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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu US 20200351669 in view of Fraunhoffer WO 2020/201490
1. A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising:
at least one memory (Xu: FIG. 8); and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (Xu: FIG. 8) and configured to cause the UE to:
start a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure (Xu: [0050, 0102] - a UE is required to perform LBT);
generate an LBT failure indication if a channel for a sidelink transmission is occupied during the LBT procedure (Xu: [0057, 0102] - sidelinkUEinformation); and
determine, in response to a number of LBT failure indications being equal to or greater than a predetermined number threshold, a consistent LBT failure associated with the sidelink transmission (Xu: [0054] - determines that the accumulated number is greater than a threshold).
Fraunhoffer further teaches wherein the LBT failure indication is provided from a lower layer of the UE to a higher layer of the UE, and the LBT failure indication containing an indication of an associated resource pool (Fraunhoffer: fig. 4b, 9-11, 12a-12c p, line 17-p47, lines 12 - The PHY layer of the UE may report to the MAC layer of the same UE) in order to select, responsive to the LBT results, the PUSCH for the actual transmission that fits the LBT results best.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include above recited limitation into Xu’s invention in order to select, responsive to the LBT results, the PUSCH for the actual transmission that fits the LBT results best, as taught by Fraunhoffer.
2. The UE of claim 1, wherein to determine the number of LBT failure indications, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: count the number of LBT failure indications of at least one resource pool of the UE (Xu: [0054-0057, 0105]).
3. The UE of claim 1, wherein to determine the number of LBT failure indications, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: count the number of LBT failure indications of at least one bandwidth part (BWP) of the UE (Xu: [0105]; Fraunhoffer: p36 line 23 – p37 line 10)
5. The UE of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to cause the UE to: transmit, in response to determining that the UE is in a first mode in which a resource for the sidelink transmission is scheduled by a network device, a report associated with the consistent LBT failure to the network device (Xu: [0102]).
6. The UE of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to at least one of: cause, in response to determining that the consistent LBT failure is detected for all of the at least one resource pool, a lower layer of the UE to provide a sidelink LBT failure indication to a higher layer of the UE, and cause the higher layer of the UE to suspend sidelink signaling radio bearers (SRBs) and data radio bearers (DRBs); avoid, in response to determining that the UE is in a second mode in which a resource for the sidelink transmission is selected by the UE, selecting a resource from a resource pool associated with the consistent LBT failure until the at least one resource pool is reconfigured or reconfigured within a random back-off time; trigger, in response to determining that the UE is in the second mode and in an idle state, and that the consistent LBT failure is detected for all of the at least one resource pool, a radio resource control (RRC) establishment procedure or a random access channel (RACH) procedure with a cause being the sidelink LBT failure; select, in response to determining that the UE is in the second mode, and that the consistent LBT failure is detected for all of the at least one resource pool, a resource from an exceptional resource pool for the sidelink transmission; and suspend, in response to determining that the consistent LBT failure is detected for all of the at least one resource pool, the sidelink transmission (Xu: [0102-0105]).
7. The UE of claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to at least one of: cause a lower layer of the UE to provide a sidelink LBT failure to a higher layer of the UE; cause the higher layer of the UE to suspend sidelink signaling radio bearers (SRBs) and data radio bearers (DRBs); trigger, in response to determining that the UE is in a second mode in which a resource for the sidelink transmission is selected by the UE and in an idle state, a radio resource control (RRC) establishment procedure or a random access channel (RACH) procedure with a cause being the sidelink LBT failure; avoid, in response to determining that the UE is in the second mode, selecting a resource from a resource pool for the sidelink transmission within a random back-off time; or select, in response to determining that the UE is in the second mode, a resource from an exceptional resource pool for the sidelink transmission and suspend the sidelink transmission (Fraunhoffer: p36 line 23 – p37 line 10).
9. The UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to cancel the consistent LBT failure in response to at least one of: a control element indicating the consistent LBT failure is transmitted to a network device; an acknowledgement that the control element is successfully received by the network device is received; and an RRC establishment procedure is completed (Xu: [0102-0105]).
10. The UE of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: cancel, in response to determining that a resource pool associated with the consistent LBT failure is reconfigured, the consistent LBT failure (Xu: [0102-0105]).
11. The UE of claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: cancel, in response to determining that a BWP associated with the consistent LBT failure is reconfigured, the consistent LBT failure (Fraunhoffer: p36 line 23 – p37 line 10).
Claim(s) 8, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu US 20200351669 in view of Fraunhoffer WO 202/201490 further in view of OZTURK US 20220201760
8. The UE of claim 1, wherein the UE is in a first mode in which a resource for the sidelink transmission is scheduled by a network device, and the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to at least one of: generate, in response to determining that a resource for an uplink transmission from the UE to the network device is available, a control element indicating the consistent LBT failure; or transmit, in response to determining that no resource for the uplink transmission is available, a scheduling request to the network device for the control element OZTURK: [0079]) in order to detect, while transmitting data using at least one first bandwidth on at least one sidelink channel to at least one other UE, one or more failures of a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure within an amount of time.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include above recited limitation into Xu’s invention in order to detect, while transmitting data using at least one first bandwidth on at least one sidelink channel to at least one other UE, one or more failures of a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure within an amount of time, as taught by OZTURK.
12. The UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: generate a control element indicating the consistent LBT failure and containing an identifier of a destination UE of the sidelink transmission (OZTURK: [0079]).
13. The UE of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: generate a control element indicating the consistent LBT failure and containing an indication of a resource pool associated with the consistent LBT failure (OZTURK: [0079]).
14. The UE of claim 13, wherein one or more of: the control element includes at least one bit for the at least one resource pool, respectively, a predetermined value of each bit of the at least one bit indicating a consistent LBT failure associated with a resource pool corresponding to the bit; or the indication of the resource pool is an entry index of the resource pool in a configuration message for configuring the at least one resource pool or is an identifier of the resource pool (Xu: Table 2 [0074];Fraunhoffer: p36 line 23 – p37 line 10; (OZTURK: [0054]).
Regarding claims 16-17, 19-23, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1-3, 5-14, where the difference used is a “apparatus & method” with a processor and a memory (Xu: Referring to FIG. 8, the wireless device 800 includes a processor, a memory) and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims arid interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argument:
According to amended claim 1, wherein the LBT failure indication is provided from a lower layer of the UE to a higher layer of the UE, and the LBT failure indication containing an indication of an associated resource pool. Such a distinction is not disclosed in prior art(s).
Response to Arguments:
With respect to the above argument, Examiner would like to draw attention to that it is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
In addition, the Examiner would like to draw attention to (fig. 4b, 9-11, 12a-12c, p44, line 17-p47, lines 12) - of Fraunhoffer, for example: Fig. 12 illustrates an embodiment in which a UE prepares three different PUSCHs sizes and chooses one based on the LBT outcome. In Fig. 12(a) the wideband configuration to be applied, in general, for a wideband operation is indicated which, in the example illustrated is a wideband configuration over a BWP 200 spanning three subbands 200i to 2OO.sub.3. The UE may receive from the gNB an indication that the wideband configuration to be used for a wideband operation among the gNB and the UE is the configuration as depicted in Fig. 12(a). Responsive to this information the UE, as indicated in Fig. 12(b) creates a number of PUSCH transmissions, in the depicted example three PUSCH transmissions 206i to 2O6.sub.3 of which the first PUSCH 206i uses all subbands 200i to 200.sub.3, the second PUSCH 2O6.sub.2 only uses subbands 200.sub.å and 2OO.sub.3 but not subband 200i, and PUSCH 206.sub.3 uses subbands 200i, 2OO2 but not subband 200.sub.3. Responsive to the UE performing the LBT, as is indicated between Fig. 12(b) and Fig. 12(c), the UE selects among the transmission 206i to 2O6.sub.3 the one which, for example, matches best the outcome of the LBT algorithm. The PHY layer of the UE may report to the MAC layer of the same UE which PUSCH has been selected by, e.g., reporting the transport block size or the PUSCH-ID which has been selected. In the depicted example the LBT may indicate that among the available subbands 200i to 2OO.sub.3 of the original wideband configuration 200 (Fig. 12(a)) only subbands 2OO.sub.2 and 200a are available, so that the UE, for the actual uplink transmission to the gNB selects the prepared transmission 206.sub.2 as indicated in Fig. 12(c) (herein it’s considered same as wherein the LBT failure indication is provided from a lower layer of the UE to a higher layer of the UE, and the LBT failure indication containing an indication of an associated resource pool).
Thus, for the above reason, the prior art meet the claim limitation.
The examiner stresses that the claims are too broad and require detail or specialization of the steps as recited in the claims. Alone and as claimed, the limitations are too open.
Examiner has cited particular portions of the references as applied to each claim limitation for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Regarding all other arguments presented by applicant, the arguments are substantially the same as those which have already been addressed above and in the interest of brevity; the Examiner directs the applicant to those responses above.
Remark:
In addition, an interview could expedite the prosecution.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sulaiman Nooristany whose telephone number is 571-270-1929. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday: 8:30am to 5:00pm (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SULAIMAN NOORISTANY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415