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
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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd. (EP 3 206 321 A1, hereinafter Panasonic ) in view of LG Electronics Inc. (U.S. 2022/0141846 A1, hereinafter LG-Priority).
Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 recites “An apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the UE to:” maps as follows: Panasonic discloses a user terminal having transmitter, receiver, and processors, with functions implemented by processor-executed software stored in computer-readable memory (paras. [0258]-[0260]; claims 1-3).
The limitation “decide, when a conflict occurs between a sidelink discovery message and at least one other transmission in a transmission period, whether to process the sidelink discovery message or the at least one other transmission” maps as follows: Panasonic discloses a UE configured with sidelink discovery gaps, detecting a collision between discovery-gap operation and a transmission-protocol retransmission, and controlling which operation proceeds (paras. [0140]-[0146], [0193]-[0198]).
The limitation “based, at least in part, on a priority of the sidelink discovery message” maps as follows: Panasonic does not disclose this priority-based criterion. LG-Priority discloses determining sidelink priority, comparing it with an uplink-priority threshold, and selecting or dropping the sidelink or uplink transmission according to that comparison (paras. [0106]-[0111], [0117]-[0130], [0132]-[0140]).
The limitation “and transmit or receive the sidelink discovery message or the at least one other transmission in the transmission period, in accordance with the decision.” maps as follows: Panasonic discloses performing discovery operation during the configured gap while the colliding retransmission is not performed (paras. [0145]-[0146], [0193]-[0198]). LG-Priority discloses performing the selected sidelink or uplink transmission and dropping the nonselected transmission (paras. [0123]-[0130], [0132]-[0140]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of invention to make the proposed combination or modification because a skilled artisan would have incorporated LG-Priority's relative-priority selection into Panasonic's discovery-gap collision handling to protect the higher-priority service while continuing to prevent the collision. Both techniques act at the UE on overlapping uplink and sidelink activity, so the substitution uses a known rule for its established purpose with a predictable result.
Regarding claim 2: Claim 2 recites “The apparatus of claim 1” maps as follows: This dependency incorporates every limitation of claim 1, which is mapped above.
The limitation “wherein the at least one other transmission comprises at least one of an uplink transmission to a network entity or a sidelink transmission to another UE.” maps as follows: Panasonic discloses that "the at least one other transmission comprises at least one of an uplink transmission to a network entity" (paras. [0139], [0142], [0145], [0193]-[0198]). Because the claim recites alternatives, the uplink alternative reads on the claim. LG-Priority discloses sidelink transmission by the UE and the priority relationship between sidelink and uplink transmissions (paras. [0106]-[0111], [0117]-[0140]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of invention to make the proposed combination or modification because applying the collision rule to Panasonic's expressly identified uplink alternative requires no architectural change and merely applies the selected priority outcome to one of the transmission types already taught.
Regarding claim 3:Claim 3 recites the limitation “The apparatus of claim 1” maps as follows: This dependency incorporates every limitation of claim 1, which is mapped above.
The limitation “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the UE to receive signaling configuring the UE with transmission gaps for transmitting sidelink discovery messages, wherein the transmission period comprises one of the configured transmission gaps.” maps as follows: Panasonic discloses "receive signaling configuring the UE with transmission gaps for transmitting sidelink discovery messages, wherein the transmission period comprises one of the configured transmission gaps" through the UE gap request and eNodeB RRC gap configuration (paras. [0117]-[0120], [0125]-[0126]). LG-Priority discloses the inherited priority-based decision (paras. [0106]-[0111], [0117]-[0140]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of invention to make the proposed combination or modification because panasonic already configures the discovery gaps by network signaling. Using the priority rule within the configured gap predictably coordinates the rule with the interval in which the conflict arises.
Regarding claim 4: Claim 4 recites “The apparatus of claim 1” maps as follows: This dependency incorporates every limitation of claim 1, which is mapped above.
The limitation “wherein separate resource pools are configured for sidelink discovery messages and other sidelink communication.” maps as follows: Panasonic discloses "separate resource pools are configured for sidelink discovery messages and other sidelink communication" by separately configuring discovery resources/gaps and other sidelink communication resources (paras. [0117]-[0126], [0140]-[0146], [0193]-[0198]). LG-Priority discloses the inherited priority-based decision (paras. [0106]-[0111], [0117]-[0140]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of invention to make the proposed combination or modification because separating discovery and communication pools would have been an obvious resource-partitioning choice to isolate unlike traffic and reduce mutual interference and collisions.
Regarding claim 5, Claim 5 recites the apparatus of claim 1” maps as follows: This dependency incorporates every limitation of claim 1, which is mapped above.
The limitation “wherein a resource pool is shared for sidelink discovery messages and other sidelink communication.” maps as follows: Panasonic discloses network-configured resources for sidelink discovery. LG-Priority discloses applying a common priority-resolution procedure to sidelink traffic occupying configured sidelink resources (paras. [0106]-[0111], [0117]-[0140]); using those configured resources as a shared pool is the finite complementary alternative to Panasonic's separate pools.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of invention to make the proposed combination or modification because conversely, sharing a configured sidelink pool would have been the finite complementary resource-pooling choice when improved utilization is desired, permitting statistical reuse of otherwise idle resources. This is design-choice reasoning rather than an express disclosure.
Regarding claim 6: Claim 6 recites limitation “The apparatus of claim 1” maps as follows: This dependency incorporates every limitation of claim 1, which is mapped above.
The limitation “wherein the decision is made by comparing the priority of the sidelink discovery message to a priority of the at least one other transmission.” maps as follows: Panasonic discloses deciding between the discovery message and uplink transmission when the transmissions conflict (paras. [0118], [0145], [0193], [0197]). LG-Priority discloses comparing the sidelink priority with the uplink priority and selecting the operative transmission based on the comparison (paras. [0106]-[0111], [0117]-[0130]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of invention to make the proposed combination or modification because lG-Priority expressly supplies the relative-priority comparison missing from Panasonic's fixed treatment; incorporating it predictably selects the more important transmission.
Regarding claim 7: The limitation “The apparatus of claim 6” maps as follows: This dependency incorporates every limitation of claim 6, which is mapped above.
The limitation “wherein, in an event the priority of the sidelink discovery message and the priority of the at least one other transmission are the same, the decision is based on a rule.” maps as follows: Panasonic discloses the conflict decision from claim 6. LG-Priority discloses prescribed selection/drop rules based on relative sidelink and uplink priority values (paras. [0117]-[0130]). Neither reference expressly labels an equal-priority case; a deterministic tie rule is the remaining predictable implementation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed combination or modification because when equal priorities do not identify a winner, a deterministic configured tie rule is the predictable implementation needed to prevent simultaneous conflicting transmissions.
Regarding claim 8:The limitation “The apparatus of claim 7” maps as follows: This dependency incorporates every limitation of claim 7, which is mapped above.
The limitation “wherein the rule dictates that, in the event the priority of the sidelink discovery message and the priority of the at least one other transmission are the same: the UE always sends the discovery message; or the UE always sends the at least one other transmission.” maps as follows: Panasonic discloses selecting and sending the sidelink discovery message when it is given priority (paras. [0118], [0145], [0193], [0197]). LG-Priority discloses both operative outcomes—select sidelink/drop uplink or select uplink/drop sidelink (paras. [0117]-[0130], [0132]-[0140]). Applying one disclosed outcome as the deterministic equal-priority rule supplies the claimed alternatives.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed combination or modification because fixing either of LG-Priority's disclosed selection/drop outcomes for the tie condition produces the two claimed alternatives and assures repeatable UE behavior.
Regarding claim 9:The limitation “The apparatus of claim 8” maps as follows: This dependency incorporates every limitation of claim 8, which is mapped above.
The limitation “wherein, when the UE is configured with transmission gaps for transmitting sidelink discovery messages, the rule is applied within transmission gaps.” maps as follows: Panasonic discloses "the UE is configured with transmission gaps for transmitting sidelink discovery messages" and applies its collision decision within those gaps (paras. [0118], [0145], [0193], [0197]). LG-Priority discloses the priority-based selection outcomes used as the rule (paras. [0117]-[0140]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed combination or modification because applying the tie rule in Panasonic's configured discovery gap places the rule in the same period as the detected conflict and predictably maintains deterministic gap operation.
Regarding claim 10: The limitation “The apparatus of claim 8” maps as follows: This dependency incorporates every limitation of claim 8, which is mapped above.
The limitation “wherein the rule is applied only when the UE is configured with transmission gaps.” maps as follows: Panasonic discloses that its discovery/uplink collision treatment operates only when the UE is configured with the discovery transmission gap (paras. [0117]-[0119], [0145], [0193], [0197]). LG-Priority discloses the priority-based selection outcomes used as that rule (paras. [0117]-[0140]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed combination or modification because conditioning the rule on the existence of Panasonic's configured gap avoids invoking a gap-specific collision rule when no such conflict interval exists.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd. (EP 3 206 321 A1) in view of LG Electronics Inc. (U.S. 2022/0141846 A1).
Regarding claim 11: The limitation “An apparatus for wireless communications by a network entity, comprising: at least one memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the network entity to:” maps as follows: Panasonic discloses a base station and processor-implemented functions, including processor-executed software stored in computer-readable memory (paras. [0258]-[0260]; claims 11-16).
The limitation “configure a user equipment (UE) with a priority for sidelink discovery messages” maps as follows: Panasonic discloses network configuration of sidelink discovery gaps but not configuration of the claimed priority (paras. [0117]-[0126], [0140]-[0146]). LG-Priority discloses a base station providing sidelink threshold information tied to uplink priority for UE selection between sidelink and uplink transmissions (paras. [0110], [0117]-[0125], [0152]-[0154]).
The limitation “decide, when a conflict occurs between a sidelink discovery message and at least one uplink transmission in a transmission period, whether the UE is to transmit the at least one uplink transmission, based at least in part on the priority for sidelink discovery messages” maps as follows: Panasonic discloses the discovery-gap/uplink conflict (paras. [0140]-[0146], [0193]-[0198]). LG-Priority discloses selection of uplink or sidelink based on sidelink priority and an uplink-priority threshold (paras. [0117]-[0130], [0132]-[0140]).
The limitation “and monitor for the at least one uplink transmission in the transmission period, when the decision is that the UE is to transmit the at least one uplink transmission.” maps as follows: LG-Priority discloses the base station receiving the uplink transmission that the UE performs after the priority decision (paras. [0152]-[0154]). Receiving the retained uplink necessarily entails monitoring the scheduled uplink resource during its transmission period.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of invention to make the proposed combination or modification because panasonic's network schedules the uplink, it would have been obvious for the network to monitor that uplink only when LG-Priority's coordinated decision retains it. This keeps network reception aligned with UE behavior and avoids wasted monitoring.
Claims 20-21, 23-27, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (U.S. 2020/0396717 A1) in view of Hu et al. (U.S. 2021/0352466 A1).
Regarding claim 20: The limitation “An apparatus for wireless communications by a user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the UE to:” maps as follows: Luo discloses processor-executed UE operations, a processing system, transceiver, machine-readable storage medium, and instructions executable by processors (paras. [0045]-[0047], [0065], [0072]-[0076]; Fig. 12; claims 15 and 30).
The limitation “signal a capability of the UE to simultaneously receive, during a reception period, on a downlink and a sidelink” maps as follows: Luo discloses a UE resource-allocation request that indicates component-carrier quantity based on UE capability and RF-panel sharing constraints (paras. [0044], [0047], [0057]-[0059]), but does not expressly identify the reported capability as simultaneous downlink/sidelink reception capability. Hu discloses UE signaling that identifies reduced reception/processing capability to the network (paras. [0013]-[0019], [0049]-[0055]). The proposed combination uses Hu’s capability-indication mechanism to report whether Luo’s multi-panel simultaneous-reception arrangement is supported.
The limitation “and receive on the downlink while also receiving on the sidelink, in accordance with the capability.” maps as follows: Luo expressly discloses separate RF panels permitting simultaneous reception on an access link and a sidelink, including one panel receiving sidelink and another receiving the access link (paras. [0040]-[0043]; Figs. 2A-2B). Conditioning that operation on the combined capability indication is the proposed obvious modification, not an express Luo disclosure.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of invention to make the proposed combination or modification because a person of ordinary skill would have used Hu's capability indication with Luo's simultaneous access-link/sidelink receiver so the base station could allocate concurrent resources only when the UE hardware and processing capability supported them. The references use ordinary UE-to-network signaling and compatible LTE/NR receiver architecture, producing the predictable result of capability-matched concurrent reception.
Regarding claim 21:The limitation “The apparatus of claim 20” maps as follows: This dependency incorporates every limitation of claim 20, which is mapped above.
The limitation “wherein the capability is a function of one or more conditions.” maps as follows: Luo discloses that UE capability-dependent resource allocation depends on traffic, available component carriers, interference, and RF-resource sharing (paras. [0044], [0057]-[0059]). Hu discloses capability-dependent operation for reduced-capability UEs (paras. [0013]-[0019], [0049]-[0051]); the identified Luo operating conditions provide the claimed one or more conditions.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of invention to make the proposed combination or modification because using the already-reported capability as a function of current carrier, traffic, and RF-sharing conditions is the predictable way to prevent allocation of a concurrent combination that the UE cannot process.
Claim 22 is rejected over Luo in view of Hu and further in view of Panasonic (EP 3 206 321 A1).
Regarding claim 22:The limitation “The apparatus of claim 21” maps as follows: This dependency incorporates every limitation of claim 21, which is mapped above.
The limitation “wherein the one or more conditions relate to at least one of: a received signal power difference between the downlink and the sidelink; or a difference in subcarrier spacing (SCS) between the downlink and the sidelink.” maps as follows: Luo discloses simultaneous access-link/sidelink operation on separate component carriers and configuring sidelink BWPs (paras. [0040]-[0044], [0055]). Panasonic discloses access-link/sidelink timing and resource relationships during discovery-gap operation (paras. [0117]-[0126], [0140]-[0146]). The SCS-difference alternative is the known numerology condition used to determine whether the receiver can process both links concurrently.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of invention to make the proposed combination or modification because sCS is a known receiver-processing condition. A skilled artisan would have used the SCS difference between the access link and sidelink as a capability condition so the network enables simultaneous reception only for numerology combinations the UE can process.
Regarding claim 23:The limitation “The apparatus of claim 21” maps as follows: This dependency incorporates every limitation of claim 21, which is mapped above.
The limitation “wherein the one or more conditions relate to at least one of: an aligned physical resource block (PRB) grid; a bandwidth part (BWP) configuration for the downlink; or a bandwidth part (BWP) configuration for the sidelink.” maps as follows: Luo discloses BWP configuration and component-carrier groupings corresponding to an access-link grouping (paras. [0055], [0061]-[0064]; claims 11-14 and 22-25). Hu discloses reporting capability-dependent UE operation (paras. [0013]-[0019], [0049]-[0051]); using Luo's active BWP or carrier-grid configuration as the condition ties the capability to the exact resources processed. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of invention to make the proposed combination or modification because luo already uses BWP and carrier-group configuration to define the simultaneous links. Using those active configurations as capability conditions predictably ties the report to the exact frequency resources the receiver must process.
Regarding claim 24:The limitation “The apparatus of claim 20” maps as follows: This dependency incorporates every limitation of claim 20, which is mapped above.
The limitation “wherein the UE supports reduced capability reception on at least one of the downlink or sidelink when simultaneously receiving on the downlink and sidelink.” maps as follows: Luo discloses simultaneous downlink/access-link and sidelink reception (paras. [0040]-[0044]). Hu discloses reduced-capability reception, including reduced PDCCH search space, blind-decoding limits, DCI-size budget, HARQ capability, and MCS capability (paras. [0016]-[0019], [0050]-[0051]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of invention to make the proposed combination or modification because concurrent reception consumes additional receiver resources. Applying Hu's reduced-capability mode to one link would predictably keep the aggregate decoding burden within the UE's reported capability while retaining reception on both links.
Regarding claim 25: The limitation “The apparatus of claim 24” maps as follows: This dependency incorporates every limitation of claim 24, which is mapped above.
The limitation “wherein the reduced capability reception involves decoding physical downlink control channels (PDCCHs) with a smaller number of blind decodes (BDs) or control channel elements (CCEs) within an occasion as compared to regular PDCCHs.” maps as follows: Luo discloses the simultaneous-reception context inherited from claim 24 (paras. [0040]-[0044]). Hu discloses a reduced maximum number of blind decodes per slot compared with a legacy UE (para. [0051]). The blind-decode alternative reads on the claim.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of invention to make the proposed combination or modification because reducing blind decodes during concurrent reception is Hu's known processing reduction used for its established purpose: freeing control-channel processing capacity while the UE performs the additional sidelink-reception task.
Regarding claim 26:The limitation “The apparatus of claim 24” maps as follows: This dependency incorporates every limitation of claim 24, which is mapped above.
The limitation “wherein the reduced capability reception involves the UE supporting at least one of: a reduced downlink control information (DCI) size budget per slot; or a reduced number of DCIs with pending physical downlink shared channels (PDSCHs) or physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH).” maps as follows: Luo discloses the simultaneous-reception context inherited from claim 24 (paras. [0040]-[0044]). Hu expressly discloses a reduced DCI-size budget (para. [0051]). Because the claim recites alternatives, the reduced-DCI-size-budget branch is sufficient.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of invention to make the proposed combination or modification because the same skilled artisan would have used Hu's reduced DCI-size budget during concurrent reception because it predictably reduces control-channel workload and requires no change to the receiver's principle of operation.
Regarding claim 27: The limitation “The apparatus of claim 24” maps as follows: This dependency incorporates every limitation of claim 24, which is mapped above.
The limitation “wherein the reduced capability reception involves the UE monitoring for physical downlink control channels (PDCCHs) on a reduced number of search spaces or control resource sets (CORESETs).” maps as follows: Luo discloses the simultaneous-reception context inherited from claim 24 (paras. [0040]-[0044]). Hu discloses a reduced PDCCH search space and a smaller number of monitored PDCCH candidates per slot (paras. [0017], [0051]). Reducing configured search spaces/CORESETs is the direct configuration implementation of Hu's teaching.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of invention to make the proposed combination or modification because monitoring fewer search spaces or CORESETs is the predictable configuration-level implementation of Hu's reduced PDCCH search space and candidate count.
Regarding claim 34:The limitation “An apparatus for wireless communications by a network entity, comprising: at least one memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the network entity to:” maps as follows: Luo discloses base-station operations implemented by processor-executed software, a processing system, transceiver, storage media, and executable instructions (paras. [0048]-[0050], [0065], [0072]-[0076]; Fig. 12; claim 30).
The limitation “receive signaling, from a user equipment (UE), indicating a capability of the UE to simultaneously receive, during a reception period, on a downlink and a sidelink” maps as follows: Luo discloses the base station receiving a UE resource-allocation request whose requested carrier quantity depends on UE capability (paras. [0044], [0047]-[0050], [0057]-[0059]), but does not expressly identify the capability as simultaneous downlink/sidelink reception capability. Hu discloses network receipt of signaling identifying reduced UE reception/processing capability (paras. [0013]-[0019], [0049]-[0055]). The combination applies Hu’s capability-indication mechanism to Luo’s multi-panel simultaneous-reception capability.
The limitation “and transmit to the UE on the downlink, during the reception period, in accordance with the capability.” maps as follows: Luo discloses an access link between the base station and UE while separate UE RF panels permit simultaneous access-link and sidelink reception (paras. [0040]-[0043]) and discloses base-station downlink transmission and UE downlink reception (paras. [0072]-[0076]). Tailoring that downlink operation to the received capability indication is the proposed obvious modification.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of invention to make the proposed combination or modification because luo's base station allocates the component carriers used for simultaneous operation, receiving Hu's capability indication first would predictably allow the base station to tailor its access-link downlink transmission to the UE's supported concurrent-reception mode.
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panasonic (EP 3 206 321 A1) in view of LG Electronics Inc. (U.S. 2022/0141846 A1) and Luo et al. (U.S. 2020/0396717 A1). Claim 31 is rejected over that combination and further in view of Hu et al. (U.S. 2021/0352466 A1).
Regarding claim 28:The limitation “The apparatus of claim 24” maps as follows: This dependency incorporates every limitation of claim 24, which is mapped above.
The limitation “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the UE to receive signaling configuring the UE with discovery reception gaps for monitoring for sidelink discovery messages from other UEs, wherein the reception period comprises one of the configured discovery reception gaps.” maps as follows: Panasonic discloses "receive signaling configuring the UE with discovery reception gaps for monitoring for sidelink discovery messages from other UEs, wherein the reception period comprises one of the configured discovery reception gaps" (paras. [0117]-[0120], [0125]-[0126], [0140], [0146], [0193], [0196]). Luo and Hu disclose the inherited simultaneous-reception and reduced-capability limitations as set forth for claims 20 and 24.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of invention to make the proposed combination or modification because panasonic's configured reception gaps supply the precise monitoring interval. Combining those gaps with capability-controlled reception uses the known configuration for its established discovery-monitoring purpose.
Regarding claim 29:The limitation “The apparatus of claim 28” maps as follows: This dependency incorporates every limitation of claim 28, which is mapped above.
The limitation “wherein, during the discovery reception gaps, the UE applies a prioritization between physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission and discovery reception by comparing a priority of discovery messages to a priority of a PUSCH.” maps as follows: Panasonic discloses a conflict between uplink transmission and discovery activity during a discovery gap (paras. [0118], [0145], [0193]-[0198]). LG-Priority discloses detecting overlap between uplink and sidelink activity and selecting the uplink or sidelink activity according to relative priority (paras. [0106]-[0111], [0117]-[0140]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of invention to make the proposed combination or modification because lG-Priority's uplink-versus-sidelink comparison directly addresses the PUSCH/discovery overlap in Panasonic's reception gap and predictably preserves whichever activity has greater priority.
Regarding claim 30:T he limitation “The apparatus of claim 28” maps as follows: This dependency incorporates every limitation of claim 28, which is mapped above.
The limitation “wherein, during the discovery reception gaps, the UE receives both a discovery message and a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH).” maps as follows: Panasonic discloses receiving a discovery message during a configured discovery reception gap. Luo discloses simultaneous access-link downlink and sidelink reception using separate RF panels (paras. [0040]-[0044], Figs. 2A-2B), and discloses access-link PDSCH processing (paras. [0072]-[0075]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of invention to make the proposed combination or modification because using Luo's separate receive panels during Panasonic's discovery gap would predictably preserve scheduled downlink reception rather than forcing a legacy downlink interruption whenever discovery reception occurs.
Regarding claim 31:The limitation “The apparatus of claim 30” maps as follows: This dependency incorporates every limitation of claim 30, which is mapped above.
The limitation “wherein the reduced capability reception involves monitoring for PDSCH transmissions based on restrictions on at least one of: a number of resource blocks, a number of layers, a transport block size (TBS), a modulation and coding scheme (MCS), or scheduling PDSCH on a reduced number of carriers.” maps as follows: Luo discloses concurrent access-link/sidelink reception and access-link PDSCH processing (paras. [0040]-[0044], [0072]-[0075]). Hu discloses reduced-capability operation including a lower maximum modulation and coding scheme (MCS) (paras. [0018], [0051]). Because claim 31 recites alternatives, the MCS restriction reads on the claim.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed combination or modification because applying Hu's known MCS restriction during concurrent access-link/sidelink reception predictably lowers PDSCH processing demand and keeps the combined task within reduced UE capability.
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd. (EP 3 206 321 A1) in view of Hu et al. (U.S. 2021/0352466 A1) and Yang et al. (U.S. 2022/0070837 A1).
Regarding claim 32: The limitation “The apparatus of claim 27” maps as follows: This dependency incorporates every limitation of claim 27, which is mapped above.
The limitation “wherein: the UE is configured with at least one semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) configuration; and one or more SPS occasions are skipped during discovery gaps.” maps as follows: Panasonic discloses configured sidelink discovery gaps (paras. [0117]-[0126], [0140]-[0146], [0193]-[0198]), and Hu discloses the reduced-monitoring limitation inherited from claim 27. Yang discloses configuring a periodic set of SPS occasions and indicating that one or more SPS occasions will be skipped (paras. [0006]-[0014], [0061]-[0075], Fig. 4). Applying Yang's indication to an SPS occasion overlapping Panasonic's discovery gap supplies the quoted limitation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed combination or modification because both references address a configured interval in which ordinary scheduled activity is unavailable. Applying Yang's expressly taught SPS-skip indication when an SPS occasion overlaps Panasonic's discovery gap predictably avoids scheduling data that the UE will not process and conserves network and UE resources.
Regarding claim 33:The limitation “The apparatus of claim 32” maps as follows: This dependency incorporates every limitation of claim 32, which is mapped above.
The limitation “wherein the UE refrains from sending acknowledgment feedback when one or more SPS occasions are skipped.” maps as follows: Panasonic discloses configured discovery gaps (paras. [0117]-[0126], [0140]-[0146], [0193]-[0198]), and Hu discloses the inherited reduced-monitoring context (paras. [0017], [0051]). Yang expressly discloses that the UE may refrain from transmitting acknowledgment feedback associated with skipped SPS occasions (paras. [0061]-[0062], [0068]-[0075], Fig. 4), thereby disclosing "the UE refrains from sending acknowledgment feedback when one or more SPS occasions are skipped." It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of invention to make the proposed combination or modification because once the SPS occasion is intentionally skipped, Yang's associated suppression of acknowledgment feedback predictably avoids false feedback for data the UE did not monitor or receive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30 AM-4:30 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, Charles Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191 . 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.
/ANGEL T BROCKMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights