DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 16 April 2026. Claims 16, 18, 20-21, 26, 28, and 30-35 are now pending in the present application and claims 1-15, 17, 19, 22-25, 27, and 29 are canceled. This office action is made Final.
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 § 101
Medium Defined Non-transitory for 35 USC 101 Statutory
The 101 rejections applied to the claims are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 16, 18, 20-21, 26, 28, and 30-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fakoorian et al. (hereinafter Fakoorian) (US 2021/0136783 A1) in view of further support by Pantelidou et al. (hereinafter Pantelidou; US 2023/0354319 A1) and Oteri et al. (hereinafter Oteri; US 2021/0058967 A1).
Regarding claims 16, 26, and 32, Fakoorian discloses a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (e.g., UE 115, 315, 500) comprising a processor (e.g., 502) and a memory (e.g., 504), the processor configured to { (see pg. 1, [0059]; pg. 7, [0082]; pg. 9, [0097]; Figs. 1, 3, & 5) }:
transmit a sidelink (SL) transport block to a remote WTRU (e.g., 115 - SL RX UE) { (see pg. 17, [0174]; Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7A-13, & 15-16), where the system provides UE (e.g., 115 - SL TX UE) that transmits sidelink data to UE (e.g., 115 - SL RX UE) };
receive SL configuration information { (see pg. 4, [0054, 0056]; pg. 19, [0205]; Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7A-13, & 15-16), where the system provides parameters (e.g., resources) for configuration };
measure listen-before-talk (LBT) failure rate { (see pg. 7, [0076-0077]; Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7A-13, & 15-16), where the system can measure failure };
determine that the LBT failure rate is below a failure rate threshold { (see pg. 7, [0076-0077]; pg. 19, [0205]; Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7A-13, & 15-16), where the system provides a threshold for failure };
determine that a negative acknowledgment (NACK) has not been received within a first threshold period, the first threshold period starting when the first SL transport block is transmitted { (see pg. 17, [0174]; Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7A-13, & 15-16), where the system provides ACK/NACK ; and pg. }; and
based on (i) a determination that the LBT failure rate is below the failure rate threshold { (see pg. 7, [0076-0077]; pg. 19, [0205]; Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7A-13, & 15-16), where the system provides a threshold for failure },
and (ii) a determination that a NACK is not received during the first threshold period, determine an ACK associated with the first SL transport block { (see pg. 17, [0174]; Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7A-13, & 15-16), where the system provides ACK/NACK }.
Fakoorian does not specifically disclose having the feature(s) a determination that the LBT failure rate is below the failure rate threshold. However, in the alternative, the examiner maintains that the feature(s) a determination that the LBT failure rate is below the failure rate threshold was well known in the art, as taught by Pantelidou.
As further alternative support in the same field of endeavor, Pantelidou discloses the feature(s) a determination that the LBT failure rate is below the failure rate threshold { (see pg. 8, [0226, 0216-0217]; Fig. 1), where the system provides a monitoring of below a threshold value for LBT failure rate}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Fakoorian as further alternatively supported by Pantelidou to have the feature(s) a determination that the LBT failure rate is below the failure rate threshold, in order to provide, as taught by Pantelidou (see pg. 1, [0005]).
Fakoorian does not specifically disclose having the feature(s) determination that a NACK is not received during the first threshold period. However, in the alternative, the examiner maintains that the feature(s) determination that a NACK is not received during the first threshold period was well known in the art, as taught by Oteri.
As further alternative support in the same field of endeavor, Oteri discloses the feature(s) determination that a NACK is not received during the first threshold period { (see pg. 17, [0219; 0223, lines 1-2]; pp. 17-18, [0226, lines 12-13]; Fig. 1), where the system provides a LBT failure of communication without an ACK and/or NACK }.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Fakoorian and Pantelidou as further alternatively supported by Oteri to have the feature(s) determination that a NACK is not received during the first threshold period, in order to provide, as taught by Oteri (see pg. 1, [0005]).
Regarding claims 18, 28, and 33, Fakoorian discloses the WTRU of claim 16, wherein the processor is configured to: determine that the LBT failure rate is above the failure rate threshold; based on a determination that the LBT failure rate is above the failure rate threshold, determine that an explicit ACK has not been received within a second threshold period, the second threshold period starting when a second SL transport block is transmitted { (see pg. 17, [0174, 0179]; Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7A-13, & 15-16) };
based on (i) a determination that the LBT failure rate is above the failure rate threshold { (see pg. 7, [0076-0077]; pg. 19, [0205]; Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7A-13, & 15-16), where the system provides a threshold for failure } and
and (ii) a determination that an ACK is not received during the second threshold period { (see pg. 17, [0174]; Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7A-13, & 15-16), where the system provides ACK/NACK }
determine a NACK; and retransmit the second SL transport block to the remote WTRU based on a determination of the NACK { (see pg. 17, [0174, 0179]; Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7A-13, & 15-16) }.
Fakoorian does not specifically disclose having the feature(s) a determination that the LBT failure rate is above the failure rate threshold. However, in the alternative, the examiner maintains that the feature(s) a determination that the LBT failure rate is above the failure rate threshold was well known in the art, as taught by Pantelidou.
As further alternative support in the same field of endeavor, Pantelidou discloses the feature(s) a determination that the LBT failure rate is above the failure rate threshold { (see pg. 8, [0226, 0216-0217]; Fig. 1), where the system provides a monitoring of below a threshold value for LBT failure rate}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Fakoorian as further alternatively supported by Pantelidou to have the feature(s) a determination that the LBT failure rate is above the failure rate threshold, in order to provide, as taught by Pantelidou (see pg. 1, [0005]).
Fakoorian does not specifically disclose having the feature(s) determination that an ACK is not received during the second threshold period. However, in the alternative, the examiner maintains that the feature(s) determination that an ACK is not received during the second threshold period was well known in the art, as taught by Oteri.
As further alternative support in the same field of endeavor, Oteri discloses the feature(s) determination that an ACK is not received during the second threshold period { (see pg. 17, [0219; 0223, lines 1-2]; pp. 17-18, [0226, lines 12-13]; Fig. 1), where the system provides a LBT failure of communication without an ACK and/or NACK }.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Fakoorian and Pantelidou as further alternatively supported by Oteri to have the feature(s) determination that an ACK is not received during the second threshold period, in order to provide, as taught by Oteri (see pg. 1, [0005]).
Regarding claims 20, 24, 30, and 34, the combination of Fakoorian, Pantelidou, and Oteri discloses every limitation claimed, as applied above (see claim 16), in addition Fakoorian further discloses the WTRU of claim 16, wherein the processor is configured to receive a SL indicator from the remote WTRU, wherein the SL indicator comprises information corresponding to a plurality of scheduled hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes { (see pg. 17, [0174, 0179]; Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7A-13, & 15-16) }.
Regarding claims 21, 25, 31, and 35, the combination of Fakoorian, Pantelidou, and Oteri discloses every limitation claimed, as applied above (see claim 16), in addition Fakoorian further discloses the WTRU of claim 16, wherein the WTRU performs LBT after receiving SL configuration information { (see pg. 17, [0174, 0179]; pg. 7, [0076-0077]; pg. 19, [0205]; Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7A-13, & 15-16) }.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 16-29 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amended language, new limitations, and/or new claims.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees as the applied reference(s) provide more than adequate support and to further clarify (see the above claims for relevant citations).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sun et al. (US 20230127485 A1) discloses stand-alone sidelink communication over unlicensed band.
Kwak et al. (US 20220110107 A1) discloses sidelink transmission from remote user equipment (UE) to relay UE.
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 WILLIE J DANIEL JR whose telephone number is (571)272-7907. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 - 6.
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, Gary Mui can be reached on 571-270-1420. 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.
/WILLIE J DANIEL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
WJD,Jr
10 July 2026
Prosecution Insights