based at least in part on a prioritization of the feedback information for the received first sidelink data, wherein the prioritization of the feedback information is based at least in part on multiple received sidelink data (para 159: a time when the first terminal transmits the sidelink feedback information to the second terminal and a time when the first terminal transmits the sidelink feedback information to the third terminal may overlap each other, as shown and described in fig. 10 and the explanation of fig. 10, the first terminal may determine priorities of the sidelink feedback information, and transmit the sidelink feedback information based on the determined priorities).
Regarding claim 28, Lee further teaches to: determine the prioritization of the feedback information for the first sidelink data based at least in part on a priority level of the received first sidelink data (fig 10; para 122: when it is difficult to simultaneously perform feedback information transmission and feedback information reception, the first terminal may determine the priority of the sidelink feedback information according to the importance of each sidelink data., the first terminal may transmit and/or receive the sidelink feedback information having a higher priority).
Regarding claim 29, Lee further teaches to:
determine the prioritization of the feedback information for the first sidelink data based at least in part on the feedback information for the first sidelink data being a retransmission (para 127: the first terminal may determine that the priority of the ACK sidelink feedback information is higher than the NACK sidelink feedback information, the first terminal may determine whether to transmit and/or receive sidelink feedback information based on the type (i.e., ACK or NACK) of the sidelink feedback information; para 125: the first terminal has not successfully received the sidelink data, the first terminal may transmit NACK sidelink feedback information to the third terminal. The third terminal may identify that the first terminal has failed to receive the sidelink data, and may retransmit the sidelink data); and
apply a low priority level to the feedback information based at least in part on the determining (para 127: the first terminal may determine that the priority of the ACK sidelink feedback information is higher than the NACK sidelink feedback information; thus, the NACK feedback is applied lower priority).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 14-15, 17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20200396747)
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches the limitation of parent claim. Lee teaches in fig 11, that first terminal receives sidelink data from second and third terminal and determines feedback based on priority during feedback transmission time overlap. Lee does not teach in fig 11 to transmit sidelink data, however, the fig 10 shows the sidelink transmission.
Lee further teaches to:
transmit a second sidelink data (fig 10; para 118: the first terminal transmits sidelink data to the second terminal); and
monitor a second set of feedback transmission time intervals for feedback information for the second sidelink data from one or more UEs (fig 10 shows the PSFCH transmission occasions; para 121: the first terminal performs a monitoring operation for receiving sidelink feedback information from the second terminal). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine multiple sidelink feedback transmissions for overlapping resources as taught by Lee with transmission of sidelink data for feedback reception as taught by Lee for the benefit of improving the performance of the communication system as taught by Lee in para 28.
Regarding claim 15, Lee further teaches to:
receive feedback information for the second sidelink data in the second set of feedback transmission time intervals (fig 10 shows the PSFCH transmission occasions; para 121: the first terminal performs a monitoring operation for receiving sidelink feedback information from the second terminal, as a result of the monitoring operation, the first terminal receives a signal including the sidelink feedback information from the second terminal); and
transmit the feedback information for the first sidelink data in the first set of feedback transmission time intervals based at least in part on the receiving of feedback information for the second sidelink data in the second set of feedback transmission time intervals (para 119: a time when the first terminal receives the sidelink feedback information from the second terminal and a time when the first terminal transmits the sidelink feedback information to the third terminal may overlap each other, the terminal may simultaneously perform sidelink feedback information transmission and sidelink feedback information reception). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine multiple sidelink feedback transmissions for overlapping resources as taught by Lee with transmission of sidelink data for feedback reception as taught by Lee for the benefit of improving the performance of the communication system as taught by Lee in para 28.
Regarding claim 17, Lee further teaches to:
transmit the feedback information for the first sidelink data in the first set of feedback transmission time intervals (para 119: a time when the first terminal receives the sidelink feedback information from the second terminal and a time when the first terminal transmits the sidelink feedback information to the third terminal may overlap each other, the terminal may simultaneously perform sidelink feedback information transmission and sidelink feedback information reception); and
receive feedback information for the second sidelink data in the second set of feedback transmission time intervals based at least in part in the monitoring (fig 10 shows the PSFCH transmission occasions; para 121: the first terminal performs a monitoring operation for receiving sidelink feedback information from the second terminal, as a result of the monitoring operation, the first terminal receives a signal including the sidelink feedback information from the second terminal). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine multiple sidelink feedback transmissions for overlapping resources as taught by Lee with transmission of sidelink data for feedback reception as taught by Lee for the benefit of improving the performance of the communication system as taught by Lee in para 28.
Regarding claim 19, Lee further teaches to:
receive feedback information for the second sidelink data in the second set of feedback transmission time intervals based at least in part on a priority of the received feedback information for the second sidelink data being higher than the transmitted feedback information for the first sidelink data (para 121: when the importance of the sidelink data transmitted to the second terminal is higher than the importance of the sidelink data received from the third terminal, the first terminal may drop transmission of feedback information to the third terminal (i.e., drop HARQ transmission), the first terminal dropping the transmission of the feedback information to the third terminal may perform a monitoring operation for receiving sidelink feedback information from the second terminal, as a result of the monitoring operation, the first terminal may receive a signal including the sidelink feedback information from the second terminal), wherein the second set of feedback transmission time intervals overlaps with the first set of feedback transmission time intervals (para 119: a time when the first terminal receives the sidelink feedback information from the second terminal and a time when the first terminal transmits the sidelink feedback information to the third terminal may overlap each other). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine multiple sidelink feedback transmissions for overlapping resources as taught by Lee with transmission of sidelink data for feedback reception as taught by Lee for the benefit of improving the performance of the communication system as taught by Lee in para 28.
Regarding claim 20, Lee further teaches to:
transmit the feedback information for the first sidelink data in the first set of feedback transmission time intervals based at least in part on a priority of the transmitted feedback information for the first sidelink data being higher than the received feedback information for the second sidelink data (para 122: when the importance of the sidelink data received from the third terminal is higher than the importance of the sidelink data transmitted to the second terminal, the first terminal may drop reception of feedback information from the second terminal (i.e., drop HARQ monitoring), the first terminal dropping the reception of the feedback information from the second terminal may transmit a signal including sidelink feedback information to the third terminal). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine multiple sidelink feedback transmissions for overlapping resources as taught by Lee with transmission of sidelink data for feedback reception as taught by Lee for the benefit of improving the performance of the communication system as taught by Lee in para 28.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20200396747) in view of Huang et al. (US 20200205166)
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches the limitations of parent claim. Lee shows different timing for the PSSCH channels, but fails to teach timing offset in feedback channels. Huang is directed to handling sidelink feedback collision.
Huang further teaches wherein the second set of feedback transmission time intervals starts before the first set of feedback transmission time intervals (fig 8 shows multiple PSFCH channels for corresponding PSSCH, where in the PSFCH 1 and 3 start before PSFCH 2), and the first set of feedback transmission time intervals overlaps with the second set of feedback transmission time intervals (as shown in fig 8, PSFCH 1, 2 and 3 partially overlap in time domain). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine multiple sidelink feedback transmissions for overlapping resources as taught by Lee with timing difference of sidelink feedback channels as taught by Huang for the benefit of more efficiently handling sidelink feedback collision as taught by Huang in para 439.
Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches the limitations of parent claim. Lee shows different timing for the PSSCH channels, but fails to teach timing offset in feedback channels. Huang is directed to handling sidelink feedback collision.
Huang further teaches wherein the first set of feedback transmission time intervals starts before the second set of feedback transmission time intervals (fig 8 shows multiple PSFCH channels for corresponding PSSCH, where in the PSFCH 1 and 3 start before PSFCH 2), and the first set of feedback transmission time intervals overlaps with the second set of feedback transmission time intervals (as shown in fig 8, PSFCH 1, 2 and 3 partially overlap in time domain). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine multiple sidelink feedback transmissions for overlapping resources as taught by Lee with timing difference of sidelink feedback channels as taught by Huang for the benefit of more efficiently handling sidelink feedback collision as taught by Huang in para 439.
Claims 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20200396747) in view of Wang et al. (US 20200366427)
Regarding claim 21, Lee teaches the limitations of parent claim.
Lee further teaches to transmit the feedback information for the received first sidelink data in the first set of feedback transmission time intervals (fig 10 shows the PSFCH transmission occasions; the first terminal transmits a signal including sidelink feedback information to the third terminal), wherein the first set of feedback transmission time intervals overlaps with the second set of feedback transmission time intervals (fig 10 shows that feedback transmission occasion from second terminal and third terminal overlaps; para 119: a time when the first terminal receives the sidelink feedback information from the second terminal and a time when the first terminal transmits the sidelink feedback information to the third terminal may overlap each other).
Lee teaches groupcast in para 108 and transmission of negative ack message (NACK) for the received data in para 125-127 and priority based on type of feedback information. However, the reference does not teach terminal receiving NACK for the data that was received by terminal. Wang is directed to group HARQ feedback for sidelink group.
Wang further teaches to receive a negative acknowledgment message for the first sidelink data from a second UE (para 82-84: at 502, a first device can decode a data packet received from a second device; at 504, the first device can receive from a third device, negative acknowledgement information that indicates the data packet was not successfully decoded at the third device). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine multiple sidelink feedback transmissions for overlapping resources as taught by Lee with negative feedback for the data received in sidelink group as taught by Wang for the benefit of significantly increasing the successful rate of HARQ retransmission as taught by Wang in para 21.
Regarding claim 22, Lee further teaches to:
transmit the feedback information for the first sidelink data in the first set of feedback transmission time intervals and in the second set of feedback transmission time intervals (para 122: when the importance of the sidelink data received from the third terminal is higher than the importance of the sidelink data transmitted to the second terminal, the first terminal may drop reception of feedback information from the second terminal (i.e., drop HARQ monitoring), the first terminal dropping the reception of the feedback information from the second terminal may transmit a signal including sidelink feedback information to the third terminal; thus, the feedback transmission from first terminal to third terminal is considered during first and second set of feedback transmission time intervals as they both overlap in time), wherein the first set of feedback transmission time intervals overlaps with the second set of feedback transmission time intervals (fig 10 shows that feedback transmission occasion from second terminal and third terminal overlaps; para 119: a time when the first terminal receives the sidelink feedback information from the second terminal and a time when the first terminal transmits the sidelink feedback information to the third terminal may overlap each other).
Regarding claim 23, Lee fails to teach, but Wang further teaches to:
monitor a threshold number of feedback transmission time intervals of the second set of feedback transmission time intervals (fig 6; para 93-95: at 606, the first device can listen for a shared PSFCH indicated in the SCI and a determination can be made, at 608 of the computer-implemented method 600 whether a NAK is detected, this process can repeat until there is no NAK received or until a defined number of HARQ retransmissions have been reached); and
determine that no feedback information for the second sidelink data is received in each of the threshold number of feedback transmission time intervals (para 93: if it is determined at 608 that a NAK is detected (“YES”), at 612 the first device can retransmit the same SCI on PSCCH at a designated resource according to the SCI received, at 614, the first device can retransmit the same data packet recited on PSSCH at a designated resource according to the SCI received, method 600 can return to 608 and make another determination whether another NAK is received (e.g., are there more devices in the group that have still not successfully decoded the PSCCH and the PSSCH?), this process can repeat until there is no NAK received or until a defined number of HARQ retransmissions have been reached; here, receiving NAK is considered as determining no positive feedback receiving for the sidelink data and step 608 repeated for defined number of HARQ retransmission are considered threshold number of feedback transmission time). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine multiple sidelink feedback transmissions for overlapping resources as taught by Lee with negative feedback for the data received in sidelink group as taught by Wang for the benefit of significantly increasing the successful rate of HARQ retransmission as taught by Wang in para 21.
Regarding claim 24, Lee fails to teach, but Wang further teaches to: retransmit the second sidelink data based at least in part on the determining (fig 6; para 95: at 612 the first device can retransmit the same SCI on PSCCH at a designated resource according to the SCI received, at 614, the first device can retransmit the same data packet recited on PSSCH at a designated resource according to the SCI received, this process can repeat until there is no NAK received or until a defined number of HARQ retransmissions have been reached; here, the retransmission until defined number is considered as the retransmission based on determination that the defined number is not reached). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine multiple sidelink feedback transmissions for overlapping resources as taught by Lee with negative feedback for the data received in sidelink group as taught by Wang for the benefit of significantly increasing the successful rate of HARQ retransmission as taught by Wang in para 21.
Regarding claim 25, Lee fails to teach, but Wang further teaches to: wherein the retransmitting comprises a blind retransmitting process (fig 6; para 95: at 612 the first device can retransmit the same SCI on PSCCH at a designated resource according to the SCI received, at 614, the first device can retransmit the same data packet recited on PSSCH at a designated resource according to the SCI received; here, the retransmission does not require further allocation of resources, and the same SCI are used, thus considered as blind retransmission). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine multiple sidelink feedback transmissions for overlapping resources as taught by Lee with negative feedback for the data received in sidelink group as taught by Wang for the benefit of significantly increasing the successful rate of HARQ retransmission as taught by Wang in para 21.
Regarding claim 26, Lee fails to teach, but Wang further teaches to: refrain from retransmitting the second sidelink data based at least in part on the determining (fig 6; para 95: this process can repeat until there is no NAK received or until a defined number of HARQ retransmissions have been reached; here, the retransmission is repeated until defined number is considered as refraining from retransmitting when the defined number is reached). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine multiple sidelink feedback transmissions for overlapping resources as taught by Lee with negative feedback for the data received in sidelink group as taught by Wang for the benefit of significantly increasing the successful rate of HARQ retransmission as taught by Wang in para 21.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20200396747) in view of Hui et al. (US 20210127383)
Regarding claim 27, Lee teaches the limitations of parent claim. Lee fails to teach the prioritization of feedback based on remaining time to live of the feedback. Hui is directed to determining resources for sidelink feedback.
Hui further teaches to:
determine the prioritization of the feedback information for the first sidelink data based at least in part on a remaining time-to-live of the feedback information for the received first sidelink data (fig 21, 22; para 251-252: based on the priority level being higher than the threshold, the wireless device may substitute the parameter Nnew for the parameter N. By determining feedback resources based on the new periodicity Nnew, the latency of HARQ feedback corresponding to the first sidelink transmission may be reduced; thus, the PSFCH with lower latency (more remaining time to live) is given higher priority). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine multiple sidelink feedback transmissions for overlapping resources as taught by Lee with feedback priority based on timing or latency consideration as taught by Hui for the benefit of improving decoding performance and improve reliability, especially for the case of high-reliability low-latency sidelink transmissions as taught by Hui in para 236.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to Lee reference (previously cited portions and fig 10) not teaching the amended claim limitation of “the prioritization of the feedback information being based in part on multiple received sidelink data” have been fully considered. However, as noted with respect to the claim rejection above, the cited portion for the claim amendment is different than the prior office action for claim 13. Lee reference does not teach multiple received sidelink data and priority of feedback based on multiple received sidelink data, however, fig 11 and 12 describe the embodiments where the first terminal device receives multiple sidelink data (from different or same UE) and determines the priority of feedback transmission based on multiple received sidelink data. Thus, the Lee reference (fig 11 and 12 in combination of cited portions above) teach the argued limitation.
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 RINA C PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-2679. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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 on 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.
/RINA C PANCHOLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477 6/27/2026
Prosecution Insights