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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 03/04/2026 complies with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) and has been entered. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claims 6 and 16 have been canceled. Claims 9-10 and 19-20 remain cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed 03/04/2026 (hereinafter Resp.) have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant’s argument regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) fails to persuade because the cited paragraphs [¶0095] and [¶0098] of the Specification, already cited in the rejection, only disclose “a ratio of ACK to be at least above a threshold,” i.e., that the ratio, which is a number, should be higher than another number, but say nothing about how the “ratio of ACK” should be calculated, e.g., whether as the number of transmissions for which the HARQ-ACK feedback received is an ACK divided by the total number of transmissions using HARQ feedback in a time interval, or as the number of transmissions for which the HARQ-ACK feedback received is an ACK divided by the number of transmissions for which the HARQ-ACK feedback received is a NACK, or some other calculation yielding “a fixed value (e.g., 10%, or 50%, or 80%)” as disclosed in the Specification supra. Therefore, this rejection is maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Hwang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0344565 (hereinafter Hwang) “does not disclose that the reference duration for the latest channel occupancy is a duration starting from a beginning of the latest channel occupancy until an end of a first slot where at least one PSSCH with the at least one HARQ-ACK feedback including 'ACK'/'NACK' is transmitted” – See Resp., p14:¶2, the argument is unpersuasive. Applicant concludes that, in the cited paragraphs, “Hwang fails to disclose "where at least one PSSCH with the at least one HARQACK feedback including 'ACK'/'NACK' is transmitted” when the citation clearly states that “specific SL transmission is actually performed,” i.e., PSSCH transmission actually happens and “the above-described (specific) SL (signal) transmission may be transmission of a PSCCH/PSSCH for unicast and/or groupcast and/or a PSCCH/PSSCH in which SL HARQ-ACK feedback is enabled” – See Hwang:[¶¶0245-46]. Furthermore, the limitation at issue is known in the art as further explained in the present Office Action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 and 11-15, as amended, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 29-30 and 33, and 22-23 and 32, respectively as amended, of copending U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0217486, Application #18/147,578 (Reference), as amended, in view of Hwang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0247883 (hereinafter Hwang). Representative Claims 11-15 for the method described in the Reference Claims 18-23 are analyzed below. Claims
Application # 18/296,293 (Present)
Application # 18/147,578 (Reference)
11
A method of a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
18
A method performed by a first user equipment (UE) transmitting
sidelink information in an unlicensed band, the method comprising:
identifying whether at least one hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback is transmitted;
after identification that the at least one HARQ feedback is transmitted,
transmitting, to a second UE in a reference duration, a first physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) based on a channel access procedure associated with a priority (and, as further required by dependent Claim 32, in case that the HARQ-ACK feedbacks are present, the HARQ-ACK feedbacks are identified as available)
identify a contention window size (CW) associated with channel access priority class to a minimum value (CW min) for every channel access priority class;
. . . a value of a contention window which is set to a minimum value is used;
(see further below for the SL groupcast case)
21
(18)
transmitting a second PSSCH for a unicast SL transmission based on a channel sensing; and
identifying a HARQ feedback corresponding to physical sidelink shared channels (PSSCHs) for unicast sidelink transmission(s) in a reference duration for which a latest channel
occupancy is available;
identifying a value of a second contention window for an SL transmission based on whether a second HARQ-ACK feedback corresponding to the second PSSCH for the unicast SL transmission includes an ACK
when the HARQ feedback corresponding to the PSSCHs for the unicast sidelink transmission(s) includes only ACK, identify the CW to the CWmin for the every channel access priority class; and
22 (21)
in case that the second HARQ-ACK feedback corresponding to the second PSSCH for the unicast SL transmission includes the ACK, setting the value of the second contention window to a minimum value; and
when the HARQ feedback corresponding to the PSSCHs for the unicast sidelink transmission(s) does not include only ACK, increase the CW to a next higher allowed value for
the every channel access priority class,
in case that the second HARQ-ACK feedback corresponding to the second PSSCH for the unicast SL transmission includes a negative-ACK (NACK), increasing the value of the second contention window to a next higher value
wherein the reference duration for the latest channel occupancy is a duration starting from a beginning of the latest channel occupancy until an end of a first slot where at least one PSSCH with the at least one HARQ-ACK feedback including 'ACK'/'NACK' is transmitted
20 (18)
wherein the reference duration includes a duration starting from a beginning of a channel occupancy for the first PSSCH until an end of a first slot in which the first PSSCH is transmitted.
12
The method of Claim 11, further comprising:
18
. . . in case that PSSCHs including the first PSSCH are associated with HARQ- ACK feedbacks from UEs including the second UE,
identifying a HARQ feedback corresponding to PSSCHs for groupcast sidelink transmission(s) in the reference duration for the latest channel occupancy is available;
18
identifying whether the HARQ-ACK feedbacks corresponding to the PSSCHs for a groupcast SL transmission are available; in case that the first HARQ-ACK feedbacks corresponding to the PSSCHs for the groupcast SL transmission are available
when a ratio threshold for contention window adjustment is provided, identifying whether the HARQ-ACK feedback corresponding to the PSSCHs for the groupcast sidelink transmission(s) includes a ratio of ACK to be equal to or larger than the ratio threshold,
18
identifying whether a ratio a number of ACK in the HARQ-ACK feedbacks is larger than a threshold;
in case that the ratio is larger than the threshold
when the HARQ-ACK feedback corresponding to the PSSCHs for the groupcast sidelink transmission(s) includes a ratio of ACK to be equal to or larger than the ratio threshold, identifying the CW to the CW min for the every channel access priority class; and
18
setting the value of the contention window to the minimum value;
when the HARQ-ACK feedback corresponding to the PSSCHs for the groupcast sidelink transmission(s) includes a ratio of ACK to be smaller than the ratio threshold, increasing the CW to the next higher allowed value for the every channel access priority class.
18
in case that the ratio is less than the threshold; increasing the value of the contention window to a next higher value;
13
when the ratio threshold for contention window adjustment is not provided,
identifying whether the HARQ-ACK feedback corresponding to the PSSCHs for the groupcast sidelink
transmission(s) includes at least the ACK;
when the HARQ-ACK feedback corresponding to the PSSCHs for the groupcast sidelink transmission(s) includes at least the ACK, identifying the CW to the CW min for the every channel access priority class; and
when the HARQ-ACK feedback corresponding to the PSSCHs for the groupcast sidelink transmission(s) does not include at least the ACK, increasing the CW to the next higher allowed value for the every channel access priority class.
14 (13)
maintaining a value of the CW which is identified to the CWmin or increased to the next higher allowed value, for the every channel access priority class.
23 (18)
wherein the value of the contention window is adjusted or maintained based on the HARQ-ACK feedbacks.
15 (13)
identifying a HARQ feedback corresponding to PSSCHs in the reference duration for the
latest channel occupancy is not available
18
in case that the HARQ-ACK feedbacks corresponding to the PSSCHs are not available,
maintaining a value of the CW which is identified to the CW min, for the every channel access priority class.
maintaining the value of the contention window which is set to the minimum value.
Regarding Claim 11 of the Present Application, the combination of Claims 22 and 32 of the Reference Application, whereby Claim 22 is dependent from Claim 21 that further depends from Claim 18, and Claim 32 depends from Claim 18, requires the same limitations as Claim 11 of the Present Application, as shown in the table above except that:
the method comprises a first UE transmitting to a second UE;
the priority limitation required by the Reference Application does not specifically apply to “every channel access priority class” as required by the Present Application.
However, Hwang discloses in Figs. 8-9 and 15 a first and a second UE each of them capable of transmitting PSSCH and HARQ-ACK feedback (PSFCH). Hwang further discloses that “a priority” in deciding the next contention widow (CW) size is a “channel access priority class” – See Table 11, and that depending on the SL HARQ-ACK feedback identified, “CW p may be reset to the respective minimum value for all or each priority class, otherwise CW _p may be incremented to the respectively” – See [¶0239] or “CW _p may be maintained for all or each priority class” – See [¶0237]. In addition, Hwang specifically defines the reference duration independent of the groupcast or unicast property of the SL transmission (“reference duration may be an interval from the starting time point of channel occupancy for a COT occupied by a UE (for sidelink communications) . . . to the end time point of the first slot in which an actual specific sidelink transmission is performed for all allocated resources for sidelink transmissions” – See [¶0246] whereby “the specific sidelink transmission in the above may be a PSCCH/PSSCH transmission for unicast and/or groupcast and/or PSCCH/PSSCH with SL HARQ ACK feedback enabled” – See [¶0265]).
Note: although the limitations “includes only ACK” and “at least one PSSCH with the at least one HARQ-ACK feedback including 'ACK'/'NACK' is transmitted” are not identically required in the corresponding claims from the Reference Application, Claim 18 requires a case “that PSSCHs including the first PSSCH are associated with the first HARQ-ACK feedbacks from UEs,” i.e., “HARQ-ACK feedback including 'ACK'/'NACK' is transmitted” as required by the Present Application. Hwang further discloses discloses the “includes only ACK” limitation (“UE does not detect a PSFCH in SL HARQ-ACK feedback Option 1 (NACKONLY) method” – See [¶0239] whereby no NACK is received means implicitly “ACK only”).
Because a person of ordinary skills in the art would combine Wang with the Reference Application at least motivated by the need to apply the standard specification for the CW and also apply the reference duration independent of the cast-type of UE transmission(s), Claim 11 is provisionally obvious over the combination of Claims 22 and 32 of the Reference Application further in view of Hwang.
Regarding Claim 12, dependent from Claim 11 of the Present Application, each additional limitation of Claim 12 is also required by Claim 18 of the Reference Application, as shown in the table above. Claim 11 is provisionally obvious over the combination of Claims 22 and 32 of the Reference Application further in view of Hwang.
Regarding Claim 13, dependent from Claim 12 of the Present Application, the Reference Application does not specifically require a case when the ratio threshold for contention window adjustment is not provided for the groupcast SL transmission but the transmission is performed with HARQ-ACK feedback enabled. However, Hwang provides for such a case (“if there is a PSSCH transmission for groupcast HARQ-ACK feedback option 1 (NACK-ONLY) within the reference duration, the contention window size may be changed based on NACK, otherwise the contention window size may be changed based on ACK” – See [¶0242] i.e., the same logic applies as when only HARQ-ACK feedback of at least one ACK is received – See, e.g., [¶0239]). Therefore, Claim 13 is provisionally obvious over the combination of Claims 22 and 32 of the Reference Application further in view of Hwang.
Regarding Claims 14-15 of the Present Application, their required limitations are already recited by the language in Claims 23 and 18 of the Reference Application as shown in the table above. Therefore, each of the Claims 14-15 is provisionally obvious over the combination of Claims 22-23 and 32 of the Reference Application further in view of Hwang.
Regarding Claims 1-5 of the Present Application, reciting a UE performing the method recited in Claims 11-15, respectively, each claim is provisionally obvious over the combination of Claims 29-30 and 33 of the Reference Application further in view of Hwang.
In sum, Claims 1-5 and 11-15 of the Present Application are provisionally rejected for non-statutory double patenting as obvious over Claims 29-30 and 33, and 22-23 and 32, respectively, of the Reference Application, and further in view of Hwang.
Claim Objections
Amended Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: " because a slot, as a unit of time, has only one end. Similarly, “a beginning of the latest channel occupancy” should be “the beginning of the latest channel occupancy.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 3, 12, 13 and their dependent claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification to the term “a ratio of ACK” in Amended Claims 2 and 12, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear. The term “a ratio of ACK” is not defined by the claim, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining a formula, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, the Specification states: “if the at least one HARQ-ACK feedback correspond to a groupcast PSSCH (e.g., with HARQ-ACK feedback including ACK or NACK), and the HARQ-ACK feedback corresponding to the groupcast PSSCH includes a ratio of ACK to be at least above a threshold” – See [¶0098] without disclosing how the ratio of ACK is calculated, e.g., whether the ratio is obtained by dividing the number of ACKs and the number of NACKs in a reference duration, or if the ratio is the number of ACKs received in the reference duration divided by the total number of transmissions using HARQ-ACK feedback, e.g., the number of TBs covered by HARQ processes in the reference duration, or per maximum number of HARQ processes used. In addition, Claims 2 and 12 require PSSCHs for groupcast sidelink transmission(s) whereby the source of these transmissions are multiple other SL UEs each of them using HARQ-ACK feedback; then it is very unclear how to calculate “a ratio of ACK”: per transmitting UE or for all transmitting UEs at once.
For examination purpose the “ratio of ACK” would be considered the number of ACKs within the reference duration measured against a threshold that can be absolute (e.g., 0 to maximum number of HARQ processes) or relative (e.g., a % of all HARQ-ACK feedbacks within the reference duration) in light of prior art, e.g., Ganesan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0406982 defines “ratio of ACK” as “at least 10% of HARQ-ACK feedbacks is 'ACK'” – See [¶0136], i.e., out of the total number of feedbacks received, at least 10% are ACKs therefore, a person of ordinary skills in the art understands that a “ratio of ACK” is calculated by dividing the number of feedbacks that are ACK by the total number of feedbacks received; see also Wang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0314842 (hereinafter Wang) at [¶0127] (defining the ratio as “the number of ACKs within a reference duration, and divide it by the number of relevant resources or channels”).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, dependent from Claims 2 and 12, respectively, they recite the limitation "the ACK" in the singular. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claims they depend from do not recite “an ACK” but rather “a ratio of ACK” discussed supra. Claim language may not be "ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention." In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, assuming that “a ratio of ACK” in Claims 2 and 12 is a “ratio of ACKs” calculated by methods ascertainable by a person of ordinary skills in the art, it is unclear which ACK is required in Claims 3 and 13.
Therefore, Claims 2-3, 12-13 and their dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for indefiniteness.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 11-16, and 18, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hwang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0247883 (hereinafter Hwang).
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Hwang teaches in Fig. 20 a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system shown in Fig. 1, the UE comprising: a transceiver; and a processor coupled with the transceiver (“wireless device 100 may include one or
more processors 102 and one or more memories 104 and additionally further include one or more transceivers 106 and/or one or more antennas 108” whereby “The processor(s) 102 may
control the memory(s) 104 and/or the transceiver(s) 106 and may be configured to implement the descriptions, functions, procedures, proposals, methods, and/or operational flowcharts disclosed” – See [¶0352]), the processor configured to:
identify whether at least one hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback is transmitted (“Referring to (a) or (b) of FIG. 8, in step S830, the first UE may receive the PSFCH. For example, the first UE and the second UE may determine a PSFCH resource, and the second UE may transmit HARQ feedback to the first UE using the PSFCH resource” – See [¶0126] whereby “[a] UE may be instructed by SCI format that schedules a reception of PSSCH on one or more subchannels from NPSSCHsubch to transmit a PSFCH that includes HARQ-ACK
information in response to the reception of a PSSCH. AUE provides HARQ-ACK information including ACK or NACK, or NACK only” – See [¶0129] and “transmits the PSFCH in a first slot, wherein the first slot is the slot including a PSFCH resource and after the minimum number
of slots provided by sl-MinTimeGapPSFCH-r16 of the resource pool after the last slot of the PSSCH reception” – See [¶0130]);
after identification that the at least one HARQ feedback is transmitted (e.g., “a UE
has an SL HARQ-ACK feedback for PSCCH/PSSCH with an SL HARQ-ACK feedback enabled within the reference duration where the UE has transmitted” – See [¶0241]),
identify a contention window size (CW) associated with channel access priority class to a minimum value (CW min) for every channel access priority class (“CW_p may be reset to the respective minimum value for all or each priority class” – See [¶0239] whereby “Table 11 shows that mp, a minimum CW, a maximum CW, a maximum channel occupancy time (MCOT), and an allowed CW size, which are applied to the CAP, vary depending on channel access priority classes” – See [¶0207] and Table 11);
identify a HARQ feedback corresponding to physical sidelink shared channels
(PSSCHs) for unicast sidelink transmission(s) in a reference duration for which a latest channel
occupancy is available (“when a UE has occupied a channel via a type 1 SL channel access,” is “ready-to-transmit sidelink transmission and, . . ., perform[ed] the sidelink transmission” – See [¶0231] e.g., “FIG. 9(b) shows unicast type-SL communication” – See [¶0139], then “since the last update of the size CW_p of the contention window for priority class p, if [the] UE has an SL HARQ-ACK feedback for PSCCH/PSSCH with an SL HARQ-ACK feedback enabled within the reference duration where the UE has transmitted” – See[¶0239]);
when the HARQ feedback corresponding to the PSSCHs for the unicast sidelink
transmission(s) includes only ACK, identify the CW to the CWmin for the every channel access
priority class (“if at least one SL HARQ-ACK is determined to be ACK, CW p may be reset
to the respective minimum value for all or each priority class” whereby “a case where the SL HARQ-ACK is determined to be ACK may include a case where a UE does not detect a
PSFCH in SL HARQ-ACK feedback Option 1 (NACK ONLY method)” – See id., i.e., transmissions in the reference duration are all ACK-ed); and
when the HARQ feedback corresponding to the PSSCHs for the unicast sidelink
transmission(s) does not include only ACK, increase the CW to a next higher allowed value for
the every channel access priority class (“otherwise CW _p may be incremented to the respective
next allowed value for all or each priority class” – See id.),
wherein the reference duration for the latest channel occupancy is a duration starting from [[a]]the beginning of the latest channel occupancy until [[an]]the end of a first slot where at least one PSSCH with the at least one HARQ-ACK feedback including 'ACK'/'NACK' is transmitted (“The HARQ-ACK feedback, reference duration” wherein “HARQ-ACK feedback(s) corresponding to PUSCH(s) in the reference duration for the latest UL channel occupancy for which HARQ-ACK feedback is available” and “at least one HARQ-ACK feedback is 'ACK' for PUSCH(s) with transport block (TB) based feedback” is defined as “[t]he reference duration corresponding to a channel occupancy initiated by the UE including transmission of PUSCH(s) is defined in this clause as a duration starting from the beginning of the channel occupancy until the end of the first slot where at least one PUSCH is transmitted over all the resources allocated for the PUSCH” – See TABLE 15 wherein “a type 1 SL channel access is performed in the same manner as a type 1 DL and/or UL channel access,” i.e., each PUSCH could be a PSSCH – See [¶0229]; “a reference duration may be an interval from the starting time point of channel occupancy for a COT occupied by a UE (for sidelink communications) . . . to the end time point of the first slot in which an actual specific sidelink transmission is performed for all allocated resources for sidelink transmissions” – See [¶0264]).
Therefore, Amended Claim 1 is anticipated by Hwang.
Regarding Claim 2, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Hwang further teaches the UE of Claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
identify a HARQ feedback corresponding to PSSCHs for groupcast sidelink transmission(s) in the reference duration for the latest channel occupancy is available (e.g., “FIG. 9(c) shows groupcast-type SL communication” – See [¶0139] and “if there is a PSSCH transmission for groupcast HARQ-ACK feedback . . . within the reference duration” – See [¶0242] then each “operation of adjusting the size of the contention window for a sidelink may be performed respectively per unicast session (group) and/or per cast type and/or per transmission priority value and/or per SL transmission with SL HARQ-ACK feedback enabled/disabled and/or per SL HARQ-ACK feedback option” – See [¶0267] as follows);
when a ratio threshold for contention window adjustment is provided (“if the ratio of SL HARQ-ACKs determined to be [ACK/NACK/]DRX is equal to or exceeds a certain threshold value” – See [¶0241] “the contention window size may be changed based on ACK” – See id.),
identify whether the HARQ-ACK feedback corresponding to the PSSCHs for the groupcast sidelink transmission(s) includes a ratio of ACK1 to be equal to or larger than the ratio threshold (“For example, the threshold value for the []ACK . . .may be (pre-)configured, or may be pre-defined as 90%, 80%, etc.” – See id.),
when the HARQ-ACK feedback corresponding to the PSSCHs for the groupcast sidelink transmission(s) includes a ratio of ACK to be equal to or larger than the ratio threshold, identify the CW to the CW min for the every channel access priority class (“otherwise CW_p may be reset to the respective minimum value for all or each priority class” – See [¶0241] and infra); and
when the HARQ-ACK feedback corresponding to the PSSCHs for the groupcast sidelink transmission(s) includes a ratio of ACK to be smaller than the ratio threshold, increase the CW to the next higher allowed value for the every channel access priority class (“if the ratio of SL HARQ-ACKs determined to be NACK is equal to or exceeds a certain threshold value,” i.e., the ratio of ACKs is smaller than the ratio threshold, “CW_p for all or each priority class may be increased to the respective next allowed value” – See id.).
Therefore, Claim 2 is anticipated by Hwang.
Regarding Claim 3, dependent from Claim 2, Hwang further teaches the UE of Claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to:
when the ratio threshold for contention window adjustment is not provided, identify whether HARQ-ACK feedback corresponding to the PSSCHs for the groupcast sidelink transmission(s) includes at least [[the]] one ACK; when the HARQ-ACK feedback corresponding to the PSSCHs for the groupcast sidelink transmission(s) includes at least the ACK, identify the CW to the CWmin for the every channel access priority class (“where the UE has transmitted, if at least one SL HARQ-ACK is determined to be ACK, CW_p may be reset to the respective minimum value for all or each priority class” – See [¶0239] whereby the UE has transmitted groupcast-type SL communication as shown in Fig. 9(c) and no threshold is required, e.g., when only “SCI(s) for the source ID and/or destination ID and/or HARQ process number corresponding to the SL HARQ-ACK feedback(s) and/or PSFCH(s) within the reference duration where a UE has transmitted, have been received and detected” – See [¶0259]); and
when the HARQ-ACK feedback corresponding to the PSSCHs for the groupcast sidelink transmission(s) does not include at least [[the]]one ACK, increase the CW to the next higher allowed value for the every channel access priority class (“if at least one SL HARQ-ACK is determined to be ACK” is not fulfilled, “CW_p may be incremented to the respective next allowed value for all or each priority class” – See [¶0239]).
Therefore, Claim 3 is anticipated by Hwang.
Regarding Claim 4, dependent from Claim 3, Hwang further teaches the UE of Claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to:
maintain a value of the CW which is identified to the CWmin or increased to the next higher allowed value (e.g., adjusted as in Regarding Claim 3 supra), for the every channel access priority class (“if a UE does not expect to receive SL HARQ-ACK feedback after the last update of the size of the contention window CW_p for priority class p . . . within the reference duration corresponding to the earliest SL channel occupancy after the last update of CW_p, the UE may maintain the value of CW_p for all or each priority class regardless of whether there are retransmissions or not for the same TB” – See [¶0236]).
Therefore, Claim 4 is anticipated by Hwang.
Regarding Claim 5, dependent from Claim 3, Hwang further teaches the UE of Claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to:
identify that HARQ feedback corresponding to PSSCHs in the reference duration for the latest channel occupancy is not available (“if a UE does not expect to receive an SL HARQ-ACK feedback after the last update of the contention window size CW_p for priority class p” – See [¶0237]);
maintain a value of the CW which is identified to the CWmin, for the every channel access priority class (“CW_p may be maintained for all or each priority class” – See id., whereby CW_p may be Cmin when “the initial value of the contention window size CW _p for all priority classes may be set to a pre-defined CW_min,p value” – See [¶0235]).
Therefore, Claim 5 is anticipated by Hwang.
Regarding Claim 8, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Hwang further teaches the UE of Claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to when the at least one HARQ feedback is not transmitted, identify the CW to a latest CW (“if a UE does not expect to receive SL HARQ-ACK feedback after the last update of the size of the contention window CW_p for priority class p . . . the UE may maintain the value of CW _p for all or each priority class regardless of whether there are retransmissions or not for the same TB” – See [¶0236]; see also Table 15 at step 2. indicating that “if the UE transmission after procedure described in clause 4.2.1.1 does not include a retransmission or is transmitted within a duration Tw from the end of the reference duration corresponding to the earliest UL channel occupancy after the last update of CWp, go to step 5” whereby, at step 5, “For every priority class p ϵ {1,2,3,4}, maintain CWP as it is,” referencing §4.2.1.1, 3GPP TS 37.213 V17.1.0 (2022-03) “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Physical layer procedures for shared spectrum channel access (Release 17)” (hereinafter 3GPP 37.213)).
Therefore, Claim 8 is anticipated by Hwang.
Regarding Amended Claims 11-16 and 18, they merely recite the steps performed by the UE as disclosed by Amended Claims 1-6 and 8, respectively, with no other limitations. Because each of the Claims 1-6 and 8, as amended, is anticipated by Hwang, Amended Claims 11-16 and 18 are also anticipated by Hwang.
In sum, Claims 1-6, 8, 11-16, and 18, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Hwang.
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 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.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang as applied to Amended Claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Wang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0314842 (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding Claim 7, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Hwang teaches the UE of Claim 1, wherein, “CWP may be increased to the next higher allowed value” – See [¶0210] and Table 11 wherein the maximum COT values are shown. However, Hwang does not explicitly teach when the CW achieves a maximum value (CW max), the next higher allowed value is the CWmax.
Wang, like Hwang, teaches “a method for communications . . . compris[ing] determining at a first terminal device, a value of a contention window based on at least one factor related to sidelink” – See [¶0006] and Fig. 3, wherein “the factor may be evaluated or measured within a reference duration. The reference duration is a timing window which may be configured, preconfigured or defined accordingly” – See [¶0055] and “the CW may be defined per priority” – See [¶0056] and Table 1. Wang further teaches that “[i]t will be understood that the factor satisfies a threshold means one of the following: the evaluation or measurement of the factor exceeds the related threshold (for example, the evaluation or measurement of the factor may be equal to or higher than the related threshold . . . ); or the evaluation or measurement of the factor is below the related threshold (for example, . . . the evaluation or measurement of the factor may be less than the related threshold).” – See [¶¶0065-67] and “the factor may comprises at least one of the following: a sidelink Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) feedback detected by the first terminal device” – See [¶¶0068-69] whereby “[u]sing sidelink HARQ feedback as the factor, the first terminal device 110 may determine and adjust CW flexibly and timely because it reflects the channel condition directly” – See [¶0080]. In Wang, “the first terminal device 110 may determine the factor depending on at least one of the following: . . . the number of positive acknowledges (ACKs) detected by the first terminal device 110, . . . the number of negative acknowledges (NACKs) detected by the first terminal device 110” – See [¶¶0081-83] whereby “[f]or sidelink groupcast communication in unlicensed band, the Rx terminal devices can report ACK or NACK feedback to the Tx terminal device” and “the Tx terminal device can detect ACK or NACK reported by more than one Rx terminal devices and further determine CW for channel access procedure according to the number of ACK received” – See [¶0116]. Wang defines a threshold as absolute: “[t]he threshold for the number of ACKs may be pre-configured or defined as M” – See [¶0117] or a ratio: “the number of ACKs within a reference duration, and divide it by the number of relevant resources or channels” – See [¶0127].
Wang teaches when the CW achieves a maximum value (CW max), the next higher allowed value is the CWmax (“if CWP =CW max,p the next higher allowed value for adjusting CWP is CW max,p” – See [¶0057] and further teaches that “If CWP =CWmax,p is consecutively used K times, CWP is reset to CWmin,p for priority p, where K is configured or preconfigured per priority p” – See id.).
Thus, Hwang and Wang each teaches CW values, including minimum and maximum, corresponding to different priority classes, and adjustment of the CW size based on a threshold associated with HARQ-ACK feedback in unicast and groupcast sidelink transmissions. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the teaching of Wang regarding maintaining the CWp at Cmax could be combined with the steps performed by the UE in Hwang for a more efficient adjustment of CW, because both references provide evaluations that serve the purpose of providing an indication of how to adjust a CW in sidelink communications with HARQ-ACK feedback. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the combination through techniques known in the art. Finally, the combination achieves the predictable result of maintaining CW to a maximum for a longer period of time while expanding CW adjustments to be dependent from multiple factors, as taught in Wang.
Therefore, Claim 7 is obvious over Hwang in view of Wang.
Regarding Claim 17, dependent from Amended Claim 11, anticipated by Hwang, it merely recites the same limitations as Claim 7 only applied to the method executed by the UE as recited by Amended Claim 11. Because Claim 7 is obvious over Hwang in view of Wang and Claim 11 is anticipated by Hwang, Claim 17 is obvious over Hwang in view of Wang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hwang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0344565 as referenced in the previous Office Action;
Ding et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0421308 discloses adjusting, by the first device, a contention window corresponding to each priority of at least one priority, based on feedback information for a first channel transmitted within a reference time unit or a reference time period;
Shimezawa et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0151089 discloses sidelink communication with a reception device using a shared spectrum;
Wildschek et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0159722 discloses method and apparatus for applying a contention window and determine a second CW size to be used for the contention window based on acknowledgement feedbacks and non-acknowledgement feedbacks for a plurality of transmissions preceding the target transmission;
Huang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0344563 discloses 3GPP NPL and channel access procedures including for sidelink transmissions with minimum and maximum values for a contention window (CW) which is updated based on detected PSCCH/PSSCH/PSFCH at the UE;
Yu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0047614 discloses methods and apparatus/system for adjustment of contention window size for communication in an unlicensed band based on HARQ feedback;
El Hamss et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0131648 discloses methods and apparatus/system for adjusting a contention window size in unlicensed spectrum by determining a weighting coefficient for each of the determined HARQ statuses and calculating, based on the determined HARQ statuses and weighting coefficients, a weighted average of the HARQ statuses for the transmitted transport blocks;
Ganesan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0406982 discloses methods and apparatus/system for sidelink groupcast communications wherein a UE determines a contention window size adjustment for a groupcast PSSCH based on the transmitted groupcast HARQ feedback associated with PSSCH within a reference duration;
Ganesan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0164835 discloses methods and apparatus/system for adjusting a contention window size;
Noh et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0154732 discloses methods and apparatus/system for determining a contention window size on the basis of HARQ-ACK values;
Liu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0217771 discloses a UE and method of determining an adjusted contention window size that increases channel access time fairness between a plurality of different groups of UEs;
Talarico et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0109532 discloses methods and apparatus/system for determining a contention window size (CWS) of an uplink/downlink (UL/DL) communication channel in a new radio unlicensed (NR-U) spectrum;
Wu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0276490 discloses methods and apparatus/system for HARQ feedback transmission in sidelink communications in unlicensed spectrum;
Bhattad et al., WIPO Patent Application Publication No. WO 2021/021461 discloses techniques for a node to adjust or update its CW;
Bhattad et al., WIPO Patent Application Publication No. WO 2021/021335 discloses techniques for defining a reference duration and one or more reference transmissions that are utilized for contention window update using ACK/NACK the determined PDSCH in the COT;
Xu et al., WIPO Patent Application Publication No. WO 2021/179114 discloses techniques for determining a reference duration for CW size adjustment;
3GPP TS 37.213 V17.1.0 (2022-03), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Physical layer procedures for shared spectrum channel access (Release 17)”;
3GPP TR 37.985 V17.1.1 (2022-03), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Overall description of Radio Access Network (RAN) aspects for Vehicle-to-everything (V2X) based on LTE and NR (Release 17)”;
3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #109-e, R1-2203693, Agenda item: 9.4.1.2, Title: “Channel Access of Sidelink on Unlicensed Spectrum”, Source: NEC, published April 29, 2022;
Final Report of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #108-e v1.0.0 (Online meeting, 21st February – 03rd March 2022), Tdocs contributions referenced in § 8.2.6 (channel access mechanism) and in § 7.2.4 (UE procedure for receiving HARQ-ACK on sidelink) and published before April 14, 2022.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCIA GHEORGHE GRADINARIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Joseph AVELLINO can be reached at (571)272-3905. 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.
/L.G.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
1 Here, “a ratio of ACK” is interpreted as the number of ACKs divided by the total number of HARQ-ACK feedbacks in the reference duration.
Prosecution Insights