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 § 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 1-2 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Zhou et al (US20220240260A1, PCT For Priority Date: Jun 11, 2021).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou’260 discloses a method for wireless communication (see, Fig. 1 and 4-5, sidelink communication between UEs in wireless network including gNBs and UEs, par 0087, 0118, 0137, 0159-0160), the method comprising:
selecting, with a first user device, a carrier to be a licensed carrier or an unlicensed carrier for a sidelink transmission (see, Fig. 4 S420, UE determines carrier on a licensed band and/or unlicensed band for sidelink communication, par 0138); and
transmitting, with the first device (TX UE can be equated to first device, par 0131), a sidelink signal on a channel (sidelink data channel can be equated to channel, par 0131) in the selected carrier to a second user device (see, TX UE transmits sidelink data to RX UE on sidelink data channel using carrier on a licensed band and/or unlicensed band for sidelink communication (transmission and/or reception), par 0131, 0138- 0139. Noted, RX UE can be equated to second user device, par 0131).
Regarding claim 2, Zhou’260 discloses the method of claim 1 (see, Fig. 1 and 4-5, sidelink communication between UEs in wireless network including gNBs and UEs, par 0087, 0118, 0137, 0159-0160), further comprising:
reporting, with the first device, information of the selected carrier (at least one resource determined including a carrier on a licensed band and/or unlicensed band can be equated to selected carrier, par 0138, 0142) to a wireless access node (see, UE reports to the base station the determined at least one resource (including a carrier on a licensed band and/or unlicensed band) and/or the corresponding link quality, par 0138, 0142).
Regarding claim 19, Zhou’260 discloses a wireless communications apparatus (see, Fig. 1, 3A and 4-5, sidelink communication between UEs in wireless network including gNBs and UEs, par 0087, 0118, 0137, 0159-0160) comprising a processor (see, Fig. 3A, processor, par 0101) and a memory (see, Fig. 3A, memory, par 0101), wherein the processor is configured to read code from the memory to implement a method for wireless communication (see, Fig. 3A, processor executes processes and programs residing in the memory to control the overall operation of UE, par 0104-0105), the method comprising:
selecting, with a first user device, a carrier to be a licensed carrier or an unlicensed carrier for a sidelink transmission (see, Fig. 4 S420, UE determines carrier on a licensed band and/or unlicensed band for sidelink communication, par 0138); and
transmitting, with the first device (TX UE can be equated to first device, par 0131), a sidelink signal on a channel (sidelink data channel can be equated to channel, par 0131) in the selected carrier to a second user device (see, TX UE transmits sidelink data to RX UE on sidelink data channel using carrier on a licensed band and/or unlicensed band for sidelink communication (transmission and/or reception), par 0131, 0138- 0139. Noted, RX UE can be equated to second user device, par 0131).
Regarding claim 20, Zhou’260 discloses a computer program product (see, Fig. 1, 3A and 4-5, UE with memory performing sidelink communication with other UEs in wireless network including gNBs and UEs, par 0087, 0118, 0137, 0159-0160) comprising a non-volatile computer-readable program medium comprising code stored thereupon (see, programs residing in the memory, par 0104-0105), the code, when executed by a processor, causing the processor to implement a method for wireless communication (see, Fig. 3A, processor executes processes and programs residing in the memory to control the overall operation of UE, par 0104-0105), the method comprising:
selecting, with a first user device, a carrier to be a licensed carrier or an unlicensed carrier for a sidelink transmission (see, Fig. 4 S420, UE determines carrier on a licensed band and/or unlicensed band for sidelink communication, par 0138); and
transmitting, with the first device (TX UE can be equated to first device, par 0131), a sidelink signal on a channel (sidelink data channel can be equated to channel, par 0131) in the selected carrier to a second user device (see, TX UE transmits sidelink data to RX UE on sidelink data channel using carrier on a licensed band and/or unlicensed band for sidelink communication (transmission and/or reception), par 0131, 0138- 0139. Noted, RX UE can be equated to second user device, par 0131).
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 for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in col. 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.
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.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou’260 in view of Alfarhan et al (US20240298350A1, PCT Pro 63275354 Priority Date: Nov 03, 2021).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou’260 discloses the method of claim 1 (see, Fig. 1 and 4-5, sidelink communication between UEs in wireless network including gNBs and UEs, par 0087, 0118, 0137, 0159-0160).
Zhou’260 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
wherein selecting the carrier comprises selecting, with the first device, the licensed carrier as the carrier for the sidelink transmission in response to a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) of the sidelink signal including a sidelink signaling radio bearer or a sidelink MAC control element (CE).
However Alfarhan’350 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 2, reporting of detected CSLF and LBT failure by tx WTRU, par 0165) discloses:
wherein selecting the carrier (selection of the carrier can be equated to selecting the carrier, par 0071) comprises selecting, with the first device, the licensed carrier as the carrier for the sidelink transmission in response to a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) (TB with MAC CE can be equated to MAC PDU, par 0148) of the sidelink signal including a sidelink signaling radio bearer or a sidelink MAC control element (CE) (see, WTRU prioritize SL licensed carrier(s) as selected carrier over unlicensed carriers of SL when transmitting SL LBT failure MAC CE in TB to receiving WTRU, par 0071-0072. Noted, SL LBT failure MAC CE can be equated to sidelink MAC control element (CE), par 0072).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the method as taught by Alfarhan’350 into that of Zhou’260. The motivation would have been to handling consistent sidelink LBT failures (CSLF) (par 0003).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou’260 in view of Adjakple et al (US20210153065A1).
Regarding claim 8, Zhou’260 discloses the method of claim 1 (see, Fig. 1 and 4-5, sidelink communication between UEs in wireless network including gNBs and UEs, par 0087, 0118, 0137, 0159-0160), further comprising.
Zhou’260 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
receiving, with the first user device, a list of allowed carriers, each of the allowed carriers mapped to a sidelink logical channel for the sidelink transmission; and
wherein selecting the carrier comprises selecting, with the first user device, the carrier from the list.
However Adjakple’065 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 2, non-roaming architecture for PC5 and LTE-Uu based V2X communication, par 0111) discloses:
receiving, with the first user device (Fig. 16, UE can be equated to first user device, par 0344), a list of allowed carriers (see, Fig. 16 1615, UE receives from gNB the V2X configuration parameters including List of allowed carrier frequencies, par 0228, 0344), each of the allowed carriers (one of allowed carrier frequencies of the services can be equated to each of the allowed carriers, par 0301) mapped to a sidelink logical channel for the sidelink transmission (see, one of allowed carrier frequencies of the services map to each logical channel for V2X sidelink communication, abstract, par 0301); and
wherein selecting the carrier comprises selecting, with the first user device, the carrier from the list (see, UE derives logical channel using one or more frequencies in the list of allowed carrier frequencies for one or more authorized V2X services, par 0269, 0272, 0278).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the method as taught by Adjakple’065 into that of Zhou’260. The motivation would have been to prioritize sidelink communication transmissions for V2X services (par 0005).
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou’260 in view of JI et al (US20220400490A1, Priority Date: Oct 27, 2020).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou’260 discloses the method of claim 1 (see, Fig. 1 and 4-5, sidelink communication between UEs in wireless network including gNBs and UEs, par 0087, 0118, 0137, 0159-0160), further comprising:
determining, with the first user device, that the unlicensed carrier is selected (see, Fig. 4 S420, UE determines carrier on unlicensed band for sidelink communication, par 0138).
Zhou’260 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
receiving, with the first user device, indication information indicating whether each of one or more sidelink logical channels is allowed to be transmitted on the unlicensed carrier or the licensed carrier;
selecting, with the first user device, a first sidelink logical channel during a logical channel prioritization (LCP) procedure in response to the indication information indicating that the first sidelink logical channel is allowed to be transmitted on the unlicensed carrier.
However JI’490 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 1, NW configures SL TX UE with single-mode or dual-mode SL LCH, par 0054) discloses:
receiving, with the first user device (Fig. 1, SL TX UE can be equated to first user device, par 0054), indication information (Fig. 1 and 2a, configuration of single-mode or dual-mode SL LCH can be equated to indication information, par 0054) indicating whether each of one or more sidelink logical channels (LCHs, par 0069) is allowed to be transmitted on the unlicensed carrier or the licensed carrier (see, Fig. 1 and 2a, SL TX UE receives configuration of single-mode or dual-mode to SL LCH(s) with mode 1 corresponding to licensed spectrum and mode 2 corresponding to un-licensed spectrum, and receives configured rule regarding how dual-mode SL LCHs should use mode 1 or mode 2, par 0034, 0058, 0069);
selecting, with the first user device, a first sidelink logical channel during a logical channel prioritization (LCP) procedure (NW dynamically adjusts LCP configuration of the dual-mode SL LCH for each assigned resource, par 0062) in response to the indication information indicating that the first sidelink logical channel is allowed to be transmitted on the unlicensed carrier (see, NW dynamically adjusts LCP configuration of the dual-mode SL LCH for each assigned resource (time and frequency resource) after receiving configuration of single-mode (mode 2) or dual-mode to SL LCHs (simultaneous mode 2 with mode 1), and thus SL LCHs are selected on the resource (according to time and frequency and LCP) and also configuration of mode, par 0034-0035, 0062. Noted, LCP including LCP for mode 1 and LCP for mode 2, par 0044. Noted further, mode 1 corresponding to licensed spectrum and mode 2 corresponding to un-licensed spectrum, par 0034).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the method as taught by JI’490 into that of Zhou’260. The motivation would have been to configure one or more dual-mode sidelink logical channel(s) to UE(s) to enable simultaneous sidelink mode 1 and sidelink mode 2 transmission (par 0004).
Regarding claim 13, Zhou’260 discloses the method of claim 1 (see, Fig. 1 and 4-5, sidelink communication between UEs in wireless network including gNBs and UEs, par 0087, 0118, 0137, 0159-0160), further comprising.
Zhou’260 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
receiving, with the first user device from a wireless access node, a list of one or more sidelink logical channels, the list indicating whether at least one of the unlicensed carrier or the licensed carrier is allowed to be used for the sidelink transmission for each of the one or more sidelink logical channels in the list; and
determining, with the first user device, a sidelink logical channel is included in a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) for the sidelink transmission,
wherein selecting the carrier comprises selecting the licensed carrier or the unlicensed carrier based on the list of one or more sidelink logical channels and the sidelink logical channel included in the MAC PDU for the sidelink transmission.
However JI’490 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 1, NW configures SL TX UE with single-mode or dual-mode SL LCH, par 0054) discloses:
receiving, with the first user device from a wireless access node, a list of one or more sidelink logical channels (see, Fig. 1 and 2a, SL TX UE receives from gNB the configuration of dual-mode SL LCHs, par 0068-0069), the list indicating whether at least one of the unlicensed carrier or the licensed carrier is allowed to be used for the sidelink transmission for each of the one or more sidelink logical channels in the list (see, Fig. 2a, configuration indicating SL LCHs to be dual mode (both mode 1 and mode 2) or single mode (mode 1 or mode 2) with mode 1 corresponding to licensed spectrum and mode 2 corresponding to un-licensed spectrum, par 0034, 0068-0069); and
determining, with the first user device, a sidelink logical channel is included in a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) (MAC PDU can be equated to MAC PDU, par 0044) for the sidelink transmission (see, UE determines when buffered data in SL LCH are multiplexed into MAC PDU, par 0044),
wherein selecting the carrier comprises selecting the licensed carrier or the unlicensed carrier based on the list of one or more sidelink logical channels (SL LCHs can be equated to list of one or more sidelink logical channels, par 0069) and the sidelink logical channel included in the MAC PDU for the sidelink transmission (see, UE receives configuration indicating SL LCHs to be dual mode (both mode 1 and mode 2) or single mode, and receives LCP configuration for UE on mode 1 or mode 2 indicates how data from dual-mode SL LCH(s) should be multiplexed with data from other SL LCH(s) into MAC PDU by using resource in corresponding mode, (and thus selecting mode 1/2 (licensed carrier or un-licensed carrier) according to resource and mode configuration for the SL LCHs), par 0006, 0034, 0044, 0069. Noted, mode 1 corresponding to licensed spectrum and mode 2 corresponding to un-licensed spectrum, par 0034).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the method as taught by JI’490 into that of Zhou’260. The motivation would have been to configure one or more dual-mode sidelink logical channel(s) to UE(s) to enable simultaneous sidelink mode 1 and sidelink mode 2 transmission (par 0004).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou’260 in view of Li et al (US20240032076A1, Priority Date: Jan 01, 2021).
Regarding claim 10, Zhou’260 discloses the method of claim 1 (see, Fig. 1 and 4-5, sidelink communication between UEs in wireless network including gNBs and UEs, par 0087, 0118, 0137, 0159-0160), further comprising:
selecting the unlicensed carrier and an associated pool of resources in response to the unlicensed carrier having the higher priority than the licensed carrier (see, UE determines sidelink resource according to priority of each resource in the resource set including carrier on licensed band and unlicensed band, priority of the resource determined indicating resource in an unlicensed band with link quality greater than threshold y1> resource in the licensed band and with link quality less than or equal to threshold x2, par 0019, 0036, 0152).
Zhou’260 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
receiving, with the first user device, priority indication information indicating whether the unlicensed carrier or the licensed carrier has a higher priority for each of one or more sidelink logical channels for the sidelink transmission, wherein selecting the carrier comprises:
selecting the licensed carrier and an associated pool of resources in response to the licensed carrier having the higher priority than the unlicensed carrier; and
selecting the unlicensed carrier and an associated pool of resources in response to the unlicensed carrier having the higher priority than the licensed carrier.
However Li’076 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 3, wireless communications system supports sidelink control connection with carrier aggregation, par 0196) discloses:
receiving, with the first user device, priority indication information indicating whether the unlicensed carrier or the licensed carrier has a higher priority for each of one or more sidelink logical channels (logical channels mapped to dynamically selected sidelink carrier can be equated to carrier for each of one or more sidelink logical channels, par 0195) for the sidelink transmission (see, UE receives configuration including set of candidate sidelink carriers for logical channels with licensed carriers and unlicensed carriers listed in priority order, par 0195, 0215), wherein selecting the carrier (see, UE selects sidelink carrier, par 0221) comprises:
selecting the licensed carrier and an associated pool of resources in response to the licensed carrier having the higher priority than the unlicensed carrier (see, UE selects sidelink carrier with corresponding resource allocation from candidate sidelink carriers by measure the channel parameters according to priority order of the candidate sidelink carriers with licensed carriers have higher priorities than the unlicensed carriers, par 0119, 0215, 0220-0221).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the method as taught by Li’076 into that of Zhou’260. The motivation would have been to provide carrier aggregation for control signals such as PC5 RRC interface (par 0005).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou’260 in view of Salem (US20190274054A1), and further in view of Zhao et al (US 20240031994 A1, PCT Priority Date: Apr 1, 2021).
Regarding claim 11, Zhou’260 discloses the method of claim 11 (see, Fig. 1 and 4-5, sidelink communication between UEs in wireless network including gNBs and UEs, par 0087, 0118, 0137, 0159-0160), further comprising.
Zhou’260 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
receiving, with the first user device from a wireless access node, indication information indicating whether at least one of the unlicensed carrier or the licensed carrier is allowed to be used for the sidelink transmission for each of one or more quality of service (QoS) profiles, wherein selecting the carrier comprises:
selecting the licensed carrier in response to a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) to be transmitted including data of any of the one or more QoS profiles indicating that the unlicensed carrier is not allowed to be used for the sidelink transmission; and
selecting the unlicensed carrier in response to the MAC PDU to be transmitted including data of any of the one or more QoS profiles indicating that the licensed carrier is not allowed to be used for the sidelink transmission.
However Salem’054 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 2, Hyper UEs (cooperation groups) perform coordinated contention procedures as FBE in network includes a Hyper Cell (group of cooperating TPs) , a Hyper UEs and a network controller, par 0060) discloses:
receiving, with the first user device from a wireless access node, indication information indicating whether at least one of the unlicensed carrier or the licensed carrier is allowed to be used for the sidelink transmission for each of one or more quality of service (QoS) profiles (see, Hyper UE receives CPC message from TP including priority class index associated with a traffic flow when accessing the unlicensed spectrum, sidelink traffic flows to TUE1 classified by QoS priority class indices, par 0077-0080. Noted, FIG. 4, QoS priority class indices can be equated to quality of service (QoS) profiles, table 1, par 0099).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the method as taught by Salem’054 into that of Zhou’260. The motivation would have been to provide methods and apparatus for network-assisted distributed UE cooperation in unlicensed spectrum (par 0045).
The combination of Zhou’260 and Salem’054 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
wherein selecting the carrier comprises:
selecting the licensed carrier in response to a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) to be transmitted including data of any of the one or more QoS profiles indicating that the unlicensed carrier is not allowed to be used for the sidelink transmission; and
selecting the unlicensed carrier in response to the MAC PDU to be transmitted including data of any of the one or more QoS profiles indicating that the licensed carrier is not allowed to be used for the sidelink transmission.
However Zhao’994 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 1-2, all terminals performing the SL communication are within coverage range of the same base station or within part of the network coverage, par 0062-0063) discloses:
wherein selecting the carrier (see, selecting or switching carrier, par 0290) comprises:
selecting the licensed carrier (licensed carrier, par 0231) in response to a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) (MAC data can be equated to MAC PDU, par 0320) to be transmitted including data of any of the one or more QoS profiles indicating that the unlicensed carrier (unlicensed carrier, par 0232) is not allowed to be used for the sidelink transmission; and
selecting the unlicensed carrier in response to the MAC PDU to be transmitted including data of any of the one or more QoS profiles indicating that the licensed carrier is not allowed to be used for the sidelink transmission (see, Fig. 30, terminal selects licensed carrier when reliability requirement in QoS attribute of to-be-transmitted MAC SL data is greater than threshold, selects unlicensed carrier when reliability requirement in QoS attribute of the to-be-transmitted MAC SL data is less than threshold, par 0230-0232, 0320. Noted, QoS attribute of to-be-transmitted MAC SL data is greater than threshold can be equated to QoS profiles indicating that the unlicensed carrier is not allowed to be used for the sidelink transmission while QoS attribute of the to-be-transmitted MAC SL data is less than threshold can be equated to licensed carrier is not allowed to be used for the sidelink transmission, par 0231-0232).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the method as taught by Zhao’994 into that of Zhou’260 modified by Salem’054. The motivation would have been to solve the problem of how to perform carrier selection (par 0003).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou’260 in view of Salem’054, and further in view of Vutukuri et al (US20160073404A1).
Regarding claim 12, Zhou’260 discloses the method of claim 1 (see, Fig. 1 and 4-5, sidelink communication between UEs in wireless network including gNBs and UEs, par 0087, 0118, 0137, 0159-0160), further comprising.
Zhou’260 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
receiving, with the first user device from a wireless access node, a list of quality of service (QoS) profiles, each of the QoS profiles in the list indicating whether at least one of the unlicensed carrier or the licensed carrier is allowed to be used for the sidelink transmission; and
determining, with the first user device, that data of at least one QoS profile is included in a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU),
wherein selecting the carrier comprises selecting the licensed carrier or the unlicensed carrier based on the list of QoS profiles and the data of the at least one QoS profile is included in the MAC PDU.
However Salem’054 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 2, Hyper UEs (cooperation groups) perform coordinated contention procedures as FBE in network includes a Hyper Cell (group of cooperating TPs) , a Hyper UEs and a network controller, par 0060) discloses:
receiving, with the first user device from a wireless access node, a list of quality of service (QoS) profiles (Note, Hyper UE receives from TP the CPC message including QoS priority class indices corresponding to traffic flows to be relayed to TUE1 on unlicensed spectrum, par 0076, 0078-0079. Noted, QoS priority class indices can be equated to list of quality of service (QoS) profiles, par 0078), each of the QoS profiles in the list indicating whether at least one of the unlicensed carrier or the licensed carrier is allowed to be used for the sidelink transmission (see, each priority class index with priority class index-specific set of parameters in QoS priority class indices associated with a sidelink traffic flow when accessing unlicensed spectrum, par 0079)
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the method as taught by Salem’054 into that of Zhou’260. The motivation would have been to provide methods and apparatus for network-assisted distributed UE cooperation in unlicensed spectrum (par 0045).
The combination of Zhou’260 and Salem’054 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
determining, with the first user device, that data of at least one QoS profile is included in a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU),
wherein selecting the carrier comprises selecting the licensed carrier or the unlicensed carrier based on the list of QoS profiles and the data of the at least one QoS profile is included in the MAC PDU.
However Vutukuri’404 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 4, UE communicates with eNB through licensed and unlicensed carrier, par 0079) discloses:
determining, with the first user device, that data of at least one QoS profile (QCI assigned to bearer can be equated to QoS profile, par 0181) is included in a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) (see, UE maps data to bears according to type of traffic data and knowledge of running applications for QoS guarantee, par 0085, 0166. Noted, a particular radio bearer may be routed over only licensed carriers or only over unlicensed carriers, par 0171. Noted further, UE assembles MAC PDU for transmission, par 0169),
wherein selecting the carrier comprises selecting the licensed carrier or the unlicensed carrier based on the list of QoS profiles (QCI assigned to bearer can be equated to QoS profile, and QCIs can be equated to list of QoS profiles, par 0181) and the data of the at least one QoS profile is included in the MAC PDU (see, UE maps MAC PDU to active bearers using type of traffic data and/or knowledge of running applications according to QoS guarantee with each particular radio bearer may be routed over only licensed carriers or only over unlicensed carriers, par 0085, 0166, 0169, 0171, 0181).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the method as taught by Vutukuri’404 into that of Zhou’260 modified by Salem’054. The motivation would have been to integrate 802.11 and LTE access networks at low level to enable bearer split across these access networks to enable peak throughput improvements per application (par 0005).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou’260 in view of Girolamo et al (US 20250038807 A1, PCT Priority Date: Nov 16, 2021).
Regarding claim 14, Zhou’260 discloses the method of claim 1 (see, Fig. 1 and 4-5, sidelink communication between UEs in wireless network including gNBs and UEs, par 0087, 0118, 0137, 0159-0160), further comprising.
Zhou’260 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
detecting, with the first user device, a consistent listen-before-talk (LBT) failure for the carrier, a bandwidth part (BWP), or a destination identification,
wherein selecting the carrier comprises reselecting the carrier for the sidelink transmission in response to detecting the consistent LBT failure.
However Girolamo’807 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 4, SL RLF declaration procedure, par 0258) discloses:
detecting, with the first user device, a consistent listen-before-talk (LBT) failure for the carrier (unlicensed band can be equated to carrier, par 0233), a bandwidth part (BWP), or a destination identification (see, UE declares consistent SL LBT failure for specific unlicensed band, par 0233),
wherein selecting the carrier comprises reselecting the carrier for the sidelink transmission in response to detecting the consistent LBT failure (see, WTRU switches to another unlicensed band when consistent SL LBT failure determined for specific unlicensed band, par 0250).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the method as taught by Girolamo’807 into that of Zhou’260. The motivation would have been to address the issues at the MAC layer resulting from potential LBT failures and potential delayed transmissions (par 0005).
Regarding claim 15, Zhou’260 discloses the method of claim 1 (see, Fig. 1 and 4-5, sidelink communication between UEs in wireless network including gNBs and UEs, par 0087, 0118, 0137, 0159-0160), further comprising.
Zhou’260 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
detecting, with the first user device, a listen-before-talk (LBT) failure indication;
incrementing, with the first user device, a LBT counter in response to the detecting; and
in response to incrementing, determining, with the first user device, whether the LBT counter has reached a maximum count value,
wherein selecting the carrier comprises reselecting, with the first user device, the carrier in response to LBT counter reaching the maximum count value.
However Girolamo’807 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 4, SL RLF declaration procedure, par 0258) discloses:
detecting, with the first user device, a listen-before-talk (LBT) failure indication (see, MAC entity within WTRU receives SL LBT failure indication from lower layers, par 0200);
incrementing, with the first user device, a LBT counter in response to the detecting (see, MAC entity within WTRU increments SL_LBT_COUNTER by 1 after receiving SL LBT failure indication from lower layer, par 0200); and
in response to incrementing, determining, with the first user device, whether the LBT counter has reached a maximum count value (if SL_LBT_COUNTER >= sl_lbt-FailureInstanceMaxCount after MAC entity increments SL_LBT_COUNTER by 1, par 0200),
wherein selecting the carrier comprises reselecting, with the first user device, the carrier in response to LBT counter reaching the maximum count value (see, WTRU switches to another unlicensed band when consistent SL LBT failure determined for specific unlicensed band if SL_LBT_COUNTER >= sl_lbt-FailureInstanceMaxCount , par 0200, 0250).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the method as taught by Girolamo’807 into that of Zhou’260. The motivation would have been to address the issues at the MAC layer resulting from potential LBT failures and potential delayed transmissions (par 0005).
Regarding claim 16, Zhou’260 discloses the method of claim 1 (see, Fig. 1 and 4-5, sidelink communication between UEs in wireless network including gNBs and UEs, par 0087, 0118, 0137, 0159-0160), further comprising.
Zhou’260 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
before selecting the carrier, identifying, with the first user device, the unlicensed carrier as a candidate carrier in response to:
a number of listen-before-talk (LBT) failure indications being lower than a predetermined value during a last time window;
the first user device being configured with a user equipment (UE)-selected resource allocation mode when a LBT failure recovery is determined for the unlicensed carrier, a destination identification, or a sidelink bandwidth part (BWP); or
an LBT success for the unlicensed carrier, the destination identification, or the sidelink BWP.
However Girolamo’807 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 4, SL RLF declaration procedure, par 0258) discloses:
before selecting the carrier (if TX resource (re) selection is necessary such as switching to new unlicensed carrier, par 0081, 0250), identifying, with the first user device, the unlicensed carrier as a candidate carrier (see, MAC layer asks PHY layer prepares Candidate Resource set according to sensing if TX resource (re) selection is necessary such as switching to new unlicensed carrier, par 0081, 0250) in response to:
a number of listen-before-talk (LBT) failure indications being lower than a predetermined value during a last time window;
the first user device being configured with a user equipment (UE)-selected resource allocation mode when a LBT failure recovery is determined for the unlicensed carrier, a destination identification, or a sidelink bandwidth part (BWP); or
an LBT success for the unlicensed carrier, the destination identification, or the sidelink BWP (see, If the channel is sensed to be clear or free on unlicensed band, par 0060, 0081, 0118, 0250. Noted, WTRU monitors LBT events at the granularity of per carrier, 0118).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the method as taught by Girolamo’807 into that of Zhou’260. The motivation would have been to address the issues at the MAC layer resulting from potential LBT failures and potential delayed transmissions (par 0005).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou’260 in view of Girolamo’807 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kim et al (US20240388516A1, PCT Foreign Priority Date: Oct 15, 2021).
Regarding claim 17, Zhou’260 modified by Girolamo’807 discloses the method of claim 16 (see, Fig. 1 and 4-5, sidelink communication between UEs in wireless network including gNBs and UEs, par 0087, 0118, 0137, 0159-0160), further comprising.
The combination of Zhou’260 and Girolamo’807 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
determining, with the first user device, the LBT failure recovery in response to expiration of a timer that is started in response to determining a consistent LBT failure.
However Kim’516 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 10, link monitoring in a wireless communication system for sidelink connection, par 0080, 0313) discloses:
determining, with the first user device, the LBT failure recovery (RLF recovery from consistent LBT failures, par ) in response to expiration of a timer that is started in response to determining a consistent LBT failure (see, UE performs re-establishment for RLF recovery if CHO for RLF in the source cell by entering RRC_IDLE if a suitable cell was not found within a certain time after RLF was declared on Detection of consistent LBT failures, par 0241, 0248, 0261. Noted, within a certain time can be equated to timer, par 0248).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the method as taught by Kim’516 into that of Zhou’260 modified by Girolamo’807. The motivation would have been to perform recovery procedure if SCG failure is detected (par 0008).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou’260 in view of Ozturk et al (US20200322861A1).
Regarding claim 18, Zhou’260 discloses the method of claim 1 (see, Fig. 1 and 4-5, sidelink communication between UEs in wireless network including gNBs and UEs, par 0087, 0118, 0137, 0159-0160), further comprising.
Zhou’260 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
determining, with the first user device, a plurality of candidate carriers for the sidelink transmission, the plurality of candidate carriers comprising only unlicensed carriers; and
selecting, with the first user device, one or more carriers from among the plurality of candidate carriers according to an increasing order of numbers of listen-before-talk (LBT) failures for the plurality of the candidate carriers, starting from a lowest number of the numbers of LBT failures.
However Ozturk’861 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 3A, UE performs cell reselection procedure, par 0057) discloses:
determining, with the first user device (UE can be equated to first user device, par 0050), a plurality of candidate carriers (cells for cell reselection can be equated to a plurality of candidate carriers, par 0050) for the sidelink transmission (see, UE as scheduling entity for sidelink communication identifies one or more cells for cell reselection, par 0037-0039, 0050), the plurality of candidate carriers comprising only unlicensed carriers (see, one or more cells operating in unlicensed spectrum, par 0050); and
selecting, with the first user device, one or more carriers from among the plurality of candidate carriers according to an increasing order of numbers of listen-before-talk (LBT) failures for the plurality of the candidate carriers, starting from a lowest number of the numbers of LBT failures (see, UE perform cell reselection by ranking cells based on channel load determined by quantity of LBT failures, and selects higher priority frequency cell for cell reselection, par 0011, 0058-0059).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the method as taught by Ozturk’861 into that of Zhou’260 modified by Girolamo’807. The motivation would have been to improve throughput or reduced latency by UE camping onto a cell providing more reliable paging via cell reselection (par 0026).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, 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: Prior art, either individually or in combination, fails to disclose or render obviousness the limitation of claim 3 as claimed in independent claim 1. The closest prior art, Zhao et al (US 20240031994 A1, PCT Priority Date: Apr 1, 2021), discloses wherein selecting the carrier comprises selecting, with the first device, the licensed carrier as the carrier for the sidelink transmission in response to a value of a highest priority of one or more .
Claims 4-6 are objected by virtue of their dependency on claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Guo et al (US 20240414744 A1, Priority Date: Dec 07, 2021) discloses: the base station 105-c may determine that sidelink communications for the resource request of 220 may be associated with relatively low QoS requirements, or relatively high throughput, or may be otherwise tolerant of an uncertainty regarding whether the unlicensed spectrum is available. For example, the base station 105-c may determine to transmit the indication of 230 (e.g., to allocate sidelink transmissions to the unlicensed spectrum) based at least in part on a QoS configuration, a latency configuration, a priority (e.g., an application priority), a throughput, or a periodicity associated with the sidelink communications (e.g., associated with a sidelink packet or an application transmission), or a combination thereof. In some examples, one or more of such characteristics may be signaled by the UE 115-c to the base station 105-c, such as indications included in the sidelink resource request of 220 (e.g., in a SL-BSR) (par 0096). This applies to claim 11.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUAN LU whose telephone number is (571)272-2844. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, KWANG Yao can be reached on (571)272-3182. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/XUAN LU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights