DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 6/27/2024.
Claims 52-71 are pending.
Claims 52-55 and 57-71 are rejected.
Claim 56 is objected to for having allowable subject matter.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 52 and 64, the limitation “perform a listen-before-talk (LBT) operation prior to the slot group” is indefinite because it is unclear to which slot group is being referred to since there are multiple slot groups defined, such as the slot group for initial SL transmission and the slot group for the SL retransmission.
Regarding claim 65, the limitation “detecting one or more SL transmissions from another UE in one or more slots of the multiple slots of the slot group” is indefinite because it is unclear to which slot group is being referred to since there are multiple slot groups defined, such as the slot group for initial SL transmission and the slot group for the SL retransmission.
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 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 65-69 and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (US Pub. 2025/0150213)(G1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 65 and 71, G1 teaches a User equipment (UE) [refer Fig. 13; 11305] comprising:
one or more processors [refer Fig. 13; 1340]; and one or more memories [refer Fig. 13; 1330] storing computer program code [refer Fig. 13; 1335] that, when executed by the one or more processors [paragraph 0188], cause the UE to perform:
obtaining configuration information related to a slot group (i.e. sidelink resource pool bitmap) comprising multiple slots for sidelink (SL) transmissions [paragraph 0093], the configuration information indicates one or more of the following:
a time gap between a slot group (i.e. candidate slots) for initial SL transmission and a slot group for SL retransmission (i.e. feedback)(a value of a minimum time gap between a candidate slot on which the UE may receive sidelink messages and the feedback occasion on which the feedback message is to be transmitted)[paragraph 0093], and a time interval between two consecutive slot groups for initial SL transmissions [paragraph 0109];
detecting one or more SL transmissions from another UE in one or more slots of the multiple slots of the slot group [paragraph 0148], based at least in part on the configuration information (i.e. candidate slots in which a UE may receive sidelink communications identified in preconfiguration)[paragraph 0046].
Regarding claim 66, G1 teaches one or more of the following applies: the multiple slots in the slot group are consecutive slots for at least one of the following: initial transmission, and retransmission [paragraph 0093]; and the one or more SL transmissions include at least one of the following: one or more initial transmissions, and one or more retransmissions [paragraph 0093].
Regarding claim 67, G1 teaches in response to receiving at least one of the detected one or more SL transmissions from the other UE (i.e. message received in a first slot)[paragraph 0044], sending one or more acknowledgements of the received SL transmissions to the other UE (feedback message can be an acknowledgement)[paragraph 0044].
Regarding claim 68, G1 teaches the time gap between the slot group for the initial SL transmission and the slot group for the SL retransmission is based on expected timing of a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgement by the UE of the initial SL transmission [paragraph 0089]; and
the time interval between the two consecutive slot groups for the initial SL transmissions [paragraph 0109] is based at least in part on a time interval of data arrival (i.e. TTI)[paragraph 0070].
Regarding claim 69, G1 teaches the configuration information is based at least in part on one or more of: a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) (i.e. highest signal strength)[paragraph 0087].
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 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 52-55, and 58-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US Pub. 2025/0150213)(G1 hereafter) in view of Lei et al. (US Pub 2023/0292345)(L1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 52 and 64, G1 teaches a user equipment (UE)[refer Fig. 13; 11305] comprising:
one or more processors [refer Fig. 13; 1340]; and one or more memories [refer Fig. 13; 1330] storing computer program code [refer Fig. 13; 1335] that, when executed by the one or more processors [paragraph 0188], cause the UE to:
obtain configuration information related to a slot group (i.e. sidelink resource pool bitmap) comprising multiple slots for sidelink (SL) transmissions [paragraph 0093], the configuration information indicates one or more of the following:
a time gap between a slot group (i.e. candidate slots) for initial SL transmission and a slot group for SL retransmission (i.e. feedback)(a value of a minimum time gap between a candidate slot on which the UE may receive sidelink messages and the feedback occasion on which the feedback message is to be transmitted)[paragraph 0093], and a time interval between two consecutive slot groups for initial SL transmissions [paragraph 0109];
perform a listen-before-talk (LBT) operation prior to the slot group (an LBT procedure is performed prior to transmission of a feedback message)[paragraph 0115]; and
determine whether to select one or more slots from the multiple slots, of the slot group (i.e. candidate slots), for one or more SL transmissions towards one or more other UEs (i.e. candidate slots in which a UE may receive sidelink communications identified in preconfiguration)[paragraph 0046].
However, G1 fails to disclose performing a LBT operation prior to the slot group, and determining whether to select one or more slots from the multiple slots, of the slot group, for one or more SL transmissions towards one or more other UEs is based on a result of the LBT operation.
L1, in the field of LBT, discloses that an LBT test or procedure can be performed before communicating on an unlicensed spectrum, such as sidelink (i.e. prior or before the slot group)[paragraph 0031], upon a successful channel access procedure using LBT, a UE can start a transmission on the channel and occupy the channel up to a maximum channel occupancy time (MCOT)(i.e. selecting the one or more slots from the multiple slots for SL transmissions based on LBT operation)[paragraph 0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of G1 for performing LBT to gain access to sidelink resources [refer G1; paragraph 0142] to incorporate explicit LBT procedures for performing LBT prior to any SL transmissions that would occur when the LBT is successful as taught by L1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known technique in the field of endeavor to yield predictable results [refer L1; paragraph 0033].
Regarding claim 53, G1 teaches that the LBT operation succeeds prior to or during the slot group [paragraph 0173].
However, G1 fails to disclose the when the LBT operation succeeds, the UE determines to select the one or more slots from the multiple slots for the one or more SL transmissions and performing the one or more SL transmissions in the one or more selected slots.
L1, in the field of LBT, discloses that an LBT test or procedure can be performed before communicating on an unlicensed spectrum, such as sidelink (i.e. prior or before the slot group)[paragraph 0031], upon a successful channel access procedure using LBT, a UE can start a transmission on the channel and occupy the channel up to a maximum channel occupancy time (MCOT)(i.e. selecting the one or more slots from the multiple slots for SL transmissions based on LBT operation)[paragraph 0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of G1 for performing LBT to gain access to sidelink resources [refer G1; paragraph 0142] to incorporate explicit LBT procedures for performing LBT prior to any SL transmissions that would occur when the LBT is successful as taught by L1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known technique in the field of endeavor to yield predictable results [refer L1; paragraph 0033].
Regarding claim 54, G1 fails to disclose that when the LBT operation succeeds prior to the slot group, the one or more selected slots in which the UE performs the one or more SL transmissions start from a beginning slot in the slot group.
L1, in the field of LBT, discloses that an LBT test or procedure can be performed before communicating on an unlicensed spectrum, such as sidelink (i.e. prior or before the slot group)[paragraph 0031], upon a successful channel access procedure using LBT, a UE can start a transmission on the channel and occupy the channel up to a maximum channel occupancy time (MCOT)(i.e. selecting the one or more slots from the multiple slots for SL transmissions based on LBT operation)[paragraph 0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of G1 for performing LBT to gain access to sidelink resources [refer G1; paragraph 0142] to incorporate explicit LBT procedures for performing LBT prior to any SL transmissions that would occur when the LBT is successful as taught by L1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known technique in the field of endeavor to yield predictable results [refer L1; paragraph 0033].
Regarding claim 55, G1 fails to disclose when the LBT operation succeeds during an n-th slot in the slot group, the one or more selected slots in which the UE performs the one or more SL transmissions start from an (n+1)-th slot in the slot group, where n is an integer equal to or larger than 1 and less than a number of slots in the slot group.
L1, in the field of LBT, discloses that an LBT test or procedure can be performed before communicating on an unlicensed spectrum, such as sidelink (i.e. prior or before the slot group)[paragraph 0031], upon a successful channel access procedure using LBT, a UE can start a transmission on the channel and occupy the channel up to a maximum channel occupancy time (MCOT)(i.e. selecting the one or more slots from the multiple slots for SL transmissions based on LBT operation)[paragraph 0033], when a channel access procedure succeeds, symbols available in a slot are used and prepared, and should a failure occur, a channel access procedure for the first candidate slot starting position in the next slot (n+1) [paragraph 0080].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of G1 for performing LBT to gain access to sidelink resources [refer G1; paragraph 0142] to incorporate explicit LBT procedures for performing LBT prior to any SL transmissions that would occur when the LBT is successful as taught by L1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known technique in the field of endeavor to yield predictable results [refer L1; paragraph 0033].
Regarding claim 58, G1 fails to disclose when the LBT operation succeeds during a last slot in the slot group or consistently fails during the multiple slots in the slot group, the UE determines not to select any slot from the multiple slots for the one or more SL transmissions.
L1, in the field of LBT, discloses that an LBT test or procedure can be performed before communicating on an unlicensed spectrum, such as sidelink (i.e. prior or before the slot group)[paragraph 0031], upon a successful channel access procedure using LBT, a UE can start a transmission on the channel and occupy the channel up to a maximum channel occupancy time (MCOT)(i.e. selecting the one or more slots from the multiple slots for SL transmissions based on LBT operation)[paragraph 0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of G1 for performing LBT to gain access to sidelink resources [refer G1; paragraph 0142] to incorporate explicit LBT procedures for performing LBT prior to any SL transmissions that would occur when the LBT is successful as taught by L1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known technique in the field of endeavor to yield predictable results [refer L1; paragraph 0033].
Regarding claim 59, G1 teaches one or more of the following applies: the multiple slots in the slot group are consecutive slots for at least one of the following: initial transmission, and retransmission [paragraph 0093]; and the one or more SL transmissions include at least one of the following: one or more initial transmissions, and one or more retransmissions [paragraph 0093].
Regarding claim 60, G1 teaches the UE is configured with two or more slot groups (i.e. slots before and after the 2 slot gap)[paragraph 0110] and; the two or more slot groups include one or more of the following: one or more slot groups for initial SL transmission (i.e. slots for SL transmission on PSSCH), and one or more slot groups for SL retransmission (i.e. slots for feedback on PSFCH)[paragraph 0110].
However G1 fails to disclose performs the LBT operation per slot group.
L1, in the field of LBT, discloses that an LBT test or procedure can be performed before communicating on an unlicensed spectrum, such as sidelink (i.e. prior or before the slot group)[paragraph 0031], upon a successful channel access procedure using LBT, a UE can start a transmission on the channel and occupy the channel up to a maximum channel occupancy time (MCOT)(i.e. selecting the one or more slots from the multiple slots for SL transmissions based on LBT operation)[paragraph 0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of G1 for performing LBT to gain access to sidelink resources [refer G1; paragraph 0142] to incorporate explicit LBT procedures for performing LBT prior to any SL transmissions that would occur when the LBT is successful as taught by L1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known technique in the field of endeavor to yield predictable results [refer L1; paragraph 0033].
Regarding claim 61, G1 teaches the time gap between the slot group for the initial SL transmission and the slot group for the SL retransmission is based on expected timing of a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgement (i.e. HARQ feedback)[paragraph 0089] of the initial SL transmission (i.e. feedback)[paragraph 0093]; and the time interval between the two consecutive slot groups for the initial SL transmissions (the UE receives multiple PSSCH transmissions) is based at least in part on a time interval of data arrival (i.e. allocated slots for sidelink communication)[paragraph 0093].
Regarding claim 62, G1 teaches the configuration information is based at least in part on a received signal strength indicator (RSSI)(i.e. highest signal strength)[paragraph 0087].
Regarding claim 63, G1 teaches the slot group is one of the following: the slot group is configured to be available for non-periodic (i.e. peer-to-peer) traffic of the UE [paragraph 0076].
Claim 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over G1 in view of Dutta et al. (US Pub. 2021/0329501)(D1 hereafter).
Regarding claim 70, G1 teaches receiving, from the other UE, SL control information (SCI) [paragraph 0091].
However, G1 fails to disclose that the SCI includes one or more of the following: an index indicating a position of a slot, within the slot group, in which the SCI is received.
D1 discloses that a UE can receive an SCI with reservation information that indicates slots and RB that a particular UE has selected for future transmissions, and a UE can perform sensing for SCI with resource reservations in order to maintain a set of candidate resources [paragraph 0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of G1 for receiving an SCI [refer G1; paragraph 0091] to incorporate the reception of an SCI as taught by D1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known technique in the field of endeavor to yield predictable results [refer D1; paragraph 0065].
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over G1 in view of L1, as applied to claim 52, in further view of D1.
Regarding claim 57, G1 teaches comprising transmitting SL control information (SCI) [paragraph 0091].
However, G1 fails to disclose that the SCI includes one or more of the following: an index indicating a position of a slot, within the slot group, in which the SCI is received.
D1 discloses that a UE can receive an SCI with reservation information that indicates slots and RB that a particular UE has selected for future transmissions, and a UE can perform sensing for SCI with resource reservations in order to maintain a set of candidate resources [paragraph 0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of G1 for receiving an SCI [refer G1; paragraph 0091] to incorporate the reception of an SCI as taught by D1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known technique in the field of endeavor to yield predictable results [refer D1; paragraph 0065].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 56 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or make obvious that one or more selected slots from multiple slots in a slot group for one or more SL transmissions include two consecutive slots, and performing one or more of the following to enable the two consecutive slots to be used for a different services, quality-of- service (QoS) flows, logical channels (LCHs), or logical channel groups (LCGs): mapping first and second services to different quality-of-service (QoS) flows, when a maximum number of slots used for transmission is configured per service; mapping first and second QoS flows to different bearers, when a maximum number of slots used for transmission is configured per QoS flow; a mapping first and second bearers to different logical channels (LCHs), when a maximum number of slots used for transmission is configured per bearer; and excluding a first LCH or LCG from a logical channel prioritization (LCP) procedure in one of the two consecutive slots which is to be used for a second LCH or LCG.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hu et al. (US Pub. 2023/0087110) discloses an LBT sensing operation that can occupy a portion of an LBT gap that can occupy a second slot after a first slot for transmission [refer Abstract].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C KAVLESKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3619. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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.
Ryan Kavleski
/R. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights