DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remark
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 05/20/26.
a. No claims have been amended.
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)(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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Freda et al. (US 2022/0150730, “Freda”; Provisional 62/840,741 filed on Apr. 30, 2019, hereinafter “Prov’741”).
Regarding claim 21, Freda discloses a first user equipment (UE), comprising:
- one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first UE to (See Fig.1B):
- detect, based at least in part on a first timer at the first UE, that a gap in communications via a sidelink connection with a second UE exceeds a threshold time (See ¶.98, declare SL-RLF under condition that said HARQ feedback not being received within an expected time instant (DTX), for n consecutive times from said starting said inactivity timer, and wherein said measure of said feedback transmission is a quality of said HARQ for a purpose of verifying said condition that said measure of said feedback transmission received from the second WRTU device is above a threshold under condition that said HARQ feedback is received within said expected time instant; See ¶.281, a WTRU may have certain prioritization rules associated with conflicting transmissions of RS and data. For example, a WTRU may prioritize data transmissions over RS transmissions and may delay and/or skip an RS transmission if the WTRU it detects such conflict. In certain conditions, a WTRU may prioritize RS transmissions over data transmissions. For example, if the elapsed time since the last RS transmission exceeds a threshold, the WTRU may perform RS transmission and delay/skip the data transmission; See ¶.310, a WTRU may start/restart such timer upon transmission of an RS. Such RS transmission may be initiated by RLM (e.g. following timer expiry) or may be initiated due to required RS for other purposes (e.g. WTRU may determine RS is to be transmitted for Channel State Information Reference Signal (CSI-RS) measurements or may be required as a result of a request for RS transmission by the peer WTRU; Prov’741,
PNG
media_image1.png
194
745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
- format, responsive to the gap in communications exceeding the threshold time, a packet at a first layer of the first UE (See ¶.282, a WTRU may be configured with a table of data QoS/priority and/or elapsed time since last RS transmission and/or CBR. A WTRU may then determine whether to prioritize data or RS based on this table, the priority/QoS of the data to be transmitted, and the elapsed time since the last RS transmission; See ¶.193-194, two WTRUs could establish for example a one-to-one Proximity-based Services (ProSe) Direct Communication over the PC5 protocol layer on top of the Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP). In LTE D2D, one-to-one ProSe Direct Communication is realized by establishing a secure layer-2 link over PC5 between two WTRUs. Each WTRU has a Layer-2 identifier (ID) for unicast communication that is included in the Source Layer-2 ID field of every frame that it sends on the layer-2 link and in the Destination Layer-2 ID of every frame that it receives on the layer-2 link. The layer-2 link for one-to-one ProSe Direct Communication is identified by the combination of the Layer-2 IDs of the two WTRUs. This means that the WTRU can engage in multiple layer-2 links for one-to-one ProSe Direct Communication using the same Layer-2 ID; See ¶.865, NR V2X may support unicast links between peer WTRUs visible to the AS layer, so RLM/RLF support may be required; Prov’741,
PNG
media_image2.png
126
749
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
308
717
media_image3.png
Greyscale
);
- provide the packet to a second layer of the first UE for transmission to the second UE (See ¶.257, the WTRU may inform PHY layers to initiate/stop transmission of RS upon reception of such a message. The RRC layer may further maintain the number of unicast/groupcast links in which the WTRU WTRU may transmit a reference signal on a physical (PHY) layer discovery channel, possibly embedded in the time/frequency resources used for the discovery transmission; Prov’741,
PNG
media_image4.png
241
746
media_image4.png
Greyscale
); and
- transmit the packet to the second UE via the sidelink connection (See Fig.3 and ¶.206-207, transmitting to a second UE/WTRU; Prov’741,
PNG
media_image5.png
99
739
media_image5.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 22, Freda discloses “initiate a link maintenance for the sidelink connection with the second UE (See Fig.3 and ¶.198, establishment and maintenance of secure L2 link over PC5 may be defined; Prov’741,
PNG
media_image6.png
246
747
media_image6.png
Greyscale
).”
Regarding claim 23, Freda discloses “cause the first UE to one or more of: determine that data traffic of the sidelink connection has been inactive for at least the threshold time (See ¶.79, while the inactivity timer is running, performing RLM-RLF based on reception of feedback transmission from said second WTRU); determine that a signal from the second UE via the sidelink connection has not been successfully received for at least the threshold time (See ¶.4, declaring, for a communication link with a second WTRU, Sidelink Radio Link Failure (SL-RLF) for said communication link; See ¶.281, if the elapsed time since the last RS transmission exceeds a threshold, the WTRU may perform RS transmission and delay/skip the data transmission); or determine that a number of communication errors that have occurred in the sidelink connection meet or exceed a threshold error count (See ¶.138, the data may have varying quality of service (QoS) requirements, such as differing throughput requirements, latency requirements, error tolerance requirements; Prov’741,
PNG
media_image7.png
125
747
media_image7.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 24, Freda discloses “cause the first UE to: start the first timer upon receipt of a communication from the second UE via the sidelink connection (See ¶.310, a WTRU may start/restart such timer upon transmission of an RS. Such RS transmission may be initiated by RLM (e.g. following timer expiry) or may be initiated due to required RS for other purposes (e.g. WTRU may determine RS is to be transmitted for Channel State Information Reference Signal (CSI-RS) measurements or may be required as a result of a request for RS transmission by the peer WTRU; See ¶.380, a WTRU starts/stops a timer related to an RLF operation, such as a T310-like timer; See further ¶.20-25 and ¶.83; Prov’741,
PNG
media_image8.png
189
730
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.”
Regarding claim 25, Freda discloses “cause the first UE to: receive, from the second UE, a measurement report based at least in part on the packet transmission to the second UE (See ¶.41, a Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) request over said radio link followed by a corresponding CQI reported by said second WTRU; See ¶.356, Measurement reports, such as a CQI report, report of sidelink RSRP/RSSI/Signal to Interference and Noise Ratio (SINR), report of measured CBR, report of sidelink sensing/occupancy results, etc.; Prov’741,
PNG
media_image9.png
364
745
media_image9.png
Greyscale
).”
Regarding claim 26, Freda discloses “cause the first UE to: format a first layer packet independently of input from one or more other layers at the first UE (See ¶.282, a WTRU may be configured with a table of data QoS/priority and/or elapsed time since last RS transmission and/or CBR. A WTRU may then determine whether to prioritize data or RS based on this table, the priority/QoS of the data to be transmitted, and the elapsed time since the last RS transmission; See ¶.193-194, two WTRUs could establish for example a one-to-one Proximity-based Services (ProSe) Direct Communication over the PC5 protocol layer on top of the Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP). In LTE D2D, one-to-one ProSe Direct Communication is realized by establishing a secure layer-2 link over PC5 between two WTRUs. Each WTRU has a Layer-2 identifier (ID) for unicast communication that is included in the Source Layer-2 ID field of every frame that it sends on the layer-2 link and in the Destination Layer-2 ID of every frame that it receives on the layer-2 link. The layer-2 link for one-to-one ProSe Direct Communication is identified by the combination of the Layer-2 IDs of the two WTRUs. This means that the WTRU can engage in multiple layer-2 links for one-to-one ProSe Direct Communication using the same Layer-2 ID; See ¶.865, NR V2X may support unicast links between peer WTRUs visible to the AS layer, so RLM/RLF support may be required; Prov’741,
PNG
media_image10.png
125
744
media_image10.png
Greyscale
).”
Regarding claim 27, Freda discloses “cause the first UE to: identify, at the first layer, new data traffic for the sidelink connection with the second UE; and reset the first timer (See ¶.432, RLF triggered on one SL process may result in RLF triggered on a different SL process. In another embodiment, RLF triggered on one SL process may result in the WTRU resetting a RLF timer associated with another SL process; Prov’741,
PNG
media_image11.png
309
738
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
99
738
media_image12.png
Greyscale
).”
Regarding claim 28, Freda discloses “each of the first UE and the second UE independently trigger a link maintenance procedure based at least in part on a communications gap on the sidelink connection exceeding the threshold time (See ¶.265, when RLF is triggered: a WTRU may perform RS transmissions based on the sidelink radio link failure (SL-RLF)-state associated with the WTRU or a specific unicast link. Specifically, a WTRU may stop previously configured RS transmissions upon detection of RLF associated with a unicast link; See ¶.281, if the elapsed time since the last RS transmission exceeds a threshold, the WTRU may perform RS transmission and delay/skip the data transmission; See ¶.310-312, a WTRU may either transmit data with RS immediately following expiry of the timer, or may transmit RS with data upon the next scheduled or triggered data transmission following timer expiry. Specifically, a WTRU may perform any of the following: [0311] (i) Immediate transmission following timer expiry: A WTRU may perform immediate transmission of RS, either in standalone RS fashion, or in conjunction with data and/or control information. For example, a WTRU may perform a one-shot resource selection procedure initiated by the expiry of the RS transmission timer, and may include any pending data, dummy data (e.g. using an indication that the transmission does not contain useful information) or control information within the transmission resources, along with the RS transmission. [0312] (ii) RS Transmissions at the next available data transmission: Alternatively, the WTRU may perform RS transmission at the next data transmission scheduled or initiated following expiry of the timer; Prov’741,
PNG
media_image13.png
766
652
media_image13.png
Greyscale
).”
Regarding claim 29, Freda discloses “the sidelink connection with the second UE is a unicast sidelink connection (See ¶.198, unicast communication over PC5 interface; Prov’741,
PNG
media_image14.png
216
746
media_image14.png
Greyscale
).”
Regarding claim 30, Freda discloses “cause the first UE to: transmit a signal to solicit the second UE to transmit a packet for measurement at the first UE (See ¶.310, a WTRU may start/restart such timer upon transmission of an RS. Such RS transmission may be initiated by RLM (e.g. following timer expiry) or may be initiated due to required RS for other purposes (e.g. WTRU may determine RS is to be transmitted for Channel State Information Reference Signal (CSI-RS) measurements or may be required as a result of a request for RS transmission by the peer WTRU; Prov’741,
PNG
media_image15.png
178
608
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
295
744
media_image16.png
Greyscale
).”
Regarding claim 31, Freda discloses “cause the first UE to: transmit an indication to the second layer to transmit a reference signal transmission to the second UE (See ¶.51, the first WTRU detecting a Reference Signal requested as part of said first set of at least one transmission, being above a threshold; See ¶.221, a WTRU may transmit reference signals on PSSCH without any data, such as on one or a set of subchannels indicated by SCI. Specifically, an SCI may indicate the presence of one or more subchannels used for transmission of RS only; See ¶.238, configuration of the RS may refer to any of: indication of presence/absence of RLM RS, time/frequency/beam location of the RLM RS, TX power of the RLM RS, PHY layer sequence associated with the RLM RS; See ¶.257, the WTRU may inform PHY layers to initiate/stop transmission of RS upon reception of such a message; Prov’741,
PNG
media_image17.png
238
740
media_image17.png
Greyscale
).”
Regarding claim 32, Freda discloses “the packet includes a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) transmission using only reference signal symbols (See ¶.310, a WTRU may start/restart such timer upon transmission of an RS. Such RS transmission may be initiated by RLM (e.g. following timer expiry) or may be initiated due to required RS for other purposes (e.g. WTRU may determine RS is to be transmitted for Channel State Information Reference Signal (CSI-RS) measurements or may be required as a result of a request for RS transmission by the peer WTRU; See ¶.215, a WTRU may transmit references signals within the set of symbols reserved or associated with SCI transmissions and may perform such transmission in a standalone manner; See ¶.220-221, a WTRU may transmit reference signals embedded in a data transmission (Transport Block (TB) transmission) on PSSCH. [0221] b. RLM RS in PSSCH resources indicated by SCI: for example, a WTRU may transmit reference signals on PSSCH without any data, such as on one or a set of subchannels indicated by SCI. Specifically, an SCI may indicate the presence of one or more subchannels used for transmission of RS only; Prov’741, pg.27,
PNG
media_image18.png
450
661
media_image18.png
Greyscale
).”
Regarding claim 33, Freda discloses a second user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the second UE to:
- establish a sidelink connection with a first UE (See Fig.3);
- receive, from the first UE, a link maintenance procedure message via the sidelink connection that indicates to transmit a packet via the sidelink connection (303 Fig.3 and the related paragraphs);
- format the packet at a first layer for transmission to the first UE (as rejected in claim 21);
- provide the packet to a second layer for transmission to the first UE (as rejected in claim 21); and
- transmit the packet to the first UE over the sidelink connection (as rejected in claim 21).
Regarding claim 34, Freda discloses “cause the second UE to: initiate a first timer at the second UE responsive to receipt of the link maintenance procedure message; and transmit, to the first UE, a second a link maintenance procedure message via the sidelink connection (See ¶.84, said first WTRU sending an In Sync (IS) indication under condition of reception of data or of at said least one signal from said second WTRU during said at least one period; See ¶.181, to start transmitting and receiving V2X messages without assistance from the network; See ¶.208, Reference Signals (RS) required for In Sync/Out of Sync (IS/OOS) determination need to be transmitted by a WTRU on sidelink, and the resources for such signal need to be defined so that they are coordinated between the two WTRUs, in addition with other WTRUs using the sidelink; See ¶.272-274, a WTRU may receive a SL message (e.g. SL-RRC message, SL-MAC-Control Entity (SL-MAC CE), SCI with dedicated indication) requesting to perform a one-shot RS transmission or to start/stop transmission of periodic/aperiodic RS transmission. [0273] Based on expiry of a timer associated with transmissions by the WTRU or peer WTRU: a WTRU may perform RS transmission upon the expiry of a timer associated with any of the following events or WTRU actions: [0274] a. A WTRU may transmit RS if a time T has expired since the last transmission of an RS; A WTRU which receives such indication from the peer WTRU may stop or pause RS-based RLM/RLF and start performing a different RLM/RLF mechanism based on the type of indication received. For example, such WTRU may perform any of the following: See ¶.377-380, a WTRU measures one or a number of out of sync (OOS) events associated with a received RS from a peer WTRU; [0378] A WTRU measures a successive number of IS/OOS; [0379] A WTRU measures the quality of a peer WTRU RS below/above a threshold; [0380] a WTRU starts/stops a timer related to an RLF operation, such as a T310-like timer; See ¶.403-406, a WTRU which receives such indication from the peer WTRU may stop or pause RS-based RLM/RLF and start performing a different RLM/RLF mechanism based on the type of indication received. For example, such WTRU may perform any of the following: [0404] Stop monitoring of RLM-RS associated with data transmissions by the peer WTRU [0405] Clear all timers (e.g. T310-like) and counters (e.g. N310-like) associated with RLM-based RLF [0406] Start any procedures associated with the alternative RLM/RLF procedure; See ¶.712, a WTRU may start a timer upon the occurrence of an indication period in which no SCI/RS is received. Such timer may be reset at the reception of SCI/RS; See ¶.432, RLF triggered on one SL process may result in RLF triggered on a different SL process. In another embodiment, RLF triggered on one SL process may result in the WTRU resetting a RLF timer associated with another SL process. In another example, one or more IS reported from one SL process resets an RLF timer in another SL process; See further ¶.465, ¶.637, ¶.684, ¶.776-778, and ¶.904; Prov’741, See ¶.92, ¶.129, ¶.132, ¶.166, ¶.182, ¶.196, ¶.198, ¶.217-218, ¶.278, and ¶.352).”
Regarding claims 35-37, they are claims corresponding to claims 28, 29, & the determining step of 23, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Regarding claim 38, Freda discloses “the link maintenance procedure message from the first UE does not contain user plane data that is to be provided to one or more higher layers at the second UE (See ¶.256-257, a WTRU may receive such indication from upper layers (e.g. RRC layers). [0257] a. According to an embodiment, a WTRU may receive an RRC message (from the network, or from a peer WTRU via SL-RRC) indicating successful link establishment, or link release. The WTRU may inform PHY layers to initiate/stop transmission of RS upon reception of such a message. The RRC layer may further maintain the number of unicast/groupcast links in which the WTRU is involved and may send an indication to start RS transmission when the first link is established. The RRC layer may send indication to stop RS transmission when the last link is released; Prov’741, See ¶.126).”
Regarding claim 39, Freda discloses “the link maintenance procedure message is a keepalive message received from the first UE (See ¶.197, the PC5 Signaling Protocol supports keep-alive functionality that is used to detect when the WTRUs are not in ProSe Communication range, so that they can proceed with implicit layer-2 link release; Prov’741, See ¶.80).”
Regarding claim 40, it is a method claim corresponding to the UE claim 21 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At pages 6-8, with respect to claims 21 and 40, applicant argues that Freda fails to disclose the limitations “format, responsive to the gap in communications exceeding the threshold time, a packet at a first layer of the first UE; [and] provide the packet to a second layer of the first UE for transmission to the second UE” by asserting that;
“For example, no portion of Freda describes formatting "a packet at a first layer of the first UE," as recited in independent claim 21. That is, merely performing reference signal transmissions, as described by Freda, is not the same as, and does not disclose, formatting "a packet at a first layer of the first UE" as claimed. Even if transmitting reference signals, as described by Freda, could be interpreted to disclose formatting "a packet" as claimed-which Applicant does not concede to be correct-no portion of Freda describes formatting "a packet at a first layer of the first UE," as recited in independent claim 21. For example, Freda merely describes WTRUs that are visible for sidelink communications via an AS layer , but does not describe use of the AS layer for formatting "a packet at a first layer of the first UE," as recited in independent claim 21. Indeed, the Office Action has not shown, nor pointed to, any portion of Freda relevant to formatting "a packet at a first layer of the first UE" as claimed, much less "responsive to the gap in communications exceeding the threshold time," as recited in independent claim 21. Thus, Freda does not disclose at least the aforementioned limitations recited in independent claim 21.
The Office Action further appears to allege that the indication sent to a PHY layer to perform reference signal transmission of Freda discloses "provide the packet to a second layer of the first UE for transmission to the second UE," as recited in independent claim 21. Office Action, p. 4 (citing Freda 1 [0257]). But the cited limitations of Freda are not the same as those recited in independent claim 21.
For example, merely indicating or instructing for a PHY layer to transmit reference signals, as described by Freda, is not the same as, and does not disclose "provide the packet to a second layer of the first UE for transmission to the second UE," as recited in independent claim 21. That is, the Office Action has not shown, nor can Applicant find, any portion of Freda that describes the reference signals as being provided "to a second layer of the first UE for transmission to the second UE" as claimed, and the indication of Freda otherwise cannot be properly construed to disclose "the packet" as claimed. For example, Freda discusses transmitting reference signals in response to the indication, which is functionally disparate from, and does not disclose, "provide the packet to a second layer of the first UE for transmission to the second UE," as recited in independent claim 21. Stated differently, Freda describes transmission of reference signals for use in RLM procedures in response to an indication, but reference signals transmit by the PHY layer are different from, and do not disclose, "the packet for transmission to the second UE," as recited in independent claim 21. Moreover, Freda does not disclose "provide the packet to a second layer of the first UE for transmission to the second UE," where the packet is formatted "responsive to the gap in communications exceeding the threshold time," as recited in independent claim 21.”
In reply, it is necessary to know the definition of a first layer in Applicant’s specification.
¶.[0006] of Applicant’s specification defines “an access stratum (AS) layer at the initiating UE may format a data packet (e.g., a dummy data packet) in the absence of higher layer data to be transmitted to the other UE. The AS layer may provide the data packet to a lower layer (e.g., a physical layer) for insertion of one or more reference signals and transmission to the other UE over the sidelink connection.”
¶.[0069] of Applicant’s specification defines “the AS layer may include a radio resource control (RRC) layer that provides establishment, configuration, and maintenance of an RRC connection between a UE and another UE, a base station 105, or core network 130 supporting radio bearers for user plane data. The AS layer may also include a bearer or Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) layer may be IP-based. A Radio Link Control (RLC) layer may perform packet segmentation and reassembly to communicate over logical channels.”
¶.[0084] of Applicant’s specification defines “alternatively, the first UE 115-a may transmit, via the first link 205, a signal to solicit the second UE 115-b to transmit a data packet at the AS layer for measurement at the first UE 115-a. In such cases, the second UE 115-b may format and transmit a packet on the second link 210 to the first UE 115-a.”
According to the definition of “AS layer” described in applicant’s specification, the limitations “format a packet at a first layer of the first UE” explicitly read on:
¶.[0045]-[0047] of Freda discloses “the first WTRU receiving or decoding a response transmission with a property indicating that a quality metric determined by said second WTRU is below a threshold. In a further feature, the quality threshold is one of: [0046] said first WTRU not detecting a HARQ acknowledgement over a physical channel following said first set of at least one transmission; [0047] said first WTRU not detecting a Channel State Information (CSI) over a transmission of a CSI-request as part of said first set of at least one transmission. In a further feature, the first WTRU, when declaring SL-RLF, transmits, to a gNB, information indicating said SL-RLF, said information comprising a data link layer (L2) destination identifier of the radio link.”
¶.[0187] of Freda discloses “further in LTE, the resource pools are semi-statically signaled to WTRUs via Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling. In Mode 4, the WTRU uses sensing before selecting a resource from the RRC configured transmitting pool. LTE V2X does not support dynamic resource pool reconfiguration; pool configuration may only be carried via System Information Block (SIB) and/or dedicated RRC signaling.”
¶.[0255] of Freda discloses “A WTRU may receive such indication from upper layers (e.g. RRC layers).”
¶.[0257] of Freda discloses “according to an embodiment, a WTRU may receive an RRC message (from the network, or from a peer WTRU via SL-RRC) indicating successful link establishment, or link release. The WTRU may inform PHY layers to initiate/stop transmission of RS upon reception of such a message. The RRC layer may further maintain the number of unicast/groupcast links in which the WTRU is involved and may send an indication to start RS transmission when the first link is established. The RRC layer may send indication to stop RS transmission when the last link is released.”
¶.[0272] of Freda discloses “a WTRU may receive a SL message (e.g. SL-RRC message, SL-MAC-Control Entity (SL-MAC CE), SCI with dedicated indication) requesting to perform a one-shot RS transmission or to start/stop transmission of periodic/aperiodic RS transmission.”
¶.[0282] of Freda discloses “See ¶.193-194, two WTRUs could establish for example a one-to-one Proximity-based Services (ProSe) Direct Communication over the PC5 protocol layer on top of the Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP). In LTE D2D, one-to-one ProSe Direct Communication is realized by establishing a secure layer-2 link over PC5 between two WTRUs. Each WTRU has a Layer-2 identifier (ID) for unicast communication that is included in the Source Layer-2 ID field of every frame that it sends on the layer-2 link and in the Destination Layer-2 ID of every frame that it receives on the layer-2 link. The layer-2 link for one-to-one ProSe Direct Communication is identified by the combination of the Layer-2 IDs of the two WTRUs; See ¶.865, NR V2X may support unicast links between peer WTRUs visible to the AS layer, so RLM/RLF support may be required.”
¶.[0311] of Freda discloses “for example, a WTRU may perform a one-shot resource selection procedure initiated by the expiry of the RS transmission timer, and may include any pending data, dummy data (e.g. using an indication that the transmission does not contain useful information) or control information within the transmission resources, along with the RS transmission
¶.[0330] of Freda discloses “the WTRU may transmit RS with data depending on the selected TB size. For example, if the TB size is below/above a threshold, a WTRU may include RS. In another example, the WTRU may include RS when the TB size compared to the resource size is such that RS can be inserted without a change in coding or without segmentation.”
¶.[0346]-[0348] of Freda discloses “In case no data is available for transmission on the said sidelink process, a WTRU may: [0347] transmit dummy data or status/measurements [0348] transmit data associated with a non-allowed sidelink radio bearer or logical channel.”
¶.[0353] of Freda discloses “a WTRU may inform the network of the computed/determined required RS transmission periodicity. Such indication may be made to the network using an RRC message (e.g. Sidelink WTRU Information or Sidelink WTRU Assistance), a MAC CE (e.g. buffer status report (BSR)), or a PHY layer indication (e.g. a scheduling request (SR) resource or physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource).”
¶.[0914] of Freda discloses “An SCI transmission explicitly indicating the SL-RLF; [0914] Transmission of a PHY layer sequence encoding the SL-RLF state.”
¶.[0915]-[0917] of Freda discloses “according to another embodiment, a WTRU may inform the network about an SL-RLF or provide the SL-RLF state by performing, for example, any of the following: [0916] Transmission of an RRC message to the network; [0917] Transmission of a MAC CE to the network.” [emphasis added].
¶.[0974] of Freda discloses “a WTRU may transmit a non-transmission indication in a MAC CE or an RRC message, possibly multiplexed with data transmission for one or multiple logical channels.”
In other words, a WTRU transmits a Reference Signal (RS) to other WTRU by considering the elapsed times exceeding a threshold and the RS transmission needs to be encoded/formatted the packet(s) to send over a sidelink. AS layer as a first layer of UE (e.g. including RRC layer, PDCP layer, or MAC layer) inherently needs to encodes/formats the packet at the first layer (layer 2 or higher) into a PHY layer to transmit the packet over the sidelink. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
At pages 9-10, with respect to claim 33, applicant argues that “Freda fails to disclose the method of receiving, formatting, and providing the packet to a second layer to the first UE” as cited in independent claim 33” by asserting that;
[Response to the First Argument]:
Applicant argues that “the Office Action alleges that the reference signal transmissions for RLM of Freda discloses "format the packet at a first layer for transmission to the first UE" and "provide the packet to a second layer for transmission to the first UE," as recited in independent claim 33. Office Action, p. 14 (citing Freda " [0193], [0194], [0282], and [0865]). Specifically, the Office Action alleges that Freda is relevant to the aforementioned limitations of independent claim 33 "as rejected in claim 21." See id. But the cited limitations of Freda are not the same as those recited in independent claim 33. For example, as further discussed herein, no portion of Freda is relevant to, nor discloses, "format the packet at a first layer for transmission" and "provide the packet to a second layer for transmission," as recited in independent claim 33. Specifically, Freda discusses transmitting reference signals for RLM, which is not the same as, and does not disclose "format the packet at a first layer for transmission" as claimed, at least for the reasons further discussed herein above. Moreover, Freda discusses sending an indication to a PHY layer indicating for the PHY layer to transmit the reference signals, which is not the same as, and does not disclose, "provide the packet to a second layer for transmission," as recited in independent claim 33, for at least the reasons further discussed herein above. Thus, Freda does not disclose at least the aforementioned limitations recited in independent claim 33.” [Applicant’s emphasis added].
In reply, as respond to the arguments for claims 21 and 40, a WTRU transmits a Reference Signal (RS) to other WTRU and the RS transmission needs to be encoded/formatted the packet(s) to send over a sidelink. AS layer as a first layer of UE (e.g. including RRC layer, PDCP layer, or MAC layer) inherently needs to encodes/formattes the packet at the first layer (layer 2 or higher) into a PHY layer in order to transmit the packet over the sidelink. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
[Response to the Second Argument]:
Applicant argues that “the Office Action alleges that Freda discloses "receive, from the first UE, a link maintenance procedure message via the sidelink connection that indicates to transmit a packet via the sidelink connection," as recited in independent claim 33. Office Action, p. 14 (citing Freda, FIG. 3). Specifically, the Office Action cites "303 Fig.3 and the related paragraphs" of Freda as allegedly being relevant to the limitations of independent claim 33. See id. But the cited limitations of Freda are not the same as those recited in independent claim 33. For example, at the cited portions, Freda describes a "link establishment procedure," where "[a] first WTRU 301 sends a Direct Communication Request message to a second WTRU 302 in order to trigger mutual authentication. The message includes requested PCS QoS parameters. In 304, WTRU 302 initiates the procedure for mutual authentication. WTRU 302 includes the accepted PCS QoS parameters in the response message." Freda 'I [0206]. In other words, Freda describes a sidelink link establishment procedure where a first WTRU and a second WTRU exchange communication parameters. The Office Action appears to allege that such a link establishment procedure, as described by Freda, is relevant to the limitations recited in independent claim 33. However, a link establishment procedure, as described by Freda, is not the same as, and does not disclose "a link maintenance procedure message via the sidelink connection that indicates to transmit a packet via the sidelink connection," as recited in independent claim 33. That is, any such messages communicated as part of a link establishment procedure, as described by Freda, are functionally disparate from "a link maintenance procedure message" as claimed. Moreover, no portion of Freda discusses the direct communication request as "indicat[ing] to transmit a packet via the sidelink connection," as recited in independent claim 33. Rather, a link establishment procedure, as described by Freda, is functionally disparate from, and does not disclose, "receive, from the first UE, a link maintenance procedure message via the sidelink connection that indicates to transmit a packet via the sidelink connection," as recited in claim 33.
In reply, the limitations “receive, from the first UE, a link maintenance procedure message via the sidelink connection that indicates to transmit a packet via the sidelink connection” explicitly read on:
¶.[0198] of Freda discloses “Link Establishment for NR V2X: Embodiments for enhancement for link establishment under NR V2X are described here. While procedures for establishment and maintenance of secure L2 link over PC5 may be defined, embodiments are proposed according to which these procedures are enhanced and adapted for V2X. Additional considerations for the V2X for link/group handling may be required. For V2X communication, not all WTRUs will be supporting or use unicast communication. To support link establishment, there may be a need for embodiments with service announcement in order to inform a peer WTRU of the existence of the WTRU and the capability of the WTRU for unicast communication, e.g., channel to operate, or services supported, etc.” [emphasis added].
¶.[0207] of Freda discloses “NR V2X may support unicast links between two WTRUs, in which one or more sidelink radio bearer may be established. In order to maintain some reliability link for signaling between the WTRUs in the unicast link, some form of radio link monitoring procedure (Radio Link Monitoring (RLM)/Radio Link Failure (RLF)) may be required and can be extended to sidelink.”
¶.[0257] of Freda discloses “a WTRU may receive an RRC message (from the network, or from a peer WTRU via SL-RRC) indicating successful link establishment, or link release. The WTRU may inform PHY layers to initiate/stop transmission of RS upon reception of such a message. The RRC layer may further maintain the number of unicast/groupcast links in which the WTRU is involved and may send an indication to start RS transmission when the first link is established. The RRC layer may send indication to stop RS transmission when the last link is released. [0258] b. According to another embodiment, a WTRU may receive an indication from upper layers upon initiation/termination of a unicast link, and may start/stop transmission of RS associated with that unicast link upon reception of such indication.” [emphasis added].
¶.[0301] of Freda discloses “a WTRU may maintain a timer to control the transmission of RS. The value of the timer may be determined by any of the factors described above for determination of the periodicity of RS transmissions. A WTRU may start/restart such timer upon transmission of an RS. Such RS transmission may be initiated by RLM (e.g. following timer expiry) or may be initiated due to required RS for other purposes (e.g. WTRU may determine RS is to be transmitted for Channel State Information Reference Signal (CSI-RS) measurements or may be required as a result of a request for RS transmission by the peer WTRU or gNB). A WTRU may perform data transmission without RS as long as the timer is running. Upon expiry of the timer, the WTRU may transmit data with RS. A WTRU may either transmit data with RS immediately following expiry of the timer, or may transmit RS with data upon the next scheduled or triggered data transmission following timer expiry.”
¶.[0355] of Freda discloses “a WTRU may perform transmission of control information to the peer WTRU at a time instance when RS transmission is required in order to maintain a minimum required RS transmission periodicity or within a configured grant intended for RS transmission. Specifically, the WTRU may perform an asynchronous (one-shot) transmission of control/status information following the expiry of a timer from the last transmission of an RS by the WTRU, or the WTRU may perform transmission of control/status information in a configured periodic grant intended for RS transmission when there is no data to be transmitted at the WTRU which can use the grant. The WTRU may transmit any of the following control/status information in such a grant.”
¶.[0361] of Freda discloses “the advantage of such solution is to maintain the required RS transmission frequency despite lack of data to be transmitted and provide useful information to the peer WTRU when performing the RS transmission.”
¶.[0442] of Freda discloses “The list of all unicast link identifiers maintained by the WTRU associated with the failed RLM/RLF process, where such unicast link identifier may have been provided and/or negotiated with upper layers during link establishment.”
¶.[0466]-[0467] of Freda discloses “the WTRU transmitting RLM RS, may determine to transmit control information, or transmit RS with data (e.g. upon expiry of a timer) to any of the associated source/destination addresses. [0467] IS/OOS/NS determination, RLF declaration, maintenance of timers, etc. may assume transmissions associated with the associated source/destination IDs are related to the same RLM/RLF process.”
¶.[0894] of Freda discloses “For example, a WTRU may maintain a ratio of NS/IS over its last X received indications, or over the last x seconds. The WTRU may start a timer related to the trigger of RLF if such measured ratio is above a threshold. In addition, a WTRU may stop the said timer while running if the ratio falls below a (possibly different) threshold. The WTRU may trigger RLF upon expiry of the said timer.”
¶.[1007] of Freda discloses “A WTRU may maintain a measure of the variation in frequency resources (e.g. subchannels) which it has used for resource selection, possibly over a period of time, and possibly associated with transmissions to the same WTRU/unicast link. For example, a WTRU may measure the number of different subchannels or subchannel sets used for its transmissions, and/or the frequency distance between subchannels or subchannel sets it uses for its transmissions. A WTRU may perform resource reselection for periodic transmission based on such measurement (e.g. such measurement is below a threshold, possibly during a period of time). A WTRU may derive such measurement from resources used for both periodic and asynchronous transmissions.” Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
[Response to the Third Argument]:
Applicant argues that “Third, as a threshold matter, "[t]he burden is on the Office to establish any prima facie case of unpatentability, thus the reasoning behind any rejection must be clearly articulated." MPEP § 707.07(d) (citing MPEP § 2103) (emphasis added). Indeed, under the principles of compact prosecution, once examiners have concluded the analyses of the claimed invention under all the statutory provisions they should "review all the proposed rejections and their bases to confirm that they are able to set forth a prima facie case of unpatentability. Only then should any rejection be imposed in an Office action. The Office action should clearly communicate the findings, conclusions and reasons which support them." Id. § 2103(VI) (emphasis added). For example, setting forth the nature of examination when relying on references in the rejection of claims for an alleged lack of novelty or obviousness, regulation states that, "the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained." 37 CFR 1.104(c)(2). (emphasis added).”
In reply, Applicant respectfully maintains that Examiner’s narrow focus on the literal absence of the specific word “format” fails to consider the disclosure from the perspective of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (“PHOSITA”). It is well-established patent law that a patent specification is addressed to a PHOSITA, not to a layman, and it need not explicitly define or spell out every well-known technical truism or inherent feature. See, e.g., In re Robbins, 429 F.2d 452, 456 (CCPA 1970) (stating that the specification is sufficient if it enables a PHOSITA to practice the invention without undue experimentation); see also Ajinomoto Co. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 228 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
In the context of 5G Next-Generation networks, particularly regarding UE-to-UE communication utilizing a Sidelink PC5 link, the concepts of “providing a packet” and “formatting a packet” are inherently intertwined and universally understood by a PHOSITA. To utilize a PC5 interface for direct device-to-device communication, data generated at the higher layers such as AS layer (e.g., Application, SDAP, PDCP, RLC, or MAC layers) must naturally be processed, encoded, and formatted into structured protocol data units (PDUs) before being transmitted over the physical layer (PHY). The cited paragraphs of the present disclosure explicitly illustrate and describe the multi-layered architecture, including the specific mechanisms for encoding and decoding data across these various protocol layers. A PHOSITA reads these disclosures not in a vacuum, but with the baseline knowledge that "encoding" and "layer-by-layer processing" within a 5G architecture inherently encompasses and performs the "formatting" of a packet to comply with the standardized interface protocols.
To argue that the disclosure is insufficient or that the claim lacks support simply because the generic term “format” was not textually repeated - despite the detailed description of the exact structural layers and encoding steps that perform this precise function - imposes an extra-legal standard of literal redundancy that is contrary to compact prosecution principles.
Accordingly, because the cited paragraphs of Freda fully and inherently disclose the claimed limitations to a PHOSITA, the Office establishes a prima facie case of unpatentability. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jung H Park whose telephone number is 571-272-8565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM-3:00 PM.
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 on 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.
/JUNG H PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights