Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“A threshold" in claim 20 (line 10) should be replaced with - - the threshold - - to be consistent with the first citation of “a threshold” in claim 20 (line 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 17-20, 22-26, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashraf ‘725 (US20220191725A1, “Ashraf ‘725”), in view of Wang ‘558 (US20250008558A1, “Wang ‘558”).
Regarding claims 17, 31, and 32, Ashraf ‘725 discloses an apparatus (FIG. 2, para 37; UE 1100) comprising:
at least one processor (FIG. 2, para 37; processor 1103); and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (FIG. 2, para 37; memory 1105 stores program code that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform operations), cause the apparatus at least to perform:
receiving a transmission via sidelink from a user equipment (FIG. 4, para 37 and 78-86; a first V2X wireless device (RX UE) receives a transmission from a second V2X wireless device (TX UE), where V2X communication is a sidelink communication; a first V2X wireless device (RX UE) reads on an apparatus; a second V2X wireless device (TX UE) reads on a user equipment);
determining a decoding result for the transmission (FIG. 4, para 78-86; RX UE determines whether the transmission is decoded successfully or unsuccessfully);
determining, based on at least one interpretation rule, an interpretation result of an absence of hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ, feedback for the transmission (FIG. 4, para 56 and 78-86; RX UE measures reference signal received power (RSRP) of a reference signal received from the TX UE; RX UE compares the measured RSRP to a RSRP threshold; RX UE determines not to transmit HARQ feedback responsive to the measured RSRP being greater than the RSRP threshold; alternatively, RX UE would determine to transmit HARQ feedback responsive to the measured RSRP being less than the RSRP threshold; thus, RX UE determines, based on the interpretation rule of determining whether to transmit the HARQ feedback responsive to the comparison of the measured RSRP to the RSRP threshold, the interpretation result of not transmitting the HARQ feedback because the result of the comparison is that the measured RSRP is greater than the RSRP threshold); and
determining, based on the decoding result and the interpretation result, whether to send the HARQ feedback for the transmission (FIG. 4, para 78-86; as seen in FIG. 4, RX UE determines, based on the comparison result that the measured RSRP is greater than the RSRP threshold, and based on a successful decoding result, not to send the HARQ feedback that corresponds to the received transmission from the TX UE).
Although Ashraf ‘725 discloses receiving a transmission via sidelink from a user equipment, Ashraf ‘725 does not specifically disclose receiving a transmission via sidelink unlicensed band from a user equipment.
Wang ‘558 teaches receiving a transmission via sidelink unlicensed band from a user equipment (para 114-115; transmission between sidelink UEs is via sidelink unlicensed band).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ashraf ‘725’s apparatus that determines whether to send HARQ feedback information, to include Wang ‘558’s transmission via sidelink unlicensed band. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a mechanism to support sidelink transmission over unlicensed band (Wang ‘558, para 83).
Regarding claim 18, Ashraf ‘725 in combination with Wang ‘558 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 17, as outlined above.
Further, Ashraf ‘725 teaches wherein the at least one interpretation rule is for determining the absence of HARQ feedback for the transmission either as a positive acknowledgement, ACK, for the transmission or as a negative acknowledgement, NACK, for the transmission (para 61; the RX UE determines not to transmit either ACK or NACK HARQ feedback, i.e. to transmit neither ACK nor NACK HARQ feedback, based on criteria based on RSRP and physical distance between the RX UE and the TX UE).
Regarding claim 19, Ashraf ‘725 in combination with Wang ‘558 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 17, as outlined above.
Further, Ashraf ‘725 teaches wherein the determining, based on the decoding result and the interpretation result, whether to send the HARQ feedback for the transmission comprises:
based on determining that the decoding result corresponds to the interpretation result, refraining from transmitting the HARQ feedback for the transmission (FIG. 4, para 78-86; as seen in FIG. 4, RX UE determines, based on the comparison result that the measured RSRP is greater than the RSRP threshold, and based on the successful decoding result, not to send the HARQ feedback that corresponds to the received transmission from the TX UE; thus, the RX UE determines not to send the HARQ feedback based on the comparison result and the decoding result; therefore, the RX UE determines not to send the HARQ feedback based on determination of the two results, where the two results are corresponding by virtue of being combined criteria for the determination not to send the HARQ feedback).
Regarding claim 20, Ashraf ‘725 in combination with Wang ‘558 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 17, as outlined above.
Further, Ashraf ‘725 teaches wherein the determining, based on the decoding result and the interpretation result, whether to send the HARQ feedback for the transmission comprises:
determining that the decoding result corresponds to the interpretation result (para 61 and 78-86; the RX UE determines whether to transmit HARQ ACK or NACK feedback based on the decoding result and additional criteria based on RSRP and physical distance between the RX UE and the TX UE; thus, the RX UE determines that the decoding result and the result according to the additional criteria are corresponding by virtue of being combined criteria for the determination whether to send the HARQ feedback); and
determining a channel condition of a channel for transmitting the HARQ feedback (para 61 and 78-86; one of the criteria for determining whether to transmit HARQ feedback is the comparison of the measured RSRP to the RSRP threshold for the reference signal received from the TX UE; thus, the RX UE determines the channel condition of the channel for transmitting the HARQ feedback);
based on determining that the decoding result corresponds to the interpretation result and that the channel condition is above a threshold, transmitting the HARQ feedback for the transmission; or
based on determining that the decoding result corresponds to the interpretation result and that the channel condition is below a threshold, refraining from transmitting the HARQ feedback for the transmission (para 61; the RX UE determines not to transmit the HARQ feedback based on determining the decoding result and determining that the measured RSRP is below the RSRP threshold; the decoding result corresponds to the interpretation result by virtue of the two being combined criteria for the determination not to send the HARQ feedback; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Regarding claim 22, Ashraf ‘725 in combination with Wang ‘558 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 17, as outlined above.
Further, Ashraf ‘725 teaches wherein the at least one interpretation rule is based on at least one of:
at least one service-related parameter (para 67 and 78-86; the RSRP threshold is defined as a function of Quality of Service (QoS) parameters; thus, the comparison of the measured RSRP to the RSRP threshold is based on QoS parameters); or
at least one channel-related parameter (para 67 and 78-86; the comparison of the measured RSRP to the RSRP threshold for the reference signal received from the TX UE is based on the RSRP threshold; the RSRP threshold reads on at least one channel-related parameter, examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Regarding claim 23, Ashraf ‘725 in combination with Wang ‘558 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 22, as outlined above.
Further, Ashraf ‘725 teaches wherein the at least one service-related parameter comprises at least one of:
quality of service (para 67 and 78-86; the RSRP threshold is defined as a function of Quality of Service (QoS) parameters; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art);
PC5 quality of service indicator;
channel access priority class;
reliability; or
latency.
Regarding claim 24, Ashraf ‘725 in combination with Wang ‘558 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 22, as outlined above.
Further, Ashraf ‘725 teaches wherein the at least one channel-related parameter comprises at least one of:
reference signal received power (para 67 and 78-86; the comparison of the measured RSRP to the RSRP threshold for the reference signal received from the TX UE is based on the RSRP threshold; the RSRP threshold reads on at least one channel-related parameter; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art);
reference signal received quality;
channel quality indicator;
pathloss;
channel load; or
channel occupancy.
Regarding claim 25, Ashraf ‘725 in combination with Wang ‘558 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 17, as outlined above.
Further, Ashraf ‘725 teaches wherein the at least one interpretation rule is preconfigured or configured (para 62; the criteria to be used by the RX UE to decide if HARQ feedback could be transmitted is preconfigured or configured).
Regarding claim 26, Ashraf ‘725 in combination with Wang ‘558 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 25, as outlined above.
Further, Ashraf ‘725 teaches caused to perform: receiving, from a network node or the user equipment, a configuration indicative of the at least one interpretation rule for determining the absence of HARQ feedback for the transmission either as a positive acknowledgement, ACK, for the transmission or as a negative acknowledgement, NACK, for the transmission (para 85; the RX UE determines whether to transmit ACK/NACK HARQ feedback responsive to the distance between the RX UE and the TX UE being greater than a distance threshold, where the distance threshold is determined based on configuration information received from the radio access network; thus, the RX UE receives, from the radio access network, a configuration indicative of criteria for determining whether to transmit ACK or NACK HARQ feedback; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Regarding claim 29, Ashraf ‘725 in combination with Wang ‘558 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 17, as outlined above.
Further, Ashraf ‘725 teaches wherein the at least one interpretation rule is based on a mapping between at least one transmission characteristic of the transmission and either a positive acknowledgement, ACK, or a negative acknowledgement, NACK (FIG. 4, para 78-86; the RX UE determines to transmit or not transmit ACK or NACK feedback, based on the comparison of the measured RSRP to the RSRP threshold, where the measured RSRP is a RSRP measurement of a reference signal transmitted by the TX UE; thus, the rule for ACK/NACK transmission determination is based on a mapping between the RSRP measurement and the ACK or NACK; the measured RSRP reads on at least one transmission characteristic of the transmission; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Regarding claim 30, Ashraf ‘725 in combination with Wang ‘558 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 29, as outlined above.
Further, Ashraf ‘725 teaches wherein the at least one transmission characteristic is at least one of:
quality of service;
PC5 quality of service indicator;
channel access priority class;
reliability;
latency;
reference signal received power (FIG. 4, para 78-86; the RX UE determines to transmit or not transmit ACK or NACK feedback, based on the comparison of the measured RSRP to the RSRP threshold, where the measured RSRP is a RSRP measurement of a reference signal transmitted by the TX UE; thus, the rule for ACK/NACK transmission determination is based on a mapping between the RSRP measurement and the ACK or NACK; the measured RSRP reads on at least one transmission characteristic of the transmission; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art);
reference signal received quality;
channel quality indicator;
pathloss;
channel load; or
channel occupancy.
5. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashraf ‘725, in view of Wang ‘558, and further in view of Cao ‘744 (US20240235744A1, “Cao ‘744”).
Regarding claim 21, Ashraf ‘725 in combination with Wang ‘558 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 17, as outlined above.
However, Ashraf ‘725 in combination with Wang ‘558 does not specifically disclose wherein the determining, based on the decoding result and the interpretation result, whether to send the HARQ feedback for the transmission comprises: based on determining that the decoding result does not correspond to the interpretation result, transmitting the HARQ feedback for the transmission.
Cao ‘744 teaches wherein the determining, based on the decoding result and the interpretation result, whether to send the HARQ feedback for the transmission comprises:
based on determining that the decoding result does not correspond to the interpretation result, transmitting the HARQ feedback for the transmission (para 4 and 110-111; a receiving node transmits an ACK to indicate successful decoding of a code block (CB), the transmitter interprets an absence of a NACK as a decoding failure; thus, when the decoding result is a success, the decoding result does not match the interpretation result of an absence of HARQ feedback, and the receiving node transmits an ACK HARQ feedback).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Ashraf ‘725 and Wang ‘558, to include Cao ‘744’s absence of a NACK that is interpreted as a decoding failure. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a solution for code block group (CBG)-based HARQ retransmission that incurs less overhead (Cao ‘744, para 4).
6. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashraf ‘725, in view of Wang ‘558, and further in view of Li ‘518 (US20250142518A1, “Li ‘518”).
Regarding claim 27, Ashraf ‘725 in combination with Wang ‘558 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 17, as outlined above.
Further, Ashraf ‘725 teaches determining a configuration for the at least one interpretation rule (para 85; the RX UE determines whether to transmit ACK/NACK HARQ feedback responsive to the distance between the RX UE and the TX UE being greater than a distance threshold, where the distance threshold is determined based on configuration information received from the radio access network; thus, the RX UE determines the configuration for the criteria for determining whether to transmit ACK/NACK HARQ feedback; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Although Ashraf ‘725 in combination with Wang ‘558 discloses determining a configuration for the at least one interpretation rule, Ashraf ‘725 in combination with Wang ‘558 does not specifically disclose caused to perform: transmitting assistance information to the user equipment or to a network node for determining a configuration.
Li ‘518 teaches caused to perform: transmitting assistance information to the user equipment or to a network node for determining a configuration (para 116 and 118-121; UE is a receiver that performs measurement of a reference signal for positioning; a base station is a transmitter that transmits the reference signal; the base station determines configuration information of the reference signal, and transmits the configuration information to the UE receiver; the UE receiver transmits assistance information to the base station, where the assistance information is used to determining the configuration; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Ashraf ‘725 and Wang ‘558, to include Li ‘518’s assistance information used to determine the configuration. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for performing a receiver in a wireless communication system (Li ‘518, para 8).
7. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashraf ‘725, in view of Wang ‘558, in view of Li ‘518, and further in view of Park ‘074 (US20210298074A1, “Park ‘074”).
Regarding claim 28, Ashraf ‘725 in combination with Wang ‘558 and Li ‘518 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 27, as outlined above.
However, Ashraf ‘725 in combination with Wang ‘558 and Li ‘518 does not specifically disclose wherein the assistance information comprises at least one of: a mapping between at least one transmission characteristic of the transmission and either ACK or NACK; HARQ feedback history information of the apparatus; or listen before talk, LBT, history information of the apparatus.
Park ‘074 teaches wherein the assistance information comprises at least one of:
a mapping between at least one transmission characteristic of the transmission and either ACK or NACK;
HARQ feedback history information of the apparatus; or
listen before talk, LBT, history information of the apparatus (para 66; interference information is LBT result history information; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Ashraf ‘725, Wang ‘558, and Li ‘518, to include Park ‘074’s LBT result history information. The motivation for doing so would have been for improve communication reliability to provide Ultra-Reliable Low Latency Communication URLLC service (Park ‘074, para 49).
Conclusion
Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only. (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA SANDHU whose telephone number is (571) 272-0679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST, Friday variable.
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, Michael Thier can be reached on (571) 272-2832. 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.
/NEVENA ZECEVIC SANDHU/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474