DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/478495 filed on 09/29/2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
In response to the Restriction Requirement, Applicant elects, without traverse, Group I (claims 1-9), Groups II (claims 10-14) and Group III (claims 15-17) are withdrawn by Applicant.
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 . 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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant's claim for priority based on application filed on EPO EP21166722.5 (04/01/2021). Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informality:
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “Transmitter of a (type a) user equipment, UE…..” should be replaced with “A transmitter of a (type a) user equipment, UE….”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 2-9, the limitation “Transmitter according to claim….., UE…..” should be replaced with “The transmitter according to claim ……”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the transmitter is configured for a sidelink (SL) transmission without sidelink (SL) reception and wherein the transmitter is configured for blind retransmission of a data packet already transmitted using the sidelink (SL) transmission, wherein the number of retransmissions are performed dependent on one or more criteria” should be replaced with “wherein the transmitter is configured for a sidelink (SL) transmission without sidelink (SL) reception and wherein the transmitter is configured for blind retransmissions of a data packet already transmitted using the sidelink (SL) transmission, wherein a number of the blind retransmissions are performed dependent on one or more criteria”, and the limitation “wherein the transmitter is configured to perform random resource selection for the sidelink (SL) transmission, wherein the random resource selection is limited to a resource pool with random resource selection enabled, wherein a physical sidelink (SL) feedback channel is disabled and wherein the transmitter is configured for blind retransmission of a data packet already transmitted using the sidelink (SL) transmission, wherein the number of retransmissions are performed dependent on one or more criteria” should be replaced with “wherein the transmitter is configured to perform random resource selection for the sidelink (SL) transmission, wherein the random resource selection is limited to a resource pool with random resource selection enabled, wherein a physical sidelink (SL) feedback channel is disabled and wherein the transmitter is configured for blind retransmissions of a data packet already transmitted using the sidelink (SL) transmission, wherein a number of the blind retransmissions are performed dependent on one or more criteria”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 5-7, the limitation “the criteria” or “said criteria” should be replaced with “the one or more criteria”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 6, 7, the limitation “the retransmissions” should be replaced with “the blind retransmissions”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 7, 8, the limitation “the number of retransmissions” should be replaced with “the number of the blind retransmissions”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the number of retransmissions” should be replaced with “wherein the number of the blind retransmissions”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, no transitional phrases, such as, “comprising” are found in the claims. Thus, it is unclear about the scope of the claims with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claims, or what limitations should be considered as the body/preamble of the claims.
In addition, according to MPEP 2106.03 (I), a machine is defined as "...a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices..." The statutory definition of a machine is something that has plural parts. Claim 1 recites a transmitter without any component. As such, claim 1 does not recite either a plurality of parts, devices or a combination of devices; thus, the claim appear to be indefinite for lacking adequate structure.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for at least the reason stated above. Claims 2-9 depend on claim 1; however, they do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve any of the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 5-7, the limitations “the criteria” and “said criteria” render the claims indefinite. It is unclear whether the criteria” and “said criteria” are referred back to “one or more criteria” in claim 1 (line 5) or “one or more criteria” in claim 1 (lines 11-12).
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the group” (claim 5: line 1). However, there is insufficient antecedent base for this limitation in the claims.
Regarding claim 5, the term “low power UE” render the claims indefinite. It is unclear the actual conditions and/or parameters that are used to determine and this term.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the cast type”. However, there is insufficient antecedent base for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 6, 7, the limitations “the retransmissions” render the claims indefinite. It is unclear whether “the retransmissions” are referred back to “blind retransmissions” in claim 1 (line 3) or “blind retransmissions” in claim 1 (lines 9-10).
Claims 6, 7 each recites the limitation “the priority classes”. However, there is insufficient antecedent base for this limitation in the claims.
Regarding claims 7, 8, the limitations “the number of retransmissions” render the claims indefinite. It is unclear whether “the number of retransmissions” are referred back to “the number of retransmissions” in claim 1 (lines 4-5) or “the number of retransmissions” in claim 1 (line 11).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations “…can be configured…” render the claims indefinite. It is unclear whether the step/action is actually performed or not.
Regarding claims 5, 9, the phrase "like" and/or “e.g.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 9 (line 1) recites the limitation “the priority of data packet”. However, there is insufficient antecedent base for this limitation in the claims. It appears that, based on the content of claim 9, claim 9 should depend on claim 5 instead of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The terms "high, low" in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term " high, low" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the terms “emergency, normal, regular, low important” render the claims indefinite. It is unclear the actual conditions and/or parameters that are used to determine and distinguished these terms.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2022/0150914 A1).
As per claim 1, Lee discloses “Transmitter of a (type a) user equipment, UE,” as [(fig. 13), Transmitting UE.] “(i) wherein the transmitter is configured for a sidelink (SL) transmission without sidelink (SL) reception” [(par. 0121), the transmitting UE may perform blind retransmission for ‘N’ transmissions including the initial transmission, and the transmitting UE may determine/perform whether to retransmit based on sidelink HARQ feedbacks received from the receiving UE for the remaining transmissions of ‘maximum number of transmissions−N’ times. (fig. 13 and par. 0130), it is assumed that the transmitting UE determines/sets N to 4 for the service to be transmitted based on service-related QoS requirements (e.g., reliability and/or latency), congestion level, transmission parameter, transmission scheme type, transport block size and/or sidelink link quality.] “and wherein the transmitter is configured for blind retransmission of a data packet already transmitted using the sidelink (SL) transmission,” [(par. 0121), the transmitting UE may perform blind retransmission for ‘N’ transmissions including the initial transmission, and the transmitting UE may determine/perform whether to retransmit based on sidelink HARQ feedbacks received from the receiving UE for the remaining transmissions of ‘maximum number of transmissions−N’ times. (fig. 13 and par. 0130), it is assumed that the transmitting UE determines/sets N to 4 for the service to be transmitted based on service-related QoS requirements (e.g., reliability and/or latency), congestion level, transmission parameter, transmission scheme type, transport block size and/or sidelink link quality.] “wherein the number of retransmissions are performed dependent on one or more criteria; or” [(fig. 13 and par. 0130), it is assumed that the transmitting UE determines/sets N to 4 for the service to be transmitted based on service-related QoS requirements (e.g., reliability and/or latency), congestion level, transmission parameter, transmission scheme type, transport block size and/or sidelink link quality.] (ii)
As per claim 2, Lee discloses “Transmitter according to claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “” as [see rejection of claim 1.]
As per claim 3, Lee discloses “Transmitter according to claim 2,” as [see rejection of claim 2.] “.” as [see rejection of claim 1.]
As per claim 4, Lee discloses “Transmitter according to claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “.” as [see rejection of claim 1.]
As per claim 5, Lee discloses “Transmitter according to claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein the criteria are out of the group comprising one or more of the following: a priority for the data packet, one or more characteristics of a packet of a transmission, a logical channel used for a transmission, a logical channel group used for a transmission, a quality-of-service, QoS, flow, a quality-of-service, QoS, requirement associated with a transmission, like a priority or delay or data rate, the type of UE, e.g. V-UE, PS-UE, IIoT UE, low power UE, one or more resources to be used by an initial transmission and/or at least one further transmission, the cast type, e.g., unicast, groupcast or broadcast, used for the initial transmission, a current battery status of the UE.” [(fig. 13 and par. 0130), it is assumed that the transmitting UE determines/sets N to 4 for the service to be transmitted based on service-related QoS requirements (e.g., reliability and/or latency), congestion level, transmission parameter, transmission scheme type, transport block size and/or sidelink link quality.]
As per claim 6, Lee discloses “Transmitter according to claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein the retransmissions are performed n times, with 0<=n<=nretransmissions, wherein n is configured for each of the priority classes or another priority relevant information or said criteria.” [(fig. 13 and par. 0130), it is assumed that the transmitting UE determines/sets N to 4 for the service to be transmitted based on service-related QoS requirements (e.g., reliability and/or latency), congestion level, transmission parameter, transmission scheme type, transport block size and/or sidelink link quality.]
As per claim 7, Lee discloses “Transmitter according to claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein the transmitter performs the retransmissions, wherein the number of retransmissions is dependent on the priority classes or another priority relevant information or said criteria.” [(fig. 13 and par. 0130), it is assumed that the transmitting UE determines/sets N to 4 for the service to be transmitted based on service-related QoS requirements (e.g., reliability and/or latency), congestion level, transmission parameter, transmission scheme type, transport block size and/or sidelink link quality.]
As per claim 8, Lee discloses “Transmitter according to claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein the number of retransmissions performed by the transmitter can be configured based on a configured or pre-configured priority threshold.” [(fig. 13 and par. 0130), it is assumed that the transmitting UE determines/sets N to 4 for the service to be transmitted based on service-related QoS requirements (e.g., reliability and/or latency), congestion level, transmission parameter, transmission scheme type, transport block size and/or sidelink link quality.]
As per claim 9, Lee discloses “Transmitter according to claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein the priority depends on the content of the data packet; and/or wherein the priority is set to high for a data packet comprising an emergency information, set to normal for a data packet comprising regular data transmission (like a status information) or set to low for low important content (like an iterative information/iterative measurement information).” [(fig. 13 and par. 0130), it is assumed that the transmitting UE determines/sets N to 4 for the service to be transmitted based on service-related QoS requirements (e.g., reliability and/or latency), congestion level, transmission parameter, transmission scheme type, transport block size and/or sidelink link quality.]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publications:
ZHAO et al. (US 20220353045 A1).
WU et al. (US 20210314124 A1)
Huang et al. (US 20210007096 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANG HANG YEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7319. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Song can be reached on (571) 270-3667. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MANG HANG YEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2417
Prosecution Insights