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.
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.
Claim(s) 9, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (US 20210105728 A1; hereinafter “NGUYEN”) in view of Wu et al. (US 20210058877 A1; hereinafter “WU”).
Regarding claim 9, NGUYEN teaches a terminal (see NGUYEN, fig. 1, UE 120) comprising:
in a device-to-device direct communication using a plurality of carriers (see NGUYEN, fig. 1, UE 120, fig. 4, para. [0059], fig. 8A),
in a case where a transmission number of feedback channels in the plurality of carriers does not exceed a number of simultaneous transmissions that can be performed (see NGUYEN, fig. 8A, 804, para. [0085,88,89], n<M, candidate sets),
a processor configured to
determine to transmit the transmission number of feedback channels in a case where a total transmission power of the feedback channels does not exceed a maximum transmission power (see NGUYEN, fig. 9, 920, satisfy power constraint, para. [0104]); and
determine to transmit a maximum number of feedback channels (See NGUYEN, para. [0082], candidate number of PSFCH transmission equal to a maximum number permitted) satisfying a condition that a total transmission power of feedback channels does not exceed the maximum transmission power in an order of higher priorities for feedback channels (see NGUYEN, fig. 8D, para. [0100], allocating power to higher priority PSFCH);
a transmitter configured to transmit feedback channels based on the determination (see NGUYEN, fig. 9, 940, para. [0106]).
NGUYEN is silent to teaching that determine to transmit in a case where the total transmission power of the feedback channels exceeds the maximum transmission power.
In the same field of endeavor, WU teaches a device configured to determine to transmit in a case where the total transmission power of the feedback channels exceeds the maximum transmission power (see WU, fig. 5, 511, para. [0052], power scaling, priority, para. [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of NGUYEN with the teaching of WU in order to improve NR and LTE with feedback signaling (see WU, para. [0005-6]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of NGUYEN and WU teaches the terminal as claimed in claim 9, wherein the processor applies the simultaneous transmission of feedback channels based on the determination to all carriers in the device-to-device direct communication using the plurality of carriers (see NGUYEN, para. [0095], all RB).
Regarding claim 12, NGUYEN teaches a communication method performed by a terminal, the communication method comprising:
in a device-to-device direct communication using a plurality of carriers (see NGUYEN, fig. 1, UE 120, fig. 4, para. [0059], fig. 8A),
in a case where a transmission number of feedback channels in the plurality of carriers does not exceed a number of simultaneous transmissions that can be performed (see NGUYEN, fig. 8A, 804, para. [0085,88,89], n<M, candidate sets),
determining to transmit the transmission number of feedback channels in a case where a total transmission power of the feedback channels does not exceed a maximum transmission power (see NGUYEN, fig. 9, 920, satisfy power constraint, para. [0104]); and
determining to transmit a maximum number of feedback channels (See NGUYEN, para. [0082], candidate number of PSFCH transmission equal to a maximum number permitted) satisfying a condition that a total transmission power of feedback channels does not exceed the maximum transmission power in an order of higher priorities for feedback channels (see NGUYEN, fig. 8D, para. [0100], allocating power to higher priority PSFCH);
transmitting feedback channels based on the determination (see NGUYEN, fig. 9, 940, para. [0106]).
NGUYEN is silent to teaching that comprising determining to transmit in a case where the total transmission power of the feedback channels exceeds the maximum transmission power.
In the same field of endeavor, WU teaches a method comprising determining to transmit in a case where the total transmission power of the feedback channels exceeds the maximum transmission power (see WU, fig. 5, 511, para. [0052], power scaling, priority, para. [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of NGUYEN with the teaching of WU in order to improve NR and LTE with feedback signaling (see WU, para. [0005-6]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NGUYEN and WU as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ryu et al. (US 20210185685 A1; hereinafter “RYU”)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of NGUYEN and WU teaches the terminal as claimed in claim 9.
The combination of NGUYEN and WU is silent to teaching that wherein the transmitter transmits capability information with respect to the terminal itself related to a number of simultaneous transmissions of feedback channels using the plurality of carriers in the device-to-device direct communication using the plurality of carriers.
In the same field of endeavor, RYU teaches a device wherein the transmission unit transmits capability information with respect to the terminal itself related to a number of simultaneous transmissions of feedback channels using the plurality of carriers in the device-to-device direct communication using the plurality of carriers (see RYU, para. [0078,201], capability info exchanged).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of NGUYEN and WU with the teaching of RYU in order to effectively provide sidelink feedback (see RYU, para. [0004-6]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 9–12 are maintained, with further explanation as set forth below.
Regarding the Claim Amendments
The amendments to claims 9–11, replacing "control unit" and "transmission unit" with "processor" and "transmitter," are entered. The amendments do not affect the substance of the rejections.
Regarding Claims 9, 11, and 12 — NGUYEN in view of WU
Applicant argues that NGUYEN fails to teach "a transmission number of feedback channels in the plurality of carriers" because NGUYEN only teaches concurrent PSFCH transmissions within a single carrier, not across multiple carriers. Applicant further contends that the examiner improperly equated "carriers" with "RBs" as disclosed in NGUYEN paragraph [0095]. These arguments are respectfully found unpersuasive for the following reasons.
(1) Clarification of the Rejection Mapping
As an initial matter, the examiner notes that the "all RB" citation to NGUYEN paragraph [0095] was applied to the claim 11 limitation ("applies the simultaneous transmission of feedback channels … to all carriers"), not to the independent claim 9 mapping of "plurality of carriers." For claim 9, the "device-to-device direct communication using a plurality of carriers" was mapped to NGUYEN's sidelink/D2D communication framework generally (fig. 1, UE 120; fig. 4; para. [0059]; fig. 8A), which involves sidelink communication using resource pools containing multiple sub-channels. The applicant's characterization that the examiner equated "carrier" with "RB" for independent claim 9 does not accurately reflect the rejection as written.
(2) Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of "Carriers"
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification, the term "carriers" as recited in the claims is not limited solely to component carriers in a carrier aggregation context. The applicant's own specification provides explicit guidance that these terms are used interchangeably with other resource concepts. Specifically, paragraph [0054] of the published application states:"a cell in an embodiment of the present invention may be read as (replaced with) a cell group, a carrier component, a BWP (bandwidth part), a resource pool, a resource, a RAT (Radio Access Technology), a system (including a wireless LAN), etc." This paragraph establishes that in applicant's own disclosure, the terms "cell," "carrier component," and "resource pool" are interchangeable. Since the specification equates "cell" with both "carrier component" (i.e., carrier) and "resource pool," the BRI of "carriers" as used in the claims encompasses resource pools.
NGUYEN teaches sidelink communication using resource pools with multiple sub-channels (see NGUYEN, paras. [0069], [0079], [0080], [0084]). NGUYEN's HARQ feedback occasion spans a plurality of frequency-domain resources (sub-channels) within a resource pool (see NGUYEN, fig. 7, para. [0079]), and the concurrent PSFCH transmissions are distributed across these sub-channels. Under the BRI established by applicant's own specification, NGUYEN's concurrent PSFCH transmissions across multiple sub-channels in resource pools reads on "feedback channels in the plurality of carriers."
Therefore, NGUYEN's teaching of comparing a number of concurrent PSFCH transmissions (n) against a maximum permitted number (M) (see NGUYEN, fig. 8A, step 804, paras. [0085], [0088]–[0089]), where those feedback transmissions are distributed across multiple sub-channels in a resource pool, teaches "a transmission number of feedback channels in the plurality of carriers does not exceed a number of simultaneous transmissions that can be performed."
(3) Even Under a Narrower Interpretation, the Claims Remain Obvious
Even assuming, arguendo, that "plurality of carriers" is limited to distinct component carriers in a carrier aggregation context, the rejection is maintained because the combination of NGUYEN and WU renders the claims obvious under the rationale of KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
The applicant's own specification acknowledges at paragraph [0009] that "[a]pplication of carrier aggregation is being discussed as an enhancement of the NR sidelink." This is an admission that sidelink carrier aggregation was a known concept in the art at the time of filing. NGUYEN teaches the core technique at issue: managing a set of concurrent PSFCH (feedback channel) transmissions by (a) comparing the number of feedback channels to a maximum simultaneous transmission count (fig. 8A, step 804, n≤M), (b) checking whether total transmission power satisfies a power constraint (fig. 9, step 920), and (c) selecting which feedback channels to transmit based on priority when the power constraint is exceeded (fig. 8D, para. [0100]). WU teaches performing power scaling when total PSFCH power exceeds the UE's maximum transmission power (fig. 5, step 511, para. [0052]).
Extending NGUYEN's concurrent PSFCH management technique—which already operates across multiple frequency-domain resources (sub-channels)—to a carrier aggregation scenario where feedback channels span multiple component carriers represents the application of a known technique to a known situation to yield predictable results. The fundamental problem is the same in both scenarios: when a UE must transmit multiple feedback channels simultaneously, the UE must manage both the count and the total transmission power against respective limits, prioritizing higher-priority feedback. Adding more carriers through carrier aggregation increases the number of potential concurrent feedback channels, but the management technique taught by NGUYEN (count checking, power constraint evaluation, priority-based selection) applies in precisely the same manner. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply NGUYEN's technique in a multi-carrier sidelink scenario, because sidelink carrier aggregation was already being discussed as an NR enhancement, and managing concurrent feedback power and count in that context is a natural and predictable extension.
(4) Motivation to Combine
Applicant asserts that a person of ordinary skill would have had no motivation to supply the missing elements without the benefit of applicant's disclosure. This argument is unpersuasive. NGUYEN and WU are both directed to sidelink feedback channel transmission power management—the same field as the claimed invention—and address the same core problem of managing concurrent PSFCH transmissions subject to power constraints. The motivation articulated in the rejection—improving NR and LTE feedback signaling (see WU, paras. [0005]–[0006])—provides a sufficient rationale for the combination. Moreover, the combination applies each reference's teachings for their intended purpose and produces entirely predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 ("The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.").
Accordingly, the rejections of independent claims 9 and 12, and dependent claim 11, over NGUYEN in view of WU are maintained.
Regarding Claim 10 — NGUYEN in view of WU and RYU
Applicant's sole argument regarding claim 10 is that NGUYEN and WU fail to teach the limitations of independent claim 9, from which claim 10 depends, and that RYU does not cure this deficiency. As set forth above, the rejection of claim 9 over NGUYEN in view of WU is maintained. Applicant does not separately argue the specific teachings attributed to RYU regarding the transmission of capability information related to simultaneous feedback channel transmissions (see RYU, paras. [0078], [0201]). Accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 over NGUYEN, WU, and RYU is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WEN WU HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7852. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/WEN W HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights