DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office Action (“Action”) on the merits to the application filed Jan. 30, 20241. Claims 1-15 and 21-25 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on Aug. 5, 2024 has been considered.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 14, 15, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu2.
Independent Claim 1
Claim 1 recites and Liu teaches:
A method for performing wireless communication by a first device (Liu, ¶¶221-225, Fig. 10), the method comprising:
obtaining information related to a resource block (RB) set for physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) transmission (Liu, ¶¶221-225, Fig. 10, steps 1001, 1002);
determining physical resource block (PRB) subsets based on the RB set (Liu, ¶¶214-217, Fig. 9);
receiving a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) from a second device (Liu, ¶219, Fig. 10, step 1001);
determining, based on the PRB subsets, a PSFCH resource related to the PSSCH (Liu, ¶¶221-225, Fig. 10, step 1002); and
performing the PSFCH transmission based on the PSFCH resource (Liu, ¶233, Fig. 10, step 1003),
wherein the PRB subsets are determined by ordering in ascending order of PRB subset index and in ascending order of interlace index (Liu, ¶¶174-179, 214-217, Figs. 5, 6, 9, each PRB subset is ordered in an ascending manner based on both a PRB index (e.g., “A”, “A+1”, etc.) and a interlace index (e.g., “m”)).
Independent Claim 14
Claim 14 recites and Liu teaches:
A first device adapted to perform wireless communication (Liu, ¶¶218, 253-2553, Figs. 10, 12, a RX UE is a first device that performs wireless communication with a TX UE), the first device comprising:
at least one transceiver (Liu, ¶¶253-255, Fig. 12, transceiver 1218);
at least one processor (Liu, ¶¶253-255, Fig. 12, at least processor 1279); and
at least one memory connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, based on being executed by the at least one processor, cause the first device to perform operations (Lilu, ¶¶253-255, Fig. 12, memory 1285 that stores instructions 1281a that implement the method, such as shown in Fig. 10) comprising:
obtaining information related to a resource block (RB) set for physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) transmission (Liu, ¶¶221-225, Fig. 10, steps 1001, 1002);
determining physical resource block (PRB) subsets based on the RB set (Liu, ¶¶214-217, Fig. 9);
receiving a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) from a second device (Liu, ¶219, Fig. 10, step 1001);
determining, based on the PRB subsets, a PSFCH resource related to the PSSCH (Liu, ¶¶221-225, Fig. 10, step 1002); and
performing the PSFCH transmission based on the PSFCH resource (Liu, ¶233, Fig. 10, step 1003),
wherein the PRB subsets are determined by ordering in ascending order of PRB subset index and in ascending order of interlace index (Liu, ¶¶174-179, 214-217, Figs. 5, 6, 9, each PRB subset is ordered in an ascending manner based on both a PRB index (e.g., “A”, “A+1”, etc.) and a interlace index (e.g., “m”)).
Independent Claim 15
Claim 15 recites and Liu teaches:
A processing device adapted to control a first device, the processing device comprising (Liu, ¶¶218, 253-2554, Figs. 10, 12, a RX UE is a first device that is adapted to be controlled by a processing device, whether that be the entirety of processor 1279 or other hardware comprising a processor and memory, such as is described in ¶260), the processing device comprising:
at least one processor (Liu, ¶¶253-255, Fig. 12, at least processor 1279 or other processor not necessarily shown in Fig. 12 but necessarily required, such as described in ¶260); and
at least one memory connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, based on being executed by the at least one processor, cause the first device to perform operations (Lilu, ¶¶253-255, Fig. 12, memory 1285 that stores instructions 1281a that implement the method, such as shown in Fig. 10) comprising:
obtaining information related to a resource block (RB) set for physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) transmission (Liu, ¶¶221-225, Fig. 10, steps 1001, 1002);
determining physical resource block (PRB) subsets based on the RB set (Liu, ¶¶214-217, Fig. 9);
receiving a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) from a second device (Liu, ¶219, Fig. 10, step 1001);
determining, based on the PRB subsets, a PSFCH resource related to the PSSCH (Liu, ¶¶221-225, Fig. 10, step 1002); and
performing the PSFCH transmission based on the PSFCH resource (Liu, ¶233, Fig. 10, step 1003),
wherein the PRB subsets are determined by ordering in ascending order of PRB subset index and in ascending order of interlace index (Liu, ¶¶174-179, 214-217, Figs. 5, 6, 9, each PRB subset is ordered in an ascending manner based on both a PRB index (e.g., “A”, “A+1”, etc.) and a interlace index (e.g., “m”)).
Dependent Claims 3, 22, and 25
Claims 3, 22, and 25 depend from claims 1, 14, and 15, respectively. Each of claims 3, 22, and 25 further recites and Liu teaches, “at least one PRB subset of the PRB subsets is allocated to a resource for the PSSCH.” Liu, ¶¶214-217, Fig. 9.
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.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
The following applies to all rejections below, absent any discussion elaborating on any of the elements. Regarding element 1, the scope and contents of the prior art are evident based on the citations and explanations provided in the rejections below. See MPEP § 2141(II)(A). Regarding element 2, the differences between the prior art and claims are noted in the rejections below. See MPEP § 2141(II)(B). Regarding element 3, the level of ordinary skill is expressly or implicitly found in the prior art of record as applied in the rejections below, where the teachings of the art show a presumed knowledge of the relevant art at the relevant time. See MPEP §§ 2141(II)(C), 2141.03(III). Regarding element 4, to the extent that there is evidence available as to secondary considerations, they will be addressed below, otherwise, it is assumed there are no secondary considerations to take into account.
Claims 4, 5, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Ji5, both of which are in the same field of sidelink resource allocation as the claimed invention.
Dependent Claims 4 and 23
Claims 4 and 23 depend from claims 3 and 22, respectively, and recite, “the PSFCH resource is determined within the at least one PRB subset based on a source ID included in sidelink control information (SCI) on the PSSCH.” Liu does not teach this limitation, however, Ji remedies this and teaches “[t]he RX UE is configured to monitor SL information, to receive SCI instances and to determine, which SL transmissions are directed to the RX UE based on source ID of TX UE side and on destination ID of RX UE side.” Ji, ¶¶63-64, 91. Thus, Ji teaches the limitations recited in claims 4 and 23. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and device of Liu to determine the PSFCH resource based on a source ID, as in Ji, as a way to determine the PSFCH resource and thus transmit the correct feedback information to the transmitting UE. See Ji, ¶91.
Dependent Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 3 and recites, “the PSFCH resource is determined within the at least one PRB subset based on an ID of the first device and a source ID included in sidelink control information (SCI) on the PSSCH.” Liu does not teach this limitation, however, Ji remedies this and teaches “[t]he RX UE is configured to monitor SL information, to receive SCI instances and to determine, which SL transmissions are directed to the RX UE based on source ID of TX UE side and on destination ID of RX UE side.” Ji, ¶¶63-64, 91. Thus, Ji teaches the limitations recited in claim 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and device of Liu to determine the PSFCH resource based on a source ID and destination ID, as in Ji, as a way to determine the PSFCH resource and thus transmit the correct feedback information to the transmitting UE. See Ji, ¶91.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Wirth6, both of which are in the same field of sidelink resource allocation as the claimed invention.
Dependent Claim 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and recites, “the PSSCH is related to a plurality of PSFCH occasions.” Liu is silent as to the number of PSFCH occasions, however, Wirth remedies this and teaches “[t]he UE will attempt to send PSFCH feedback in the intended PSFCH occasion and the associated repetitions of PSFCH occasions,” which is related to data sent in a PSSCH. See Wirth, ¶¶80-82, Fig. 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the PSFCH resource in Liu to include a plurality of PSFCH occasions, as in Wirth, to increase the chance of a successful feedback transmission. See Wirth, ¶¶80, 131-132, 135.
Dependent Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and recites, “based on PSFCH transmission failure in all PSFCH occasions before a PSFCH occasion of the plurality of PSFCH occasions, PSFCH transmission is attempted by the first device in the PSFCH occasion.” Liu is silent as to what happens in PSFCH transmission failure, however, Wirth remedies this and teaches “[t]he UE will attempt to send PSFCH feedback in the intended PSFCH occasion and the associated repetitions of PSFCH occasions … [t]he UE can … stop after a successful transmission.” See Wirth, ¶¶80-82, Fig. 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the PSFCH resource in Liu to include attempting transmission after PSFCH failure, as in Wirth, to increase the chance of a successful feedback transmission. See Wirth, ¶¶80, 131-132, 135.
Dependent Claim 12
Claim 12 depends from claim 10 and recites, “based on performing PSFCH transmission in a PSFCH occasion of the plurality of PSFCH occasions, the first device is not allowed to attempt PSFCH transmission after the PSFCH occasion.” Liu is silent as to this limitation, however, Wirth remedies this and teaches “[t]he UE will attempt to send PSFCH feedback in the intended PSFCH occasion and the associated repetitions of PSFCH occasions … [t]he UE can … stop after a successful transmission.” See Wirth, ¶¶80-82, Fig. 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the PSFCH resource in Liu to include attempting transmission after PSFCH failure, as in Wirth, to increase the chance of a successful feedback transmission. See Wirth, ¶¶80, 131-132, 135.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Swain7, both of which are in the same field of sidelink resource allocation as the claimed invention.
Dependent Claim 13
Claim 13 depends from claim 1 and recites, “PSFCH transmit power on a common PRB is obtained regardless of a number of PSFCH transmissions.” Liu does not teach this limitation. However, Swain remedies this and teaches “ Swain 1204, Algorithm 3, where a CommonPRBSet is used (and thus necessarily obtained) and used regardless of any PSFCH transmissions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the PSFCH transmission power of Liu with the specifics of Swain reduce and avoid interference between mobile devices, thus, increasing reliability of transmissions and improve energy efficiency. See id. at 1205, § VI.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6-9, 21, and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record teaches or suggests, either alone or when combined, all of the limitations recited in at least claims 2, 6, 21, and 24 (where claims 7-9 depend from claim 6).
Claims 2, 21, and 24 each recite, “the PRB subsets are determined by ordering first in ascending order of the PRB subset index and second in ascending order of the interlace index.” Claim 6 recites, “PSFCH resources are first indexed in ascending order of PRB subset index, second indexed in ascending order of RB set index, and then indexed in ascending order of cyclic shift pair index.”
While Liu teaches ordering PRB subsets based on both a PRB subset index and interlace index, doing so in the order described in claims 2, 6, 21, and 24 is not taught in Liu. Other prior art teaches ordered PRB index determination, but not necessarily using the specific indexes recited in claims 2, 6, 21, and 24. For example, WIPO Patent Publication No. WO2024/128881 teaches PSFCH resource indexing starting with the interlace index (Fig. 22, ¶301 of English translation), and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0254711 A1 describes various ways and orders of using RB indexes, interlace indexes, and cyclic prefix indexes to determine the PSFCH indexes, however, none are as recited in claims 2, 6, 21, and 24.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WIPO Patent Publication Nos. WO2024/128881 (as described above), WO2024/019175, and WO2025/070836, and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0155582, show RB, PRB, and interlace index determination for sidelink resources.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KADING whose telephone number is (571)270-3413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/JOSHUA KADING/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3993
1 The specification filed on Jan. 30, 2024 was not in the English language and no claims were filed. In a preliminary amendment filed April 15, 2024, a certified English translation was filed along with claims 1-20. Based on the certification statement filed April 15, 2024, it is assumed there is no new matter added to the English version of the specification and claims 1-15 and 21-25 are fully supported by the original non-English language specification.
2 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0287401 A1, to Liu et al. (“Liu”).
3 It is noted that the reference numerals for Fig. 12 described in paragraphs 253-255 of Liu do not necessarily match with the reference characters shown in Fig. 12. Even so, it is clear from the description in the paragraphs and other labeling (e.g., “Processor,” “Transceiver,” etc.) in Fig. 12 what is meant.
4 See supra footnote 3.
5 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0056399 A1, to Ji et al. (“Ji”).
6 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0185048 A1, to Wirth et al. (“Wirth”).
7 S. N. Swain, S. Mishra and C. S. R. Murthy, "A novel spectrum reuse scheme for interference mitigation in a dense overlay D2D network," 2015 IEEE 26th Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor, and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), Hong Kong, China, 2015, pp. 1201-1205; added to IEEE Xplore Dec. 3, 2015 (“Swain”).