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 .
This Office Action is in response to communications filed on 4/9/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
Rejection to claim 9 under 35 USC 112(b) made in the prior record Non-Final Rejection dated 10/10/2025 has been withdrawn based on amendments to claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 4/9/2026, with respect to rejection of claim 9 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive based on amendments to claim 9. The rejection of claim 9 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that claims 1-20 are traversed because the references cited in the Non-Final Rejection dated 10/10/2025 fail to disclose or render obvious all of the limitations in claims 1-20. Examiner respectfully disagrees noting that, per 35 U.S.C. 103, a patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained 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 (see §MPEP 2141).
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Wang fails to disclose “determine, based on one or more second consecutive time slots for one or more second sidelink transmissions in the resource pool being overlapped with the one or more first consecutive time slots in time domain, to skip a LBT based channel access procedure for the one or more second sidelink transmissions," as recited in applicant's claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees noting that fig 4 and [0131]-[0132] & [0184]-[0185] disclose that multiple UEs may use the medium/channel at the same time period (i.e. sidelink transmission from UE1 and UE2 overlap in time), and in this scenario (i.e. based on sidelink transmissions from UE1 and UE2 overlapping in time) UE2 determines to skip LBT prior to UE2’s sidelink transmission. A broadest reasonable interpretation of [0132] is that UE2’s determination to not perform LBT prior to UE2’s transmission is based on UE1’s transmission, which may be overlapping in time with UE2’s transmission per [0185], performing LBT prior to UE1’s transmission. [0051] of Lei then teaches that UE1’s and UE2’s transmissions may consist of multiple consecutive time slots without any transmission gap. Combining Wang with Lei would result in overlapping sidelink transmissions from UE 1 and UE2 of Wang, each sidelink transmission consisting of multiple consecutive time slots, and thus one or more time slots of UE2’s sidelink transmission (i.e. the second consecutive time slot transmission) would overlap with one or more time slots of UE1’s sidelink transmission (i.e. the first consecutive time slot transmission). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wang with Lei to disclose “determine, based on one or more second consecutive time slots for one or more second sidelink transmissions in the resource pool being overlapped with the one or more first consecutive time slots in time domain, to skip a LBT based channel access procedure for the one or more second sidelink transmissions," as recited in applicant's claim 1.
Applicant argues that Lei only addresses the consecutive-slot aspect for a single UE’s transmission and does not teach or suggest two sets of consecutive time slots that overlap in time, nor does Lei teach or suggest of overlapping sets of consecutive time slots serving as a basis for determining to skip an LBT-based channel access procedure, but instead Lei discourages a configuration in which a device "transmit[s], based on the determining and in the one or more second consecutive time slots, the one or more second sidelink transmissions," by explicitly warning that if UE #2 switches from Rx to Tx mode before UE #1 finishes its consecutive-slot transmissions, UE #2 will miss UE #1's transmissions, identifying this as a problem that causes loss of retransmission opportunities and data loss. Examiner notes that Lei is only relied on, in rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103, to teach of the consecutive time slot aspect of claim 1, which applicant acknowledges that Lei indeed teaches, and thus it is moot that other aspects of Lei fail to teach or teach away from the limitations that two sets of consecutive time slots that overlap in time, or that overlapping sets of consecutive time slots serving as a basis for determining to skip an LBT-based channel access procedure, as these limitations are disclosed by Wang.
Based on the above discussion, examiner maintains rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 based on Wang in view of Lei.
Regarding claims 9 & 17, applicant submits that these claims traverse the rejections of these claims under 35 USC 103 made in the Final Rejection dated 10/10/2025 due to similar arguments as made for claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees and, for the same reasons as discussed above, maintains rejections of claims 9 & 17 under 35 USC 103 based on Wang in view of Lei.
Regarding claims 2-8, 10-16 & 18-20, applicant submits that these claims traverse the rejections of these claims under 35 USC 103 made in the Final Rejection dated 10/10/2025 due to arguments made for claims 1, 9 & 17 and due to their dependency on claims 1, 9 or 17. Examiner respectfully disagrees and, for the same reasons as discussed above, maintains rejections of claims 9 & 17 under 35 USC 103.
Claim Interpretation
Several of the claims in the present application recite Markush groups in the format of “at least one of A or B” (see MPEP §2117). For the purpose of this review, the examiner is interpreting these Markush claims as a single element selection from a closed group of elements consisting of alternatives A or B.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-14 & 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2024/0349344)(herein after “Wang”) in view of Lei et al. (US 2025/0274911)(herein after “Lei”).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a first wireless device comprising: one or more processors ([0005] discloses a first node that may be a sidelink capable UE (herein after the “first UE”). [0031] discloses that the first UE may comprise at least one processor.); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors ([0031] discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. memory) that contains instructions that can be executed by the at least one processors.), cause the first wireless device to:
receive, from a second wireless device, one or more first sidelink transmissions in a resource pool (Fig 3 & [0127]-[0129] disclose a first UE 102 receiving from a second UE 101 a SL transmission within a COT. [0010] discloses that the COT may be based on a sidelink grant from a resource pool.);
determine, based on one or more second sidelink transmissions in the resource pool being overlapped in the time domain, to skip a listen-before-talk (LBT) based channel access procedure for the one or more second sidelink transmissions (Fig 3 & [0127]-[0129] discloses that first UE 102 determines to initiate a second SL transmission within the COT without performing LBT operation. [0184]-[0185] discloses that multiple UEs may use the medium/channel at the same time period (i.e. the first SL transmission from the second UE 101 may overlap in time with the second SL transmission from the first UE 102.); and
transmit, based on the determining, the one or more second sidelink transmissions (Fig 3 & [0127]-[0129] discloses that first UE 102 determines and transmits a second SL transmission within the COT.).
Wang fails to disclose wherein the one or more first sidelink transmissions are in one or more first consecutive time slots and the one or more second sidelink transmissions are in one or more second consecutive time slots.
However, Lei teaches wherein the one or more first sidelink transmissions are in one or more first consecutive time slots and the one or more second sidelink transmissions are in one or more second consecutive time slots ([0051] discloses that UE sidelink transmissions may be in multiple consecutive slots without any transmission gap.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first wireless device receive, from a second wireless device, one or more first sidelink transmissions in a resource pool; determine, based on one or more second sidelink transmissions in the resource pool being overlapped in the time domain, to skip a listen-before-talk (LBT) based channel access procedure for the one or more second sidelink transmissions; and transmit, based on the determining, the one or more second sidelink transmissions, as disclosed by Wang, wherein the one or more first sidelink transmissions are in one or more first consecutive time slots and the one or more second sidelink transmissions are in one or more second consecutive time slots, as taught by Lei. The motivation to do so would be to have a first wireless device in COT sharing with a second wireless device, that can perform a second sidelink transmission to the second wireless device overlapping in time with receiving a first sidelink transmission within the COT from the second wireless device, but using different frequency resources than the received first sidelink transmission, without using LBT, in order to more optimally utilize frequency resources during the COT without introducing LBT delays.
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses wherein the instructions further cause the first wireless device to determine, based on the one or more first sidelink transmissions and the one or more second sidelink transmissions comprising different resource blocks (RBs) in the resource pool, to skip the LBT based channel access procedure for the one or more second sidelink transmissions (Fig 3 & [0127]-[0129] discloses that first UE 102 determines to initiate a second SL transmission within the COT without performing LBT operation. [0184] discloses that multiple UEs may use the medium/channel at the same time period using different frequency resources (i.e. the first SL transmission from the second wireless device may use a first set of RBs and overlap in time with the second SL transmission using a different set of RBs from the first wireless device.).).
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses wherein the one or more second consecutive time slots and the one or more first consecutive time slots are within a channel occupancy time (COT) duration (Fig 3 & [0129] discloses that the first and second sidelink transmissions (each transmitted in consecutive slots as discussed above for claim 1) are within a COT.).
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses wherein the second wireless device initiates the COT based on a LBT success of the one or more first consecutive time slots (Fig 3 & [0129] discloses that second UE 101 requests and occupies a COT after LBT operation has succeeded for the first SL transmission (which may be in consecutive slots as discussed for claim 1).).
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses wherein the one or more first sidelink transmissions indicate COT sharing information of the COT (fig 3 & [0129] discloses that shared COT information is signaled by second UE 101 to first UE 102 (i.e. through the first sidelink transmission).).
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses wherein the COT sharing information of the COT comprises at least one of: a start time of the COT ([0147] discloses that the shared COT structure may contain information including the time when the COT starts.); or a length of the COT in units of time slots.
Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses wherein the instructions further cause the first wireless device to determine, based on the one or more second consecutive time slots and the one or more first consecutive time slots being within the COT duration, to skip the LBT based channel access procedure for the one or more second sidelink transmissions (Fig 3 & [0127]-[0129] discloses that first UE 102 determines that the second SL transmission may be transmitted without performing LBT operation after receiving the first SL transmission from the second UE 101 within the COT and determining that the second SL transmission can fit within the COT length signaled by the second UE 101. Thus, the determining to skip LBT by the first UE 102 would be based on the first SL transmission (transmitted in consecutive slots as discussed above for claim 1) and the second SL transmission (that would be transmitted in consecutive slots as discussed above for claim 1) being within the COT duration.).
Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses a second wireless device comprising: one or more processors ([0007] discloses a second node that may be a UE (herein after the “second UE”). [0031] discloses that the second UE may comprise at least one processor.); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors ([0031] discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. memory) that contains instructions that can be executed by the at least one processors.), cause the second wireless device to:
transmit, to a first wireless device, one or more first sidelink transmissions in a resource pool (Fig 3 & [0127]-[0129] disclose a second UE 101 transmitting to a first UE 102 a SL transmission within a COT. [0010] discloses that the COT may be based on a sidelink grant from a resource pool.); and
receive, in one or more second sidelink transmissions (Fig 3 & [0127]-[0129] discloses that first UE 102 determines and transmits a second SL transmission within the COT that may be received by one of the neighboring UEs (e.g. Fig 3 shows two-way sidelink 131 transmission so a broadest reasonable interpretation is that the second SL transmission from first UE 102 may be received by second UE 101.).), wherein:
the one or more second sidelink transmissions, are overlapped in the time domain ([0184] discloses that multiple UEs may use the medium/channel at the same time period (i.e. the first SL transmission from the second UE 101 may overlap in time with the second SL transmission from the first UE 102.); and
a listen-before-talk (LBT) based channel access procedure is skipped for the one or more second sidelink transmissions (Fig 3 & [0127]-[0129] discloses that first UE 102 determines to initiate a second SL transmission within the COT without performing LBT operation.).
Wang fails to disclose wherein one or more first sidelink transmissions are in one or more first consecutive time slots and one or more second sidelink transmissions are in one or more second consecutive time slots.
However, Lei teaches wherein one or more first sidelink transmissions are in one or more first consecutive time slots and one or more second sidelink transmissions are in one or more second consecutive time slots ([0051] discloses that UE sidelink transmissions may be in multiple consecutive slots without any transmission gap.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a second wireless device transmit, to a first wireless device, one or more first sidelink transmissions in a resource pool; receive one or more second sidelink transmissions, wherein: the one or more second sidelink transmissions, are overlapped in time domain with the one or more first sidelink transmissions; and a listen-before-talk (LBT) based channel access procedure is skipped for the one or more second sidelink transmissions, as disclosed by Wang, wherein one or more first sidelink transmissions are in one or more first consecutive time slots and one or more second sidelink transmissions are in one or more second consecutive time slots, as taught by Lei. The motivation to do so would be to have a second wireless device in COT sharing with a first wireless device, that can receive a second sidelink transmission from the first wireless device overlapping in time with transmitting a first sidelink transmission within the COT from the second wireless device, but using different frequency resources than the transmitted first sidelink transmission, without use of LBT, in order to more optimally utilize frequency resources during the COT without introducing LBT delays.
Regarding claim 10, Wang discloses wherein the skipping of the LBT based channel access procedure for the one or more second sidelink transmissions is based on the one or more first sidelink transmissions and the one or more second sidelink transmissions comprising different resource blocks (RBs) in the resource pool (Fig 3 & [0127]-[0129] discloses that first UE 102 determines to initiate a second SL transmission within the COT without performing LBT operation. [0184] discloses that multiple UEs may use the medium/channel at the same time period using different frequency resources (i.e. the first SL transmission from the second wireless device may use a first set of RBs and overlap in time with the second SL transmission using a different set of RBs from the first wireless device.).).
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses wherein the one or more second consecutive time slots and the one or more first consecutive time slots are within a channel occupancy time (COT) duration (Fig 3 & [0129] discloses that the first and second sidelink transmissions (each transmitted in consecutive slots as discussed above for claim 1) are within a COT.).
Regarding claim 12, Wang discloses wherein the instructions further cause the second wireless device to initiate the COT based on a LBT success of the one or more first consecutive time slots (Fig 3 & [0129] discloses that second UE 101 requests and occupies a COT after LBT operation has succeeded for the first SL transmission (which may be in consecutive slots as discussed for claim 1).).
Regarding 13, Wang discloses wherein the one or more first sidelink transmissions indicate COT sharing information of the COT (fig 3 & [0129] discloses that shared COT information is signaled by second UE 101 to first UE 102 (i.e. through the first sidelink transmission).).
Regarding claim 14, Wang discloses wherein the COT sharing information of the COT comprises at least one of: a start time of the COT ([0147] discloses that the shared COT structure may contain information including the time when the COT starts.); or a length of the COT in units of time slots.
Regarding claim 16, Wang discloses wherein the skipping of the LBT based channel access procedure for the one or more second sidelink transmissions is based on the one or more second consecutive time slots and the one or more first consecutive time slots being within the COT duration (Fig 3 & [0127]-[0129] discloses that first UE 102 determines that the second SL transmission may be transmitted without performing LBT operation after receiving the first SL transmission from the second UE 101 within the COT and determining that the second SL transmission can fit within the COT length signaled by the second UE 101. Thus, the determining to skip LBT by the first UE 102 would be based on the first SL transmission (transmitted in consecutive slots as discussed above for claim 1) and the second SL transmission (that would be transmitted in consecutive slots as discussed above for claim 1) being within the COT duration.).
Regarding claim 17, Wang discloses a system comprising: a first wireless device comprising: one or more first processors (Fig 3 & [0127] disclose a communication system 300. [0005] discloses a first node that may be a sidelink capable UE (herein after the “first UE”). [0031] discloses that the first UE may comprise at least one processor.); and
memory storing first instructions that, when executed by the one or more first processors ([0031] discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. memory) that contains instructions that can be executed by the at least one processors.), cause the first wireless device to:
receive, from a second wireless device, one or more first sidelink transmissions in a resource pool (Fig 3 & [0127]-[0129] disclose a first UE 102 receiving from a second UE 101 a SL transmission within a COT. [0010] discloses that the COT may be based on a sidelink grant from a resource pool.);
determine, based on one or more second sidelink transmissions in the resource pool being overlapped in the time domain, to skip a listen-before-talk (LBT) based channel access procedure for the one or more second sidelink transmissions (Fig 3 & [0127]-[0129] discloses that first UE 102 determines to initiate a second SL transmission within the COT without performing LBT operation. [0184] discloses that multiple UEs may use the medium/channel at the same time period (i.e. the first SL transmission from the second UE 101 may overlap in time with the second SL transmission from the first UE 102.); and
transmit, based on the determining and the one or more second sidelink transmissions (Fig 3 & [0127]-[0129] discloses that first UE 102 determines and transmits a second SL transmission within the COT.); and
the second wireless device comprising: one or more second processors ([0007] discloses a second node that may be a UE (herein after the “second UE”). [0031] discloses that the second UE may comprise at least one processor.); and
memory storing second instructions that, when executed by the one or more second processors ([0031] discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. memory) that contains instructions that can be executed by the at least one processors.), cause the second wireless device to:
transmit, to the first wireless device, one or more first sidelink transmissions in a resource pool (Fig 3 & [0127]-[0129] disclose a second UE 101 transmitting to a first UE 102 a SL transmission within a COT. [0010] discloses that the COT may be based on a sidelink grant from a resource pool.); and
receive, the one or more second sidelink transmissions (Fig 3 & [0127]-[0129] discloses that first UE 102 determines and transmits a second SL transmission within the COT that may be received by one of the neighboring UEs (e.g. Fig 3 shows two-way sidelink 131 transmission so a broadest reasonable interpretation is that the second SL transmission from first UE 102 may be received by second UE 101.).), wherein:
the one or more second sidelink transmissions, are overlapped in the time domain ([0184] discloses that multiple UEs may use the medium/channel at the same time period (i.e. the first SL transmission from the second UE 101 may overlap in time with the second SL transmission from the first UE 102.); and
a listen-before-talk (LBT) based channel access procedure is skipped for the one or more second sidelink transmissions (Fig 3 & [0127]-[0129] discloses that first UE 102 determines to initiate a second SL transmission within the COT without performing LBT operation.).
Wang fails to disclose wherein the one or more first sidelink transmissions are in one or more first consecutive time slots and the one or more second sidelink transmissions are in one or more second consecutive time slots.
However, Lei teaches wherein the one or more first sidelink transmissions are in one or more first consecutive time slots and the one or more second sidelink transmissions are in one or more second consecutive time slots ([0051] discloses that UE sidelink transmissions may be in multiple consecutive slots without any transmission gap.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system wherein a first wireless device receives, from a second wireless device, one or more first sidelink transmissions in a resource pool; determines, based on one or more second sidelink transmissions in the resource pool being overlapped in the time domain, to skip a listen-before-talk (LBT) based channel access procedure for the one or more second sidelink transmissions; and transmits, based on the determining, the one or more second sidelink transmissions; and wherein a second wireless device transmits, to a first wireless device, one or more first sidelink transmissions in a resource pool; receives one or more second sidelink transmissions, wherein: the one or more second sidelink transmissions, are overlapped in time domain with the one or more first sidelink transmissions; and a listen-before-talk (LBT) based channel access procedure is skipped for the one or more second sidelink transmissions, as disclosed by Wang, wherein the one or more first sidelink transmissions are in one or more first consecutive time slots and the one or more second sidelink transmissions are in one or more second consecutive time slots, as taught by Lei. The motivation to do so would be to have a system wherein a first wireless device in COT sharing with a second wireless device, that can perform a second sidelink transmission to the second wireless device overlapping in time with receiving a first sidelink transmission within the COT from the second wireless device, but using different frequency resources than the received first sidelink transmission, without using LBT, in order to more optimally utilize frequency resources during the COT without introducing LBT delays.
Regarding claim 18, Wang discloses wherein the first instructions further cause the first wireless device to determine, based on the one or more first sidelink transmissions and the one or more second sidelink transmissions comprising different resource blocks (RBs) in the resource pool, to skip the LBT based channel access procedure for the one or more second sidelink transmissions (Fig 3 & [0127]-[0129] discloses that first UE 102 determines to initiate a second SL transmission within the COT without performing LBT operation. [0184] discloses that multiple UEs may use the medium/channel at the same time period using different frequency resources (i.e. the first SL transmission from the second wireless device may use a first set of RBs and overlap in time with the second SL transmission using a different set of RBs from the first wireless device.).).
Regarding claim 19, Wang discloses wherein the one or more second consecutive time slots and the one or more first consecutive time slots are within a channel occupancy time (COT) duration (Fig 3 & [0129] discloses that the first and second sidelink transmissions (each transmitted in consecutive slots as discussed above for claim 1) are within a COT.).
Regarding claim 20, Wang discloses wherein the first instructions further cause the first wireless device to determine, based on the one or more second consecutive time slots and the one or more first consecutive time slots being within the COT duration, to skip the LBT based channel access procedure for the one or more second sidelink transmissions (Fig 3 & [0127]-[0129] discloses that first UE 102 determines that the second SL transmission may be transmitted without performing LBT operation after receiving the first SL transmission from the second UE 101 within the COT and determining that the second SL transmission can fit within the COT length signaled by the second UE 101. Thus, the determining to skip LBT by the first UE 102 would be based on the first SL transmission (transmitted in consecutive slots as discussed above for claim 1) and the second SL transmission (that would be transmitted in consecutive slots as discussed above for claim 1) being within the COT duration.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2024/0349344)(herein after “Wang”) in view of Lei et al. (US 2025/0274911)(herein after “Lei”), as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Nam et al. (US 2020/0236711)(herein after “Nam”).
Regarding claim 7, Wang in view of Lei discloses the first wireless device of claim 6.
Wang fails to disclose wherein the length of the COT is at least one of: a maximum length of the COT in a time domain in units of time slots; or a remaining length of the COT in a time domain in units of time slots.
However, Nam further teaches wherein the length of the COT is at least one of: a maximum length of the COT in a time domain in units of time slots ([0104] discloses a maximum COT being shorter than a length which may be a slot length.); or a remaining length of the COT in a time domain in units of time slots.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first wireless device of claim 6, as disclosed by Wang in view of Lei, wherein the length of the COT is at least one of: a maximum length of the COT in a time domain in units of time slots; or a remaining length of the COT in a time domain in units of time slots, as further taught by Nam. The motivation to do so would be to have a first wireless device in COT sharing with a second wireless device, that can determine a length of the COT in units of time slots signaled from the second wireless device so that the first wireless device can determine if the length of a second SL transmission will fit within a maximum time period of the shared COT.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2024/0349344)(herein after “Wang”) in view of Lei et al. (US 2025/0274911)(herein after “Lei”), as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Nam et al. (US 2020/0236711)(herein after “Nam”).
Regarding claim 15, Wang in view of Lei disclose the second wireless device of claim 14.
Wang fail to disclose wherein the length of the COT is at least one of: a maximum length of the COT in a time domain in units of time slots; or a remaining length of the COT in a time domain in units of time slots.
However, Nam further teaches wherein the length of the COT is at least one of: a maximum length of the COT in a time domain in units of time slots ([0104] discloses a maximum COT being shorter than a length which may be a slot length.); or a remaining length of the COT in a time domain in units of time slots.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first wireless device of claim 6, as disclosed by Wang in view of Lei, wherein the length of the COT is at least one of: a maximum length of the COT in a time domain in units of time slots; or a remaining length of the COT in a time domain in units of time slots, as further taught by Nam. The motivation to do so would be to have a second wireless device in COT sharing with a first wireless device, that can determine a length of the COT in units of time slots and signal the length of the COT to the first wireless device so that the first wireless device can determine if the length of a second SL transmission will fit within a maximum time period of the shared COT.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Elazzouni et al. (US 2024/0049283) discloses Channel Occupancy Time Sharing for Sidelink Communications.
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 JAMES P SEYMOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at 571-270-3125. 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.
/JAMES P SEYMOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights