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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegardoost et al. (US Pub. 2026/0032765) in view of Deng et al. (US Pub. 2024/0421876).
Regarding claims 1, 17 and 20, Rastegardoost teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors individually or collectively configured to: transmit, to a second UE, a reference signal used for initial beam-pairing (IBP) (IBP-RS) (see “transmission(s) of a plurality of SL RSs for an initial beam pairing procedure” in [0408] and “transmitting, by the first wireless device to the second wireless device, a plurality of SL RSs to select a beam used by the first wireless device to transmit a sidelink transmission to the second wireless device and/or to receive a sidelink transmission from the second wireless device” in [0426]) based at least in part on a destination identifier (ID) (“transmission of (e.g., comprising) the plurality of SL RSs may comprise a field indicating … a first destination L2 ID of the second UE” in [0437]); and receive, from the second UE and based at least in part on the IBP-RS, a beam-pairing response signal for a beam association (“transmit, to the first wireless device, a measurement report (e.g., CSI report). The measurement report may comprise one or more of the measurement quantity(-ies) of the plurality of SL RSs and/or an indication of one or more preferred/selected beams (or an index/identifier of a SL RS of the plurality of SL RSs)” in [0426]). Rastegardoost, however, does not teach an IBP-RS resource is based at least in part on the destination ID. Deng teaches an IBP-RS resource is based at least in part on the destination ID (“determine a SL CSI-RS resource in terms of both PRB and sequence for SL CSI-RS transmission at the (pre)configured symbols in a SL slot based on … destination ID” in [0132]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rastegardoost to have an IBP-RS resource is based at least in part on the destination ID as taught by Deng in order to perform each SL CSI-RS transmission [0134].
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Rastegardoost teaches the one or more processors are further individually or collectively configured to: transmit, to the second UE, a direct communication request (DCR) (see “The first UE may send a Direct Communication Request (DCR) message to initiate the unicast layer-2 link establishment procedure” in [0372] and “The first UE (UE-1) may send the Direct Communication Request message via PC5 broadcast or unicast using the source Layer-2 ID and the destination Layer-2 ID” in [0376]) based at least in part on the destination ID (see “the first destination L2 ID being associated with the first PC5 unicast link” in [0437] and “During the PC5 unicast link establishment procedure, Layer-2 IDs may be exchanged, and may be used for future communication between the two UEs” in [0374]) and the beam-pairing response signal (“transmit, to the first wireless device, a measurement report (e.g., CSI report). The measurement report may comprise one or more of the measurement quantity(-ies) of the plurality of SL RSs and/or an indication of one or more preferred/selected beams (or an index/identifier of a SL RS of the plurality of SL RSs)” in [0426]).
Regarding claim 3, Rastegardoost teaches the destination ID is a layer-2 ID of the second UE based at least in part on the second UE being a target UE (“a first destination L2 ID of the second UE” in [0437]); the destination ID is a service ID associated with a proximity services (ProSe) service ID; or the destination ID is a service ID associated with a vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) service ID.
Regarding claim 11, Rastegardoost teaches the beam-pairing response signal is associated with one of: a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH), a sidelink channel state information reference signal (SL CSI-RS), a sidelink synchronization signal block (S-SSB), a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH), or the IBP-RS (“transmit, to the first wireless device, a measurement report (e.g., CSI report). The measurement report may comprise one or more of the measurement quantity(-ies) of the plurality of SL RSs and/or an indication of one or more preferred/selected beams (or an index/identifier of a SL RS of the plurality of SL RSs)” in [0426]).
Regarding claim 12, Rastegardoost teaches a resource or a sequence associated with the beam-pairing response signal is independent of the destination ID of the second UE (“the sidelink CSI report via the sidelink resource (indicated by the SL grant in FIG. 29 or selected by the second wireless device configured with resource allocation mode 2)” in [0391]).
Regarding claim 13, Rastegardoost teaches a resource or a sequence associated with the beam-pairing response signal is based at least in part on a resource ID of the IBP-RS or a scrambling or sequence ID of the IBP-RS (“the first UE may determine a common configuration, comprising common parameters indicating same values. For example, SL CSI RS configurations may indicate same resources for SL CSI RS transmissions and/or same sl-LatencyBoundCSI-Report (e.g., SL latency bound in FIG. 36) and/or same CSI measurement/report framework/parameters” in [0449]).
Regarding claim 14, Rastegardoost teaches the IBP-RS based at least in part on the destination ID (“transmission of (e.g., comprising) the plurality of SL RSs may comprise a field indicating … a first destination L2 ID of the second UE” in [0437]) is associated with a unicast link establishment between the first UE and the second UE (“The PC5 unicast link related information may include Layer-2 ID information (e.g., source Layer-2 ID and destination Layer-2 ID)” in [0377]).
Regarding claim 15, Rastegardoost teaches the IBP-RS based at least in part on the destination ID is associated with an IBP for sidelink broadcast communication; or the IBP-RS based at least in part on the destination ID (“transmission of (e.g., comprising) the plurality of SL RSs may comprise a field indicating … a first destination L2 ID of the second UE” in [0437]) is associated with an IBP for sidelink groupcast communication (“The first group ID may indicate a set/list of multiple PC5 unicast links (and/or unicast destination L2 IDs) for which the first UE may perform a common beam management or beam sweeping procedure” in [0446]).
Regarding claim 16, Rastegardoost teaches the IBP-RS based at least in part on the destination ID is associated with an IBP for direct or UE-to-network discovery; or the IBP-RS based at least in part on the destination ID (“transmission of (e.g., comprising) the plurality of SL RSs may comprise a field indicating … a first destination L2 ID of the second UE” in [0437]) is associated with an IBP for direct or UE-to-network group discovery (“The first group ID may indicate a set/list of multiple PC5 unicast links (and/or unicast destination L2 IDs) for which the first UE may perform a common beam management or beam sweeping procedure” in [0446]).
Regarding claim 19, Rastegardoost teaches the one or more processors are further individually or collectively configured to: monitor or search for the IBP-RS (see “the first UE can indicate a group identifier to the multiple destinations, e.g., destination IDs of one or more second UEs, of each PC5 unicast link in the group, and indicate, e.g., via control signaling of the beam sweeping (e.g., in the SCI(s) indicating transmission of the SL RSs) that the respective beam sweeping/SL RS transmissions are for (e.g., targeted for) the group of destinations/PC5 unicast links identified by the group identifier. Based on the embodiments, the one or more second UEs, associated/configured with the group identifier, can determine that the beam sweeping (SL RS transmissions) are targeting them, e.g., based on the control signaling indicating the group identifier. Embodiments enable the one or more second UEs in the same group to receive the SL RSs transmitted as part of beam management from the first UE and perform SL RS measurement” in [0441], “transmission(s) of a plurality of SL RSs for an initial beam pairing procedure” in [0408] and “transmitting, by the first wireless device to the second wireless device, a plurality of SL RSs to select a beam used by the first wireless device to transmit a sidelink transmission to the second wireless device and/or to receive a sidelink transmission from the second wireless device” in [0426]) based at least in part on the destination ID provisioned for the second UE (“transmission of (e.g., comprising) the plurality of SL RSs may comprise a field indicating … a first destination L2 ID of the second UE” in [0437]).
Claims 4, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegardoost et al. in view of Deng et al. and further in view of Wang et al. (US Pub. 2024/0196356).
Regarding claim 4, Rastegardoost in view of Deng teaches the limitations in claim 1 as shown above. Rastegardoost in view of Deng, however, does not teach a scrambling or sequence ID of the IBP-RS is based at least in part on the destination ID. Wang teaches a scrambling or sequence ID of the IBP-RS is based at least in part on the destination ID (“c(n) pseudo-random sequence is associated with one or more of the following: … a destination ID” in [0224], [0226]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rastegardoost in view of Deng to have a scrambling or sequence ID of the IBP-RS is based at least in part on the destination ID as taught by Wang in order to generate SL reference signal [0213].
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches the scrambling or sequence ID is based at least in part on a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) of sidelink control information (SCI) associated with the IBP-RS and the destination ID (“c(n) pseudo-random sequence is associated with one or more of the following: … a destination ID, … cyclic redundancy check (CRC) corresponding to a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH)” in [0224], [0226], [0227]).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches a scrambling or sequence ID of the IBP-RS is based at least in part on a Z-bit random factor (“c(n) pseudo-random sequence” in [0224]).
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches the destination ID is associated with a Z-bit random factor (“c(n) pseudo-random sequence is associated with one or more of the following: … a destination ID” in [0224], [0226]), and one or more of a scrambling or sequence ID of the IBP-RS or an IBP-RS configuration is based at least in part on the destination ID associated with the Z-bit random factor (“c(n) pseudo-random sequence is associated with one or more of the following: … a destination ID” in [0224], [0226]).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegardoost et al. in view of Deng et al. and Wang et al. and further in view of Zhao et al. (US Pub. 2022/0279525).
Regarding claim 5, Rastegardoost in view of Deng and Wang teaches the limitations in claim 4 as shown above. Rastegardoost in view of Deng and Wang, however, does not teach the scrambling or sequence ID is based at least in part on a decimal representation of the destination ID. Zhao teaches the scrambling or sequence ID is based at least in part on a decimal representation of the destination ID (“SLID is equal to a decimal value corresponding to a concatenate bit sequence of … the destination ID” in [0265]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rastegardoost in view of Deng and Wang to have the scrambling or sequence ID is based at least in part on a decimal representation of the destination ID as taught by Zhao in order to determine a scrambling code sequence [0261].
Regarding claim 7, Zhao teaches the scrambling or sequence ID is based at least in part on a concatenation of: a defined quantity of bits of a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) of sidelink control information (SCI) associated with the IBP-RS (“SLID is equal to the decimal value of the highest (31−x) bits of a CRC check code of the PSCCH” in [0263]), and a defined quantity of bits of the destination ID (“SLID is equal to a decimal value corresponding to a concatenate bit sequence of … the destination ID” in [0265]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegardoost et al. in view of Deng et al. and further in view of Wang et al. and further in view of Ramsdell (US Pub. 2011/0283323).
Regarding claim 10, Rastegardoost in view of Deng teaches the limitations in claim 1 as shown above. Rastegardoost in view of Deng, however, does not teach one or more of a scrambling or sequence ID of the IBP-RS, an IBP-RS configuration, or the IBP-RS resource is based at least in part on a source ID of the first UE and the destination ID. Wang teaches one or more of a scrambling or sequence ID of the IBP-RS, an IBP-RS configuration, or the IBP-RS resource is based at least in part on a source ID of the first UE and the destination ID (“c(n) pseudo-random sequence is associated with one or more of the following: … a destination ID, or a source ID” in [0224], [0226]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rastegardoost in view of Deng to have one or more of a scrambling or sequence ID of the IBP-RS, an IBP-RS configuration, or the IBP-RS resource is based at least in part on a source ID of the first UE and the destination ID as taught by Wang in order to generate SL reference signal [0213]. Rastegardoost in view of Deng and Wang, however, does not teach the source ID is mapped to a service ID. Ramsdell teaches the source ID is mapped to a service ID (“the source ID and service ID mapping” in [0069]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rastegardoost in view of Deng and Wang to have the source ID is mapped to a service ID as taught by Ramsdell in order to map to services identified by the service IDs included in the service definition file [0069].
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 CLEMENCE S HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/CLEMENCE S HAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights