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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 7/24/2026. The amendment has been entered and considered.
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) 1-5, 7-12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian et al. “Balasubramanian” US 2021/0105744 in view of Lunttila et al. “Lunttila” US 2025/0266933.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Balasubramanian teaches a method and first terminal in a communication system, the first terminal comprising a transceiver and controller (Figure 3) configured to:
transmit, to a second terminal, first sidelink (SL) control information scheduling SL data for the second terminal on a PSCCH wherein the first SL control information includes scheduling information for the SL data to be transmitted to the second terminal and an indicator indicating that HARQ feedback associated with the SL data from the second terminal is capable of being received on a PSFCH resource included in the COT of the first terminal (UE sends scheduling SCI to another UE which can be on the PSCCH; Paragraphs 57 and 71. The SCI sent can include SCI COT sharing information as well as PSFCH ACK/NACK (i.e. HARQ) feedback for sidelink; Paragraph 57. Further, the PSFCH is configured to be within a COT; Paragraph 99. As the COT information is being shared and then used, this is viewed as the information indicates the second terminal is capable of using the PSFCH. Further, step 912 of Figure 9 shows the PSFCH capability of second UE can change, thus this indication information is included with respect to the second terminals capabilities),
transmit, to the second terminal, the SL data on a physical SL shared channel (PSSCH) (data is sent on the sidelink on PSSCH. This information is transmit in the COT; Paragraphs 57, 71, 92, 99); and
receive, from the second terminal, hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback associated with the SL data on the PSFCH resource (HARQ is sent on PSFCH with respect to data communications; Paragraph 71. HARQ is sent on PSFCH between the UEs and is received; Paragraph 148. Any feedback being transmit/received would be associated with the data it is acknowledging (i.e. the SL data). As noted above, the PSFCH is configured to be within a COT; Paragraph 99. As the COT information is being shared and then used, this is viewed as the HARQ is included in the COT), and
wherein the HARQ feedback is transmitted using a channel access procedure corresponding to a second or third type (Paragraphs 33 and 34 discuss the application is related to channel access procedures. Further, the SL configuration information provides information for a UE to contend (i.e. channel access) for COTs (i.e. claimed type)); Paragraphs 71 and 92),
Wherein the second type of channel access procedure corresponds to a channel access procedure for a fixed period of time before a signal transmission and the third type corresponds to a signal transmission without performing the channel access procedure (Paragraphs 33 and 34 discuss the application is related to channel access procedures. Further, the SL configuration information provides information for a UE to contend (i.e. channel access) for COTs ); Paragraphs 71 and 92. The COT is viewed as a fixed period of time because the indication received states a time when the UE can contend for access which would be before a signal transmission. Paragraph 56 further shows LBT (i.e. channel access procedure) is performed prior to transmitting in the channel).
While Balasubramanian teaches SL resource configurations to indicate a time, periodicity and/or frequency where the UE can contend for COTs with respect to PSSCH, PSCCH, and PSFCH, Balasubramanian does not expressly disclose performing the transmitting/receiving PSSCH and PSFCH respectively in the COT of the first terminal. Lunttila teaches that sidelink UEs are communicating and PSSCH and PSFCH signaling are sent within the same COT; Paragraph 52. See Figure 5 which shows UE 110a communicating on the SL with UE 110b. the PSSCH and PSFCH are all sent within the same COT1. Thus one can see the transmission/reception of data/feedback is in the same COT of the first terminal as claimed.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Balasubramanian to include sending transmitting SL data and receiving SL feedback within the same COT of the first terminal as taught by Lunttila.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the first and second UEs can share the same COT as taught by Lunttila; Paragraph 52.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Balasubramanian teaches the SCI includes information on PSFCH resources (the SCI information includes information with respect to PSFCH resources; Paragraph 57, 92, 99).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Balasubramanian teaches the COT is associated with the PSSCH (the PSFCH is configured to be within the COT; Paragraph 99).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Balasubramanian teaches a method and a second terminal in a communication system, the second terminal comprising: a transceiver; a controller coupled with the transceiver and configured to:
receive, from a first terminal, first sidelink (SL) control information scheduling SL data on a PSCCH, wherein the first SL control information including scheduling information for the SL data to be received from the first terminal and an indicator indicating that a HARQ feedback associated with the SL data to the first terminal is capable of being transmitted on a physical SL feedback channel (PSFCH) resource is included in a channel occupancy time (COT) of the first terminal (UE sends scheduling SCI to another UE for the PSCCH; Paragraphs 57 and 71. The SCI sent can include SCI COT sharing information as well as PSFCH ACK/NACK (i.e. HARQ) feedback for sidelnk; Paragraph 57. Further, the PSFCH is configured to be within a COT; Paragraph 99. As the COT information is being shared and then used, this is viewed as the information indicates the second terminal is capable of using the PSFCH. Further, step 912 of Figure 9 shows the PSFCH capability of second UE can change, thus this indication information is included with respect to the second terminals capabilities),
receive, from the first terminal, the SL data on a physical SL shared channel (PSSCH) (data is sent on the sidelink on PSSCH; Paragraphs 57, 71, 92, 99),
identify hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback associated with the SL data (HARQ is sent on PSFCH with respect to data communications; Paragraph 71. HARQ is sent on PSFCH between the UEs; Paragraph 148. Thus one can see HARQ is identified (see also Figure 10)),
performing channel access for transmitting the HARQ feedback (Paragraphs 33 and 34 discuss the application is related to channel access procedures. Further, the SL configuration information provides information for a UE to contend (i.e. channel access) for COTs); Paragraphs 71 and 92),
transmit, to the first terminal, the HARQ feedback on the PSFCH resource (HARQ is sent on PSFCH with respect to data communications; Paragraph 71. HARQ is sent on PSFCH between the UEs and is received; Paragraph 148. Paragraphs 33 and 34 discuss the application is related to channel access procedures. Further, the SL configuration information provides information for a UE to contend (i.e. channel access) for COTs); Paragraphs 71 and 92),
wherein a type of the channel access procedure corresponds to a second type or third time wherein the second type of channel access procedure corresponds to a channel access procedure for a fixed period of time before a signal transmission and the third type corresponds to a signal transmission without performing the channel access procedure (Paragraphs 33 and 34 discuss the application is related to channel access procedures. Further, the SL configuration information provides information for a UE to contend (i.e. channel access) for COTs ); Paragraphs 71 and 92. The COT is viewed as a fixed period of time because the indication received states a time when the UE can contend for access which would be before a signal transmission. Paragraph 56 further shows LBT (i.e. channel access procedure) is performed prior to transmitting in the channel).
While Balasubramanian teaches SL resource configurations to indicate a time, periodicity and/or frequency where the UE can contend for COTs with respect to PSSCH, PSCCH, and PSFCH, Balasubramanian does not expressly disclose performing the transmitting/receiving PSSCH and PSFCH respectively in the COT of the first terminal. Lunttila teaches that sidelink UEs are communicating and PSSCH and PSFCH signaling are sent within the same COT; Paragraph 52. See Figure 5 which shows UE 110a communicating on the SL with UE 110b. the PSSCH and PSFCH are all sent within the same COT1. Thus one can see the transmission/reception of data/feedback is in the same COT of the first terminal as claimed.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Balasubramanian to include sending transmitting SL data and receiving SL feedback within the same COT of the first terminal as taught by Lunttila.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the first and second UEs can share the same COT as taught by Lunttila; Paragraph 52.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Balasubramanian teaches the SCI includes information on PSFCH resources (the SCI information includes information with respect to PSFCH resources; Paragraph 57, 92, 99).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Balasubramanian teaches the COT is associated with the PSSCH (the PSFCH is configured to be within the COT; Paragraph 99).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues the prior art does not teach transmitting a PSFCH in a COT of a terminal that transmits SL on an unlicensed band, in particular, the SCI has an indicator that PSFCH can be included in the COT for a PSSCH which includes the PSFCH corresponding to the PSSCH and a channel access procedure for the PSFCH is a second time (fixed period) or a third type (no channel access procedure). Applicant argues Balasubramanian teaches HARQ on data is possible in SL and that the SCI, COT sharing SCI, PSFCH ack/nack, etc. are in parallel relationship and separate information that can be transmit/received by the terminal during SL communications. Thus, Balasubramanian fails to teach an indicator indicates the PSFCH can be received in the COT for PSSCH being included in the SL SCI for scheduling data as claimed.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The communications in paragraph 57 are not necessarily parallel as argued. All of that information can be transmit during one SL communication (thus in one COT). Regarding the indication, Paragraphs 57 and 71 make it clear that the SCI includes information to enable the UE to contend for SL communications. This information includes PSSCH, PSCCH, and PSFCH. In particular, paragraph 71 states the scheduling SCI includes an indication of an LBT type and/or resource to be used by a receiving SL UE to transit a HARQ ACK/NACK. Thus this indication shows the capability to transmit/receive HARQ as claimed.
Regarding 912 of Figure 9, Applicant argues Balasubramanian does not teach the capability corresponds to using the COT to transmit/receive the PSFCH and the step of transmitting/receiving the capability is for establishing the connection and not for transmitting/receiving data as claimed.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regardless if the information in Figure 9 is for setting up a connection or an existing connection, this information would correspond to the data being transmit/received after a connection is established as well. Thus the capability information would correspond to the COT for transmitting/receiving PSFCH because the PSFCH capability is known and this capability would carry through the communications in the system.
Lastly, regarding the HARQ transmit with respect to a second or third type, Applicant argues Balasubramanian does not teach the claimed limitation because the present application discloses the signal is transmit during MCOT if an idle state is determined as well as information regarding initial contention windows and changing values of N with respect to MCOT. Applicant concludes the COT is different from the channel access procedure (or LBT) of Balasubramanian.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments are based on information that is not claimed. The COT, as claimed, is not a MCOT, nor does it have anything to do with idle states and changing values of N with respect to MCOT through an unlicensed band. The channel access procedure, as claimed, does not differentiate from the LBT of Balasubramanian and thus the argument is moot. The Examiner suggests defining the claim language to recite the information argued with respect to idle states, MCOT, etc as argued on page 15.
Regarding Luntilla, Applicant argues there is nothing in Lunttila to disclose transmitting SL data on a PSSCH in the COT of the first terminal and receiving HARQ on the PSFCH included in the COT.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner utilized Lunttila to show the UE’s are communicating SL information with respect to the same COT (see Figure 5). When this reference is combined with the teachings of Balasubramanian, one can see the COT sharing information would be with respect to the same COT for transmission/reception of the PSSCH/PSFCH (taught by Balasubramanian) as claimed.
In an effort to overcome the cited art of record, the Examiner suggests positively reciting the argued information from the specification on page 15. In particular, addition of an idle state, MCOT, and how this ties into the changing of a value N with respect to MCOT and the unlicensed band. As currently written, the COT is not defined to be any of these things.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights