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 Arguments
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or suggest the limitation “wherein one or more cyclic prefix extension (CPE) starting positions are pre(configured) or indicated based on a L1 priority of the SL-U transceiving”.
Examiner’s response: This limitation was previously presented in claim 6 as one of two alternatives, and therefore was not required by the prior claim scope. The amendment now narrows the claims to specifically require this feature. Accordingly, the rejection has been updated to rely on Niu et al. (US 20240057134 A1) for teaching the presently claimed feature.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
The abbreviation “CPE” was previously defined in claim 1, and the phrase “cyclic prefix extension” repeats the previously introduced terminology.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastergardoost et
al. (US 20230354220 A1) in view of Niu et al. (US 20240057134 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Rastergardoost discloses “A method for a user equipment (UE), comprising: determining
one or two candidate starting symbols within a slot for an SL transceiving in a wireless
network, wherein the SL transceiving is on unlicensed frequency bands (SL-U)” (See [0381]
Wireless devices may communicate with each other via a sidelink. Sidelink communications
on an unlicensed spectrum may be required to enable multiple transmission opportunities
in a slot. [0383] The wireless device may determine multiple candidate starting
symbols 3010, 3020, 3030 for the sidelink channel resource (e.g., starting symbol #1 3010 at
symbol #1 of the slot, starting symbol #2 3020 at symbol #5 of the slot, and/or starting
symbol #3 3030 at symbol #9 of the slot). [0390] FIG. 32 shows an example AGC training
based on multiple starting symbols provided for a sidelink channel in unlicensed spectrum.
For example, two (e.g., candidate) starting symbols may be configured/provided for a
PSSCH/PSCCH transmission (symbol #2 3220 and symbol #n 3230) in a slot); “performing a
channel access procedure before the SL-U transceiving to evaluate a channel availability” (See [0390] The first wireless device may perform LBT corresponding to the first candidate
starting symbol. For example, due to the AGC symbol preceding the first candidate starting
symbol, the first wireless device may perform LBT for symbol #1 3210 in subband #1 3250);
“and starting the SL-U transceiving from one of the one or two candidate starting symbols
within the slot after a success of the channel access procedure” (See [0390] The LBT may be
successful and the first wireless device may send (e.g., transmit) AGC in symbol #1 3210 and
PSSCH/PSCCH in the following symbols of the slot).
Rastergardoost does not explicitly disclose that one or more CPE starting positions are preconfigured based on L1 priority of the SL-U transceiving.
However, Niu discloses “wherein one or more cyclic prefix extension (CPE) starting positions are (pre)configured or indicated based on a L1 priority of the SL-U transceiving” (See [0073] a sensing starting position and a CP extension can be based on a priority of the SL-U transmission, either a layer 1 (L1)-priority or CAPC of the SL-U transmission. [0074] the actual sensing position for LBT and the CP extension (CPE) is related to L1-priority of the SL-U transmission. The LBT sensing slot can be immediately before the CPE starting position, as illustrated in FIG. 9. For example, if L1-priority=1: CPE transmission starts at 0 us of the gap symbol; if L1-priority=2: CPE transmission starts at 9 us of the gap symbol; if L1-priority=3: CPE transmission starts at 18 us of the gap symbol, and so on for L1-priority=4, at 27 us; L1-priority=5, at 36 us; L1 priority=6, 45 us, such that if L1-priority=7: CPE transmission starts at 54 us of the gap symbol).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Rastergardoost with the teachings of Niu, and the motivation to do so would have been to allow transmissions having different priorities to begin channel access at different times, thereby providing differentiated access opportunities according to transmission priority (Niu [0073]).
Regarding claim 2,
Rastergardoost in view of Niu discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the two candidate starting symbols are preconfigured per bandwidth part (BWP) or per system” (See Rastergardoost [0313] The wireless device may be (pre-)configured with one or more values of the sidelink starting symbol per sidelink BWP).
Regarding claim 3,
Rastergardoost in view of Niu discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the candidate starting symbols are preconfigured for automatic gain control (AGC) purpose” (See Rastergardoost [0390] FIG. 32 shows an example AGC training based on multiple starting symbols provided for a sidelink channel in unlicensed spectrum. [0395] A transmitter wireless device may duplicate resource elements of one or more symbols of the sidelink transmission (e.g., PSSCH and/or PSCCH), associated with the candidate starting symbols, into preceding (e.g., immediately preceding) symbols, e.g., for AGC training purposes). Note: The candidate starting symbols are configured as part of the AGC training mechanism, which means the candidate starting symbols are preconfigured for AGC purposes.
Regarding claim 4,
Rastergardoost in view of Niu discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein a repetition of transport block (TB) is transmitted from a second candidate starting symbol if the channel access procedure succeeds after a first candidate starting symbol and before the second
candidate starting symbol of a slot, and wherein the TB is for a physical sidelink control
channel (PSCCH) and a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH)” (See Rastergardoost [0274] a wireless device may send one or more sidelink transmissions (e.g., a first transmission of the TB and one or more retransmissions of the TB) for sending the TB. A sidelink transmission of the one or more sidelink transmission may comprise a PSCCH, a PSSCH, and/or a PSFCH. [0403] A transmitter wireless device may send sidelink transmission (e.g., TB and/or SCI) via the sidelink channel with the multiple AGC/duplicated symbols, for example, if the sidelink channel may comprise/be configured with multiple (e.g., candidate) starting symbols. See Fig. 35B, [0407] The wireless device may perform a second LBT for/prior to the second/next starting symbol and its corresponding AGC symbol (e.g., prior to symbol #n in FIG. 35B). The wireless device may determine to use the second (e.g., candidate) PSSCH resource/grant for the sidelink transmission, for example, if the second LBT may be successful as described with respect to FIG. 35B. The second PSSCH resource/grant may start from the second candidate starting symbol).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastergardoost et
al. (US 20230354220 A1) in view of Niu et al. (US 20240057134 A1) and further in view of Ganesan (US 20260046927 A1).
Regarding claim 5,
Rastergardoost in view of Niu discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein a cyclic prefix extension (CPE) starting position randomly selected from a CPE candidate starting position set is transmitted before the candidate starting symbol” (See Niu [0073-0074] discloses a set of candidate CPE starting positions corresponding to different L1 priorities, the candidate set comprising the values (0, 9, 18, 27, 36, 45 and 54 ms). [0075] At 930, the third example is illustrated to demonstrate a random selection position somewhere from among [0, 9 us, 18 us, 27 us, 36 us, 45 us, 54 us] to perform the LBT. At 920, the beginning 25 us can be used for LBT, with a CP extension 902 being used before the actual slot boundary to fill in the gap. Note: Accordingly, Niu teaches a CPE starting position randomly selected from a set of candidate starting positions).
Rastergardoost in view of Niu disclose CPE is transmitted before the start of the transmission to fill in the gap, but does not explicitly disclose symbol level alignment.
However, Ganesan discloses “wherein a cyclic prefix extension (CPE) starting position is
transmitted to achieve symbol level alignment” (See [0180] Also, the LBT sensing slot
granularity is 9 us, which is not aligned with sidelink symbol and/or slot granularity. Thus, it's
possible that LBT is successful in the middle of a symbol. In one implementation,
for symbol boundary alignment and to allow an LBT multiple sensing
slot, cyclic prefix extension (“CPE”) may be used at the first symbol of the overbooked
resource).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of
Rastergardoost and Niu, with the teachings of Ganesan, and the motivation to do so
would have been to improve channel access flexibility and maintain proper symbol-
boundary timing while supporting multiple LBT sensing opportunities.
Regarding claim 6,
Rastergardoost in view of Niu and Ganesan discloses “The method of claim 5, wherein the CPE candidate starting position set is preconfigured per channel access priority class (CAPC) or L1 priority of the SL transceiving” (See Niu [0073] a sensing starting position and a CP extension can be based on a priority of the SL-U transmission, either a layer 1 (L1)-priority or CAPC of the SL-U transmission. The L1-priority is implicitly linked to CAPC via PQI (PC5 QoS Identifier)).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastergardoost et
al. (US 20230354220 A1) in view of Niu et al. (US 20240057134 A1), and further in view of LI et al. (US 20240064553 A1).
Regarding claim 7,
Rastergardoost in view of Niu discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein a maximum COT length after a successful channel access procedure is preconfigured or indicated to the UE based on a channel access priority class (CAPC) value of the SL transceiving” (See Rastergardoost [0364] The maximum continuous time in which the device gains an access based on LBT procedure and uses the channel may be referred to as a maximum channel occupancy time (MCOT). The MCOT in the 5 GHz band may be limited to a certain period, depending on the channel access priority class. [0365] For example, the regulation (e.g., for the 5 GHz and 60 GHz bands) may allow the device (e.g., a sending wireless device in a sidelink communication) to share the COT with the associated devices, the associated device may be a wireless device of the sidelink communication. The MCOT may be defined and/or configured per priority class).
Rastergardoost in view of Niu discloses that a maximum COT is preconfigured based on a CAPC value of the SL transceiving, but does not explicitly disclose that a contention window size is based on a CAPC value of SL transceiving.
However, LI discloses “a contention window size of the channel access procedure and a
maximum COT length after a successful channel access procedure is preconfigured or
indicated to the UE based on a channel access priority class (CAPC) value of the SL
transceiving” (See Fig. 6, [0037] the SL CAPC may be associated with certain listen-before-
talk (LBT) parameters or similar channel access parameters, such as a quantity of
consecutive sensing slots associated with the channel access procedure, a minimum and
maximum contention window associated with the channel, a maximum channel occupancy
time (COT), or among other example parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of
Rastergardoost and Niu with the teachings of LI, and the motivation to do so would have been to prioritize sidelink communications within an unlicensed frequency band, such that sidelink communications associated with high priority messages have improved access to reduced- interference channels, resulting in a reduction of communication errors and thus reduced power, computing, and network resource consumption (LI [0090]).
Regarding claim 8,
Rastergardoost in view of Niu and LI discloses “The method of claim 7, wherein the CAPC value is mapped from a PC5 quality of service (QoS) indicator (PQI)” (See LI, Fig. 7, [0108] In some aspects, one or more standardized PQI values, priority values, or similar values may be mapped to an SL CAPC for purposes of performing a sidelink channel access procedure, such as a sidelink LBT procedure, among other examples).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of
Rastergardoost and Niu with the teachings of LI, and the motivation to do so would have been to prioritize sidelink communications within an unlicensed frequency band, such that sidelink communications associated with high priority messages have improved access to reduced- interference channels, resulting in a reduction of communication errors and thus reduced power, computing, and network resource consumption (LI [0090]).
Regarding claim 9,
Rastergardoost in view of Niu and LI discloses “The method of claim 8, wherein the CAPC value is mapped from the PQI based on one or more elements comprising a resource type, a default priority level, a packet delay budget (PDB) requirement, and a packet data error
rate” (See LI [0107] Some characteristics associated with a PQI may include a resource type
associated with a sidelink communication or service, a priority level associated with a
sidelink communication or service, a PDB associated with a sidelink communication or
service, a packet error rate (PER) associated with a sidelink communication or service.
[0108] In some aspects, one or more standardized PQI values, priority values, or similar
values may be mapped to an SL CAPC for purposes of performing a sidelink channel access
procedure, such as a sidelink LBT procedure, among other examples).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of
Rastergardoost and Niu with the teachings of LI, and the motivation to do so would have been to prioritize sidelink communications within an unlicensed frequency band, such that sidelink communications associated with high priority messages have improved access to reduced- interference channels, resulting in a reduction of communication errors and thus reduced power, computing, and network resource consumption (LI [0090]).
Regarding claim 10,
Rastergardoost in view of Niu and LI discloses “The method of claim 8, wherein a bitmap or a table is configured for the mapping between the CAPC value and the PQI” (See LI Fig. 7, [0108] As shown in table 700, each SL CAPC (indicated in a first column 704) may be mapped to one or more QoS parameters, such as one or more V2X service PQIs (indicated in a second column 706), one or more V2X service priority levels (indicated in a third column 708), one or more ProSe service PQIs (indicated in a fourth column 710), or one or more ProSe service priority levels (indicated in a fifth column 712).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of
Rastergardoost and Niu with the teachings of LI, and the motivation to do so would have been to prioritize sidelink communications within an unlicensed frequency band, such that sidelink communications associated with high priority messages have improved access to reduced- interference channels, resulting in a reduction of communication errors and thus reduced power, computing, and network resource consumption (LI [0090]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastergardoost et al.
(US 20230354220 A1) in view of Niu et al. (US 20240057134 A1), and further in view of LIU et al. (US 20240057126 A1).
Regarding claim 11,
Rastergardoost in view of Niu discloses “The method of claim 1”, but does not explicitly disclose ignoring control signals monitoring on a second candidate starting symbol in a time slot when the UE detects and decodes a control signal on a first candidate starting symbol in the same time slot.
However, LIU discloses “wherein the UE ignores control signals monitoring on a second
candidate starting symbol in a time slot when the UE detects and decodes a control signal on a first candidate starting symbol in the same time slot” (See [0086] For example, if the
SCI-1 is successfully decoded in a given slot and an RSRP is greater than an RSRP threshold,
or if the RSRP of the PSCCH DMRS exceeds the RSRP threshold, the receiver may forgo
PSCCH monitoring at a second starting symbol (e.g., second transmission point) associated
with the half-slot in the given slot. [0087] A PSCCH/PSSCH transmission from a sidelink
transmitter, targeting a sidelink receiver, in a first starting symbol (e.g., symbol #0)
associated with a full-slot, inherently represents a full-slot transmission. Therefore,
monitoring a subsequent PSCCH candidate position in the same slot and/or subsequent slots
may be unnecessary. Thus, in some other examples, upon decoding the SCI-2 in a given slot
and confirming the receiver is the designated recipient, the receiver stops monitoring
subsequent PSCCH candidate locations within the given slot, such as PSCCH candidate
locations associated with a half-slot).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of
Rastergardoost and Niu with the teachings of LIU, and the motivation to do so would have been to reduce receiver complexity by skipping one or more PSCCH monitoring occasions (LIU [043]).
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 SALMA A AYAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 to 5:30 ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 5712723927. 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.
/SALMA AYAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2462
/KEVIN C. HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights