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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application is a Divisional of 17151105 (filed 01/15/2021, now U.S. Patent # 11924873).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11-13, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganesan et al. (US 20230164835 A1, hereinafter Ganesan), in view of PANTELEEV et al. (US 20220109546 A1, hereinafter PANTELEEV).
Regarding claim 1,
Ganesan teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a transmitting device, comprising: one or more memories storing processor executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories (Ganesan, see at least fig. 5-6, e.g. various functional components)
and operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to (Ganesan, in general, see fig. 7 and corresponding paragraphs; see also sections related to “sidelink transmissions” which corresponds to “directional transmission” of fig. 7):
perform a first transmission to one or more receiving devices, the first transmission comprising a sidelink transmission associated with a unicast transmission type (Ganesan, see at least para. 217 along with para. 173 and 115, “...The method 700 includes transmitting 710 a directional transmission using a first transmit beam, the first transmit beam selected from a plurality of transmit beams. The method 700 includes determining 715 whether the directional transmission was successfully received by a recipient...”, note that para. 173 discloses “...the directional transmission contains a data transmission on a sidelink channel (e.g., PSSCH) where common HARQ-NACK feedback resources are configured...”);
determine a feedback response for the first transmission based on monitoring for a negative-acknowledgement feedback message from the one or more receiving devices in response to the first transmission (Ganesan, see at least para. 217 along with para. 173 and 115, “...The method 700 includes determining 715 whether the directional transmission was successfully received by a recipient...”, note that para. 115 discloses “...In some embodiments, the receiving sidelink UEs 205 (“RX UEs”) are configured with common NACK-only resources, referred to as (sidelink) HARQ Option 1. In other embodiments, the RX UEs are configured with dedicated ACK/NACK resources, referred to as (sidelink) HARQ Option 2...”);
reset a contention window size for performing one or more subsequent transmissions based at least in part on reception of the negative-acknowledgement feedback message (Ganesan, see at least para. 217-218 along with para. 117, “...In one embodiment, updating 720 the first CWS includes adjusting a first CWS to a next allowed value in response to determining that the directional transmission was not successfully received by the recipient...”, note that para. 117 discloses “...if NACK is detected corresponding to PSSCH(s) in the reference duration, the TX UE increases the CWS for the Tx beam/panel (or spatial filter, or spatial setting, or spatial relation, or TCI state of PSSCH) to the next allowed value...”);
and
perform the one or more subsequent transmissions in accordance with a LBT procedure using the contention window size, the one or more subsequent transmissions comprising subsequent sidelink transmissions (Ganesan, see at least para. 218 along with para. 173, “...The method 700 includes performing 725 a subsequent LBT procedure using the updated first CWS prior to a subsequent directional transmission...”).
Ganesan does not specifically teach a clear channel assessment procedure.
PANTELEEV teaches a clear channel assessment procedure (PANTELEEV, see at least para. 115, “...LBT is a mechanism whereby equipment (for example, UEs 201, 202, RAN nodes 211, 212, etc.) senses a medium (for example, a channel or carrier frequency) and transmits when the medium is sensed to be idle (or when a specific channel in the medium is sensed to be unoccupied). The medium sensing operation may include CCA, which utilizes at least ED to determine the presence or absence of other signals on a channel in order to determine if a channel is occupied or clear...”, in other words, LBT is for clear channel sensing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate PANTELEEV into Ganesan to keep flexibility in resource allocation so that the resources are selected according to common channel access procedures and avoiding any semi-statically or dynamically reserved/prohibited resources (see para. 48-49).
Regarding claim 3, Ganesan in view of PANTELEEV teaches claim 1.
Ganesan further teaches wherein the contention window size is reset to a minimum value of the contention window size. (Ganesan, see at least para. 178, note that several possible ways to set it to minimum value are disclosed)
Regarding claim 4, Ganesan in view of PANTELEEV teaches claim 1.
Ganesan further teaches wherein the first transmission comprises physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) information..., and wherein the negative-acknowledgement feedback message indicates... unsuccessful decoding of the PSSCH information (Ganesan, see at least para. 173, “...the directional transmission contains a data transmission on a sidelink channel (e.g., PSSCH) where common HARQ-NACK feedback resources are configured (i.e., PSFCH Option 1). In such embodiments, the absence of negative HARQ feedback (i.e., absence of HARQ-NACK) corresponding to the directional transmission indicates that the directional transmission was successfully received by the recipient...”).
Ganesan does not specifically teach the first transmission comprises physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) information and physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) information, and wherein the negative-acknowledgement feedback message indicates successful decoding of the PSCCH information.
PANTELEEV teaches the first transmission comprises physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) information and physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) information (PANTELEEV, see at least fig. 1 and para. 41, “...For example, slots 140
have been designated for PSCCH/PSSCH by UE-1. Meanwhile, slots 150, 160 and
170 have all been designated by UE-2 for PSCCH/PSSCH...”), and wherein the negative-acknowledgement feedback message indicates successful decoding of the PSCCH information (PANTELEEV, see at least para. 61 along with para. 89, “...feedback resource is conveyed in SCI scheduling PSSCH...” and “...PSCCH carrying SCI...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate PANTELEEV into Ganesan to keep flexibility in resource allocation so that the resources are selected according to common channel access procedures and avoiding any semi-statically or dynamically reserved/prohibited resources (see para. 48-49).
Regarding claim 7, Ganesan in view of PANTELEEV teaches claim 1.
Ganesan further teaches wherein, to perform the first transmission, the one or more processors are operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to: perform the first transmission during a reference slot, wherein selecting the contention window size is based at least in part on the first transmission being performed during the reference slot. (Ganesan, see at least para. 217 in view of para. 71, “...The method 700 begins and initiates 705 a first channel occupancy using at least one transmit beam in response to a successful Listen-Before-Talk (“LBT”) procedure...”, note that para. 71 discloses “...Upon successful LBT, the device initiates channel occupancy and is permitted to access the channel for a specific duration, referred to as Channel Occupancy Time (“COT”)...”)
Regarding claim 8, Ganesan in view of PANTELEEV teaches claim 7.
Ganesan further teaches wherein the reference slot is associated with a channel occupancy time of the transmitting device. (Ganesan, see at least para. 217 in view of para. 71, “...The method 700 begins and initiates 705 a first channel occupancy using at least one transmit beam in response to a successful Listen-Before-Talk (“LBT”) procedure...”, note that para. 71 discloses “...Upon successful LBT, the device initiates channel occupancy and is permitted to access the channel for a specific duration, referred to as Channel Occupancy Time (“COT”)...”)
Regarding claim 9, Ganesan in view of PANTELEEV teaches claim 1.
Ganesan further teaches the first transmission comprises physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) information, and wherein the feedback response is based at least in part on the PSSCH information. (Ganesan, see at least para. 173, “...the directional transmission contains a data transmission on a sidelink channel (e.g., PSSCH) where common HARQ-NACK feedback resources are configured (i.e., PSFCH Option 1). In such embodiments, the absence of negative HARQ feedback (i.e., absence of HARQ-NACK) corresponding to the directional transmission indicates that the directional transmission was successfully received by the recipient...”).
Ganesan does not specifically teach the first transmission comprises... physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) information.
PANTELEEV teaches the first transmission comprises... physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) information (PANTELEEV, see at least fig. 1 and para. 41, “...For example, slots 140 have been designated for PSCCH/PSSCH by UE-1. Meanwhile, slots 150, 160 and 170 have all been designated by UE-2 for PSCCH/PSSCH...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate PANTELEEV into Ganesan to keep flexibility in resource allocation so that the resources are selected according to common channel access procedures and avoiding any semi-statically or dynamically reserved/prohibited resources (see para. 48-49).
Regarding claim 11, Ganesan in view of PANTELEEV teaches claim 1.
Ganesan further teaches wherein the contention window size is reset based at least on part on reception of the negative-acknowledgement feedback message and at least one acknowledgement feedback message. (Ganesan, see at least para. 116-117, note that several possible ways to set CWS)
Regarding claim 12, Ganesan in view of PANTELEEV teaches claim 1.
Ganesan does not specifically teach wherein the first transmission comprises physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) information and physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) information, and wherein no feedback messages being received indicates unsuccessful decoding of the PSCCH information and the PSSCH information.
PANTELEEV teaches wherein the first transmission comprises physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) information and physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) information, and wherein no feedback messages being received indicates unsuccessful decoding of the PSCCH information and the PSSCH information (PANTELEEV, see at least para. 77 along with para. 41, “...two different resources may be used for ACK and NACK respectively, especially when PSFCH carrying SFCI has PSCCH structure. In that case, if NACK is detected or if no ACK is detected, the transmitter may decide to schedule a retransmission...”, in other words, retransmission due to issues occur on receiving side (e.g. decoding side)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate PANTELEEV into Ganesan to keep flexibility in resource allocation so that the resources are selected according to common channel access procedures and avoiding any semi-statically or dynamically reserved/prohibited resources (see para. 48-49).
Regarding claims 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9, respectively, except each of these claims is in method claim format.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner provides response in following sections.
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant argues that (applicant’s emphasis included, if any):
“The Office Action alleges that Ganesan's adjustment of the contention window size is relevant to "reset a contention window size for performing one or more subsequent transmissions based at least in part on reception of the negative-acknowledgement feedback message." Office Action, p. 4 (citing Ganesan [0117], [0217], [0218]). However, Ganesan's disclosure of increasing the contention window size upon detection of a negative-acknowledgement does not teach or suggest "reset a contention window size for performing one or more subsequent transmissions based at least in part on reception of the negative-acknowledgement feedback message." To the contrary, Ganesan increases the contention window size "to the next allowed value" when "NACK is detected," which is not "reset[ting] a contention window size . . .based at least in part on reception of the negative-acknowledgement feedback message." Ganesan p[0117]. Indeed, in Ganesan, the contention window size is set to a minimum value only when "ACK is detected" or, for the common NACK-only configuration, when "no NACK is received," not upon "reception of the negative-acknowledgement feedback message." Ganesan [0116] (emphasis added). The portion of Ganesan cited by the Office Action for the subsequent transmissions similarly describes "adjusting a first CWS to a next allowed value in response to determining that the directional transmission was not successfully received by the recipient," which again does not teach or suggest "reset a contention window size . . .based at least in part on reception of the negative-acknowledgement feedback message." Ganesan [0218] (emphasis added). Thus, Ganesan does not teach or suggest "reset a contention window size for performing one or more subsequent transmissions based at least in part on reception of the negative- acknowledgement feedback message," as recited in independent claim 1.” (Remarks, page 7-8)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ganesan at least in para. 116 discloses PSFCH (known as physical sidelink feedback channel) is used for feeding back NACK(s) based on HARQ Option 1 and/or ACK(s)/NACK(s) based on HARQ Option 2. Hence NACK (or ACK/NACK) is sent/received to be detected. Ganesan further in para. 217-218 discloses, in part, “determining [in step] 715 whether the directional transmission was successfully received by a recipient. ... updating [in step] 720 the first CWS includes adjusting a first CWS to a next allowed value in response to determining that the directional transmission was not successfully received by the recipient. ... [and then] performing [in step] 725 a subsequent LBT procedure using the updated first CWS prior to a subsequent directional transmission” (emphasis added). Note that Ganesan in para. 224 discloses that “determining whether the directional transmission was successfully received by the recipient comprises receiving Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (“HARQ”) feedback corresponding to the directional transmission...”. Therefore, Ganesan, alone or combined, indeed teaches or suggests the argued features of “...reset a contention window size for performing one or more subsequent transmissions based at least in part on reception of the negative-acknowledgement feedback message," as recited in independent claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 13, the traversal grounds are same or similar as those presented in claim 1 above. Therefore, in view of the response above, examiner also respectfully disagrees and has maintained the rejection as presented.
Accordingly, all pending dependent claims of the independent claims 1, and 13, in view of the response above, the examiner has maintained the rejection as presented and believes all rejections are proper and should be sustained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights