DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 16 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts, on page 8 of Remarks, that “First, claim 14 requires that the first SL grant "corresponds to a retransmission" - not an initial transmission. The condition recited in Kung paragraph [0164] applies only when "the MAC entity determines that the sidelink grant is used for initial transmission." See Kung, paragraph [0164]. Kung's initial transmission condition is fundamentally different from the claimed retransmission context.”
On the contrary, Kung states, in paragraph [0163]: “whether a sidelink grant is used for initial transmission or retransmission is up to UE implementation for SL mode 2 and dynamic grant in RAN1” [emphasis added]. Clearly, this corresponds to the claim 14 limitation “selecting a first sidelink (SL) grant, wherein the first SL grant corresponds to a retransmission;”.
Applicant asserts, on page 9 of Remarks, that “Kung's handling of retransmission grants at paragraphs [0173]-[0181] does not include obtaining a MAC PDU from the multiplexing and assembly entity … There is no disclosure in Kung of the claimed first condition being applied in the context of a retransmission SL grant.”
On the contrary, paragraphs [0164]-[0167] of Kung read: “[0164] 1>if the MAC entity determines that the the sidelink grant is used for initial transmission, and if no MAC PDU has been obtained: [0165] NOTE: For the configured grant Type 1 and 2, whether a sidelink grant is used for initial transmission or retransmission is up to UE implementation. Editor's Note: RAN1 agreed that UE decides which TB to transmit in each of the occasions indicated by a given configured grant. RAN2 can revisit if the above NOTE is not aligned with the RAN1 agreement. [0166] 2>associate a Sidelink process to this grant, and for each associated Sidelink process: [0167] 3>obtain the MAC PDU to transmit from the Multiplexing and assembly entity, if any;” [emphasis added]. Clearly, Kung discloses that upon a determination, a sidelink grant may be used for retransmission, whereby the MAC PDU that is to be transmitted is obtained from a multiplexing and assembly entity, as required by claim 14.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the new limitation of independent claims 14, 24, and 31 have been considered but are moot because they do not apply to the new reference, Gulati, that is relied on in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
4. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claims 14-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kung et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0007728 (hereinafter Kung), in view of Gulati et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0254059 (hereinafter Gulati).
Regarding claim 14, Kung discloses a method (disclosed is a method for transmitting MAC PDUs via a sidelink, according to [0163]-[0181]), comprising:
selecting a first sidelink (SL) grant, wherein the first SL grant corresponds to a retransmission (a UE elects to use a sidelink grant for retransmission, according to [0163]);
in response to a first condition being met, associating a SL process with the first SL grant, or obtaining a to-be-sent medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) from a multiplexing and assembly entity (in response to a condition being met, a sidelink process is associated with a sidelink grant, and a MAC PDU is obtained from a multiplexing and assembly entity that is to be transmitted, according to [0164]-[0167]).
Kung does not expressly disclose that the first condition comprises: an SL grant which associates with the first SL grant and occurs before the first SL grant is not within SL discontinuous reception (DRX)-active time of any of one or more destinations; or no MAC PDU is obtained on an SL grant which associates with the first SL grant and occurs before the first SL grant.
Gulati discloses that the first condition comprises: an SL grant which associates with the first SL grant and occurs before the first SL grant is not within SL discontinuous reception (DRX)-active time of any of one or more destinations; or no MAC PDU is obtained on an SL grant which associates with the first SL grant and occurs before the first SL grant (a first UE transmits on a sidelink shared channel to a second UE at a specified periodicity according to a first grant [“an SL grant”], whereby when first UE ascertains that there are no MAC PDUs to transmit during a given period of time, said UE determines that there is an absence of transmission, and requests a new grant [“first SL grant”] from a base station, whereupon, based on the request for the new grant, the first UE receives a new grant for sidelink transmission resources that may partially overlap with the resources of the first grant [“no MAC PDU is obtained on an SL grant which associates with the first SL grant and occurs before the first SL grant”], according to [0105]-[0110], [0118], Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kung with Gulati such that the first condition comprises: an SL grant which associates with the first SL grant and occurs before the first SL grant is not within SL discontinuous reception (DRX)-active time of any of one or more destinations; or no MAC PDU is obtained on an SL grant which associates with the first SL grant and occurs before the first SL grant.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate the release of unused resources (Gulati: [0105]).
Claim 24 recites the device, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories, wherein the one or more memories are coupled to the one or more processors, the one or more memories are configured to store computer program code, the computer program code comprises computer instructions, and when the one or more processors execute the computer instructions (disclosed is a UE that comprises a processors and a memory coupled to the processor, whereby said memory comprises program code that is executed by said processor, according to [0037], Fig. 3 [elements 30,, 308, 310, and 312]), the device is enabled to perform the method recited in claim 14, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 14.
Claim 31 recites the computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium is configured to store a computer program, and when the computer program is run on a computer (disclosed is a UE that comprises a processors and a memory coupled to the processor, whereby said memory comprises program code that is executed by said processor, according to [0037], Fig. 3 [elements 30,, 308, 310, and 312]), the computer is enabled to perform the method recited in claim 14, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for a step written in the alterative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kung and Gulati discloses all the limitations of claim 14. Additionally, Kung discloses sending the MAC PDU through an SL resource indicated by the first SL grant (the MAC PDU is sent via a TB (transport block) in a particular occasion indicated by the given configured sidelink grant, according to [0165]-[0170]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kung and Gulati discloses all the limitations of claim 14. Additionally, Kung discloses sending the MAC PDU to a second terminal through an SL resource indicated by the first SL grant, wherein a time domain location of the SL resource indicated by the first SL grant is within SL DRX-active time of the second terminal (the transmitting UE performs sidelink transmission via a sidelink resource that is associated with the configured grant when the receiving UE is in SL DRX is in active time, according to [0320]).
Regarding claim 18, since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for a step written in the alterative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim.
Regarding claim 19, since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for a step written in the alterative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim.
Regarding claim 20, since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for a step written in the alterative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Kung and Gulati discloses all the limitations of claim 14. Additionally, Kung discloses that the SL grant which associates with the first SL grant and occurs before the first SL grant is an initial transmission SL grant corresponding to the first SL grant (the sidelink grant may be for an initial transmission that occurs prior to a retransmission, according to [0163]-[0165]).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Kung and Gulati discloses all the limitations of claim 14. Additionally, Kung discloses that the SL grant which associates with the first SL grant and occurs before the first SL grant is a retransmission SL grant corresponding to the first SL grant (the sidelink grant may be for a retransmission, according to [0163]-[0165]).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Kung and Gulati discloses all the limitations of claim 14. Additionally, Kung discloses that the method is applied in a first terminal or a chip in the first terminal (the MAC PDU transmission method is implemented by a UE, according to [0163]).
Claims 25 and 32 do not differ substantively from claim 15, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 15.
Claims 26 and 33 do not differ substantively from claim 16, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 16.
Claim 27 does not differ substantively from claim 17, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 17.
Claim 28 does not differ substantively from claim 20, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 20.
Claim 29 does not differ substantively from claim 21, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 21.
Claim 30 does not differ substantively from claim 22, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 22.
Conclusion
6. 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 MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights