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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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 41-43, 45, 47, 51-53, 55, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 2025/0274952 A1, hereinafter “Han”).
Regarding claim 41:
Han discloses a method performed by a first user equipment (UE) (e.g., Fig. 1, 102), the method comprising:
determining resources in unlicensed spectrum on which to transmit to one or more second UEs over a sidelink connection (e.g., [0088], SL UE configured in mode 1 or mode 2 for SL transmission on unlicensed band); and using the determined resources to initiate a transmission within a channel occupancy time (e.g., [0095], UE transmits the SL MAC PDU during base station Channel Occupancy Time (COT)).
Regarding claim 42:
Han further discloses the method of claim 41, further comprising determining a channel access priority class for the transmission (e.g., [0093]).
Regarding claim 43:
Han further discloses the method of claim 42, wherein determining the channel access priority class for the transmission comprises: determining quality of service indicators associated with one or more of: one or more radio bearers belonging to the transmission; and one or more medium access control (MAC) control elements belonging to the transmission, and mapping the determined quality of service indicators to the channel access priority class for the transmission (e.g., Fig. 4, 402, 404, 406, and 408, [0102]-[0105]).
Regarding claim 45:
Han further discloses the method of claim 43, wherein, responsive to a determination that the transmission comprises at least one signalling radio bearer, the channel access priority class for the transmission is set to the highest priority (e.g., [0090]).
Regarding claim 47:
Han further discloses the method of claim 43, wherein, responsive to a determination that the transmission includes one or more radio bearers and one or more MAC control elements and that the first UE is not configured with a logical channel priority threshold, the channel access priority class for the transmission is set to the highest priority of the logical channels (e.g., [0090]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 51:
Han discloses a first user equipment (UE) (e.g., Fig. 2, 200), comprising: processing circuitry (e.g., [0020]) configured to cause the first user equipment to: determine resources in unlicensed spectrum on which to transmit to one or more second UEs over a sidelink connection; and use the determined resources to initiate a transmission within a channel occupancy time (See rejection for similar features with respect to claim 41.)
Regarding claims 52, 53, 55, and 57:
See rejections for similar features with respect to claims 42, 43, 45, and 47 above.
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 44 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Bergstrom (US 2020/0314895 A1, hereinafter “Bergstrom”).
Regarding claims 44 and 54:
Han is silent regarding responsive to a determination that the transmission comprises a plurality of MAC control elements and no radio bearers, the channel access priority class for the transmission is set to correspond to the channel access priority class of the plurality of MAC control elements having the highest priority.
Bergstrom teaches responsive to a determination that the transmission comprises a plurality of MAC control elements and no radio bearers, the channel access priority class for the transmission is set to correspond to the channel access priority class of the plurality of MAC control elements having the highest priority (e.g., [0043], [0050], and [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Han based on the teaching from Bergstrom to include the feature that responsive to a determination that the transmission comprises a plurality of MAC control elements and no radio bearers, the channel access priority class for the transmission is set to correspond to the channel access priority class of the plurality of MAC control elements having the highest priority, in order to ensure that the UE would apply the quality of service required by the transmission.
Claims 46 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Loehr et al. (US 2020/033708 A1, hereinafter “Loehr”).
Regarding claims 46 and 56:
Han is silent regarding responsive to a determination that the transmission includes one or more radio bearers and one or more MAC control elements and that the first UE is configured with a logical channel priority threshold, the channel access priority class for the transmission is set to the highest priority of those logical channels with a logical channel priority above the logical channel priority threshold.
Loehr teaches responsive to a determination that the transmission includes one or more radio bearers and one or more MAC control elements and that the first UE is configured with a logical channel priority threshold, the channel access priority class for the transmission is set to the highest priority of those logical channels with a logical channel priority above the logical channel priority threshold (e.g., [0059], UE may not multiplex data of LCHs having a CAPC lower than a threshold in the MAC PDU, [0063], UE may select the highest CAPC of the logical channel with MAC SDU multiplexed into a MAC PDU).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Han based on the teaching from Loehr to include the feature that responsive to a determination that the transmission includes one or more radio bearers and one or more MAC control elements and that the first UE is configured with a logical channel priority threshold, the channel access priority class for the transmission is set to the highest priority of those logical channels with a logical channel priority above the logical channel priority threshold, in order to improve resource efficiency and ensure resource is prioritized for high priority traffic over low priority traffic.
Claims 48, 49, 58, and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Huang et al. (US 2023/0064680 A1, hereinafter “Huang”).
Regarding claims 48 and 58:
Han is silent regarding transmitting, to the one or more second UEs over the sidelink connection, configuration information for the channel occupancy time.
Huang teaches transmitting, to the one or more second UEs over the sidelink connection, configuration information for the channel occupancy time (e.g., [0597], [0599], [0604], COT sharing information).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Han based on the teaching from Huang to include the feature transmitting, to the one or more second UEs over the sidelink connection, configuration information for the channel occupancy time, in order to improve LBT and COT sharing for sidelink transmission.
Regarding claims 49 and 59:
Han is silent regarding wherein the configuration information comprises one or more of: an indication of a channel access category that was used by the first UE to initiate the channel occupancy time; a channel access priority class that applies to the channel occupancy time; an indication of whether the channel occupancy time is permitted to be shared between the first UE and any of the one or more second UEs; an indication of the channel access category that is to be applied by second UEs prior to their occupying the channel occupancy time; or an indication of whether cyclic prefix extension is to be applied by second UEs prior to their occupying the channel occupancy time (e.g., [0597], [0599], [0604], COT sharing information).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Han based on the teaching from Huang to include the feature wherein the configuration information comprises one or more of: an indication of a channel access category that was used by the first UE to initiate the channel occupancy time; a channel access priority class that applies to the channel occupancy time; an indication of whether the channel occupancy time is permitted to be shared between the first UE and any of the one or more second UEs; an indication of the channel access category that is to be applied by second UEs prior to their occupying the channel occupancy time; or an indication of whether cyclic prefix extension is to be applied by second UEs prior to their occupying the channel occupancy time, in order to improve LBT and COT sharing for sidelink transmission
Claims 50 and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Moon et al. (US 2020/0280971 A1, hereinafter “Moon”).
Regarding claims 50 and 60
Han is silent regarding wherein the first UE is operative in a frame-based equipment (FBE) mode, wherein the method further comprises receiving, from a network node, an indication of a fixed frame period for the sidelink connection.
Moon teaches a UE is operative in a frame-based equipment (FBE) mode, and receiving, from a network node, an indication of a fixed frame period for sidelink connection (e.g., [0136]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Han based on the teaching from Moon to include the feature wherein the first UE is operative in a frame-based equipment (FBE) mode, wherein the method further comprises receiving, from a network node, an indication of a fixed frame period for the sidelink connection, in order to optimize resource efficiency and energy consumption for predictable traffic.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alvin ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1086. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6am-9am and 2pm-7pm.
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 at 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 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.
/BO HUI A ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465