DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The communication is in response to the amendment filed 3/3/2026. The amendment has been entered and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 13, 14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Guo et al. “Guo” US 2025/0233696.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20, Guo teaches a method and a User Equipment (UE), comprising: one or more processors; and a memory (Paragraph 5 teaches a processor and memory for UEs) storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause performance of:
receiving a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) transmission (a RX UE fails to decode a PSSCH transmission; Paragraph 69. As the UE fails to decode the PSSCH transmission, this infers a PSSCH transmission has been received);
in response to an unsuccessful LBT attempt performed for a first PSFCH, refraining from sending an acknowledgment / negative acknowledgment (ACK/NACK) transmission for the PSSCH transmission, during the first PSFCH occasion (in response to failing to decode the PSSCH transmission, the Rx UE fails to transmit a NACK with respect to a PSFCH resource when LBT is unsuccessful; Paragraph 69); and
sending an ACK/NACK transmission for the PSSCH transmission, during a second PSFCH occasion following the first PSFCH occasion (when LBT is successful, HARQ feedback (ACK/NACK) is sent; Paragraph 59. Figures 3 and 4 show multiple PSFCH resources for feedback transmission, thus because the LBT initially fails (Paragraph 69), a second PSFCH occasion follows the first as claimed).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Guo teaches making, by the first UE, the LBT for the first PSFCH occasion and determining the first attempt was unsuccessful (the UE unsuccessfully performs LBT on a PSFCH resource; Paragraph 69).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Guo et al. “Guo-1” US 2024/0349315.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, While Guo teaches preconfigured PSFCH (Paragraph 59), Guo does not teach or suggest preconfiguring the PSFCH by RRC from a base station; however, Guo-1 teaches that the PSFCH is pre-configured by RRC (PSFCH information can be dynamically configured for the UE using RRC; Paragraphs 80 and 96. Base stations are sending the RRC).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Guo to include preconfiguring the PSFCH as taught by Guo-1.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the resources used for PSFCH can be known as taught by Guo-1; Paragraphs 80 and 96.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Guo does not teach or suggest the second PSFCH occasion is dynamically indicated; however, Guo-1 teaches that the PSFCH is dynamically configured (PSFCH information can be dynamically configured for the UE Paragraphs 80 and 96).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Guo to include dynamically configuring the PSFCH as taught by Guo-1.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the resources used for PSFCH can be known as taught by Guo-1; Paragraphs 80 and 96.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Guo does not teach or suggest the PSFCH occasion is dynamically indicated by stage 1 or 2 SCI or MAC-CE; however, Guo-1 teaches that the PSFCH is dynamically configured using MAC CE (PSFCH information can be dynamically configured for the UE. It can be signaled using MAC control elements Paragraphs 80 and 96).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Guo to include dynamically configuring the PSFCH using MAC-CE as taught by Guo-1.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the resources used for PSFCH can be known as taught by Guo-1; Paragraphs 80 and 96.
Claim(s) 6-10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Kim et al. “Kim” US 2020/0280465.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, while Guo teaches performing LBT, Guo does not disclose after a successful LBT, determining whether to make a signal transmission during a reservation interval on the common interlace of the PSFCH. Kim teaches that when LBT is successful, a terminal will transmit on the interlace to the base station; Paragraphs 122 and 124. The mapping of the transmission to the interlace is viewed as the reservation interval as that is when the information may be transmit).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Guo to include sending a signal on the common interlace after a successful LBT as taught by Kim.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the terminal can transmit information mapped to a particular resource/interlace as taught by Kim; Paragraphs 122 and 124.
Regarding claim 7, Guo does not disclose the transmission of cyclic length extension; however, Kim teaches terminals applying extended length CP for the SRS resource transmission; Paragraph 164.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Guo to include sending an extended CP as taught by Kim.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the terminal can apply the extended length CP in the first symbol transmit by the LBT procedure as taught by Kim; Paragraph 164.
Regarding claim 8, while Guo teaches performing LBT, Guo does not disclose after a successful LBT, refraining to make a signal transmission during a reservation interval. Kim teaches that when LBT is successful, a terminal may transmit the SRS; Paragraphs 122 and 124. Since the UE may transmit the message, this means the UE is making a decision to transmit or not, and thus after a successful transmission the UE can refrain from making a transmission as claimed).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Guo to include refraining from sending a signal after a successful LBT as taught by Kim.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the terminal can decide whether or not to transmit information mapped to a particular resource/interlace as taught by Kim; Paragraphs 122 and 124.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art teaches making determinations as to whether to send signaling or not after a successful LBT as shown with respect to claim 6. Guo further teaches transmitting signals based on UE ID (Paragraphs 78, 121 and 123).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art teaches making determinations as to whether to send signaling or not after a successful LBT as shown with respect to claim 6. Guo further teaches transmitting signals based on the received UE ID of the second UE (Paragraphs 78, 121 and 123. These paragraphs teach the first UE sending a transmission. As this transmission is also based on a second UE identifier, the first UE must have received the second UE ID).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Li et al. “Li” US 2023/0413325.
Regarding claim 11, Guo does not expressly disclose determining a COT as a result of a successful LBT and sending a COT sharing indication to the second UE in a PSFCH symbol or by DMRS; however, Li teaches that after a successful LBT procedure, UEb shares the COT information with UEa with a COT sharing indicator; Paragraph 90 and 614 of Figure 6. As this transmission is sent via PSFCH, it would be in a PSFCH symbol).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Guo to include sending COT sharing indication information to the other UE after a successful LBT as taught by Li.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that other UE knows the COT duration as taught by Li; Paragraph 90.
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Yoshioka et al. “Yoshioka” WO2024/069773 (see attached document for English translation).
Regarding claim 12 and 19, Guo does not disclose the limitations of claims 12 and 19; however, Yoshioka teaches
transmitting, by the first UE, a PSFCH, in a plurality of physical resource blocks (PRBs) including a first PRB (PSFCH transmission are had for N PRBs (i.e. plurality of PRBs); Page 15 section 1-2 and 1-3);
determining that a frequency separation between the first PRB and a PRB of the common interlace of the PSFCH is less than a specified value (PRBs and/or interlaces may not be located within 1MHz (i.e. frequency separate) of each other in the frequency domain; Page 15 Section 1-3. Thus it can be seen 1MHz is the value with respect to the frequency separate as claimed); and
refraining from transmitting on the PRB of the common interlace of the PSFCH (PRBs/interlaces may not be located within 1MHz of each other in the frequency domain; Page 15 section 1-3. As these values cannot be separate by less than 1MHz, nothing would be transmit if they were located within 1MHz).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Guo to include refraining from transmitting on the PRB if the frequency separation of the PRB/interlace are less than a specified value as taught by Yoshioka.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can prevent multiple PSFCH resources from being included in the same 1MHz as taught by Yoshioka; Page 15 section 1-3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the independent claims, Applicant argues Guo does not teach the refraining from transmitting ACK/NACK in response to an unsuccessful LBT but does not provide any rationale as to why the cited portions of Guo do not read on the claim language.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim, broadly speaking, states refraining from sending ACK/NACK (i.e. feedback is not sent) in response to LBT not being successful. Paragraph 69 of Guo teaches that the UE fails to transmit (i.e. no feedback is sent) when LBT is unsuccessful. Therefore, the claims properly read on the broad claim limitations. As noted in the Interview Summary on 1/15/2026, the Examiner explained why these proposed amendments would not overcome the art of record. The amendment did not change the scope of the claims as it merely re-wrote the original claims but did not add anything new.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411