Detailed Action
The office action is in response to the communications filed on 08/02/2024.
Notice of 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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-39 has have been cancelled.
Claims 40-53 has have been newly added.
Claims 40-53 are pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed 12/20/2024, has been entered and considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/02/2024 are is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kwon et al. (Publication No. US 2019/0158993), the prior art discloses that D2D communication may be classified into communication between UEs in network coverage (or eNB coverage) (in-coverage), communication between UEs outside the coverage (out-of-coverage), and communication between a UE in the network coverage and a UE outside the network coverage; see ¶ 66.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 40, 41-42, 44-49 of Instant Application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 13, 18, 21-22, 25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,058,704 in view of Rao et al. (Publication No. US 2019/0239112, hereinafter referred as Rao).
Regarding claim 40, the claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,058,704 discloses that the UE performs packet duplication, but fails to explicitly disclose the highlighted features in the table below. However, in analogous art, Rao discloses Tx UE enables PD at PDCP and performs transmission of duplicated packets to Rx UE over multiple sidelink CCs, wherein the CCs are selected based on the measured CBR [feedback]; see figure 16 step 1608 & ¶ 156-158. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify U.S. Patent No. 12,058,704 with duplication mechanism of Rao in order to satisfy the reliability requirement of the packets.
U.S. Patent No. 12,058,704
Instant Application
1. A wireless communication system, comprising:
a plurality of user devices, UEs, configured for a sidelink communication on a sidelink using
resources from a set of sidelink resources of the wireless communication system,
wherein the plurality of UEs comprises a transmitting UE and a receiving UE,
the transmitting UE and the receiving UE configured to use at least a subset
of the set of sidelink resources of the wireless communication system for the sidelink
communication,
wherein the wireless communication system is configured to allow a data duplication on the
sidelink,
wherein the data duplication on the sidelink is activated or triggered dependent on
one or more of a sidelink quality of the sidelink between the transmitting UE and the receiving UE, and/or an occupancy of the sidelink resources, and/or data received by a network element/network function, and/or an application service running on one of the UEs,
wherein the transmitting and receiving UEs are in-coverage or are out-of-coverage,
wherein in case the transmitting and receiving UEs are in-coverage,
a base station of the wireless communication system is configured to provide a set of
configurations with different parameters, the set of configurations comprising a first
configuration causing the data duplication to be switched-on and a second
configuration causing the data duplication to be switched-off,
the UEs are configured to provide feedback information to the base station, the
feedback information being sent by the transmitting UE directly to the base station or
by the receiving UE to the base station via the transmitting UE or via a further UE, and
responsive to the feedback information, switching-on or switching-off the data
duplication is signaled, and
wherein in case the transmitting and receiving UEs are out-of-coverage,
the UEs are pre-configured with the set of configurations with the different parameters,
the set of configurations comprising the first configuration causing the data duplication
to be switched-on and the second configuration causing the data duplication to be
switched-off,
the UEs are configured to provide the feedback information via the sidelink, and
responsive to the feedback information, switching-on or switching-off the data
duplication is signaled.
40. A user device, UE, for a wireless communication system, the wireless communication system comprising:
a plurality of user devices, UEs, configured for a sidelink communication on a sidelink using resources from a set of sidelink resources of the wireless communication system,
the plurality of UEs including the UE,
wherein the UE is a transmitting UE and is configured to use at least a subset of the set of sidelink resources of the wireless communication system for the sidelink communication with a receiving UE,
wherein the UE is configured to allow a data duplication at a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer on the sidelink,
wherein the data duplication on the sidelink is activated or triggered dependent on an application service running on one of the UEs,
wherein in case the transmitting and receiving UEs are in-coverage,
the UE is to receive from a base station of the wireless communication system a set of configurations with different parameters, the set of configurations comprising a first configuration causing the data duplication to be switched-on and a second configuration causing the data duplication to be switched-off,
the UEs are configured to provide feedback information to the base station, the feedback information being sent by the transmitting UE directly to the base station, and
responsive to the feedback information, switching-on or switching-off the data duplication is signaled, and
wherein in case the transmitting and receiving UEs are out-of-coverage,
the UE is pre-configured with the set of configurations with the different parameters, the set of configurations comprising the first configuration causing the data duplication to be switched-on and the second configuration causing the data duplication to be switched-off,"
the UE is configured to provide the feedback information via the sidelink, and
responsive to the feedback information, switching-on or switching-off the data duplication is signaled.
Regarding claim 41-49, the claims 2, 6, 17-18, 21-22, 25-26, and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 12,058,704 discloses the claims 41-49, because the claims are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP §2111.04(II) recites:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.
The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
Claim 52 is a process claim that include at least one contingent limitation.
Regarding Claim 52, the claim recites the following limitations “wherein in case the transmitting and receiving UEs are in-coverage, …”and “wherein in case the transmitting and receiving UEs are out-of-coverage, …”. The limitations are considered contingent limitations based in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). When analyzing the limitation, it discloses a step that only occurs after the condition (i.e. “in-coverage” or “out-of-coverage”). Therefore, the BRI of the claim is based on the interpretation that only one condition occurs and the other doesn’t. For purpose of compact prosecution, it has been interpreted that the UE is in-coverage and as result no patentable weight is given to the out-of-coverage limitation. Any prior art rejection below might address the identified limitation in prior art rejections, but those limitation cannot be relied upon to overcome prior art rejections because they are not required in the BRI of the claims.
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.
Claims 40-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 40 and 52-53, the claim recites:
(Preamble) “a user device, UE, for a wireless communication system, the wireless communication system comprising a plurality of user devices, UEs … the plurality of UEs including the UE”;
(first limitation) “wherein the UE is a transmitting UE …”,
(second limitation) “selecting, with the first device, the target second device …”,
(third limitation) “wherein the UE is configured to …”,
(fourth limitation) “wherein in case the transmitting and receiving UEs are in-coverage, …”,
(fifth limitation) “the UE is to receive from a base station …”,
(sixth limitation) “the UEs are configured to provide feedback information to the base station …”,
(seventh limitation) “wherein in case the transmitting and receiving UEs are out-of-coverage …”,
(eighth limitation) “the UE is pre-configured with the set of configurations …”,
(ninth limitation) “the UE is configured to provide the feedback information via the sidelink and
responsive to the feedback information, switching-on or switching-off the data duplication is signaled”.
Based on the context of the claim is ambiguous whether the multiple limitation following the preamble are either the UE or a different UE of the plurality of UEs. Examiner suggest to amend the preamble to disclose “A wireless communication system comprising a plurality of user devices (UE) configured for a sidelink communication, wherein the plurality of UE includes at a transmitting UE and a receiving UE, …” and amend the limitations accordingly.
In addition, based on the context of claim is ambiguous what element (e.g. plurality of UEs or base station) is receiving the feedback provided by the UE of the ninth limitation. Examiner suggest to amend the limitation to explicitly disclose the element receiving the feedback as presented in the sixth limitation.
In addition, the claim is directed towards a UE, but there are limitations not limiting the UE functionality or structure. For example, “wherein in case the transmitting and receiving UEs are in-coverage, the UE is to receive…” or “responsive to the feedback information, switching-on or switching-off the data duplication”. Therefore, these limitations need to be removed or amended to further limit the UE functionality or structure.
As a result, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding Claims 41-51, the claims are rejected as they inherited the deficiencies of the parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to the parent claim above. As a result, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding Claim 42, the claim limitation recites “the data duplication on the sidelink”, but there isn’t clear antecedent basis that indicates any data duplication will happen on sidelink. As a result, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding Claim 43, the claim limitation recites “wherein switching-on or switching-off the data duplication is signaled or configured via a sidelink radio resource control (RRC) layer or over the top and indirectly via the RRC layer”. Based on the context of claim is ambiguous whether it’s expanding the scope or adding separate further limitations.
Regarding Claim 44, the claim limitation recites “sidelink radio resource control (RRC) layer …”. This limitation fails to further limit the UE functionality or structure. Therefore, this limitation needs to be removed or amended to further limit the UE functionality or structure. In addition, “the RRC layer configures…” and “the RRC configuration” a lack of antecedent basis. As a result, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding Claims 48, the claim limitation recites “wherein data duplication is not used when the sidelink is established, and the UE is to turn on the data duplication responsive to meeting a certain condition”. These limitations fail to further limit the UE functionality or structure. Therefore, these limitations need to be removed or amended to further limit the UE functionality or structure. As a result, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding Claim 50, the claim limitation recites “wherein the UE and the receiving UEs are in-coverage”. This limitation fails to further limit the UE functionality or structure. Therefore, this limitation needs to be removed or amended to further limit the UE functionality or structure. As a result, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding Claim 51, the claim limitation recites “wherein the UE and the receiving UEs are out-of-coverage”. This limitation fails to further limit the UE functionality or structure. Therefore, this limitation needs to be removed or amended to further limit the UE functionality or structure. As a result, the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 40-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. the § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 40, the claim subject matter is directed to the machine statutory category based on the preamble, which recite “a user device (UE)…” but fails to explicitly disclose structure. ”. However, there are no structural elements or means-plus-functions recited within the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite because the claim only described the UE in terms of what it is configured to do, rather than the actual structural elements of the machine statutory category; MPEP §2173.05(g). As a result, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim scope covers software per se thereby causing the subject matter of the claim to be non-statutory; see MPEP §2106.03.
Regarding Claims 41-51, the claims are rejected as they inherited the deficiencies of the parent claim and have not resolved this deficiency. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to the parent claim above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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 AIA 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.
Claims 40-53 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al. (Publication No. US 2019/0239112, hereinafter referred as Rao) in view of Mok et al. (Publication No. US 2019/0253927, hereinafter referred as Mok).
Regarding claims 40 and 52-53, Rao discloses a user device, UE, for a wireless communication system, the wireless communication system comprising a plurality of user devices, UEs, configured for a sidelink communication on a sidelink using resources from a set of sidelink resources of the wireless communication system, the plurality of UEs including the UE (A network comprising a Tx-UE, RX-UE, and a gNB, wherein the Tx-UE and the Rx-UE are configured for sidelink (SL) communication by the gNB; see figure 8.),
wherein the UE is a transmitting UE and is configured to use at least a subset of the set of sidelink resources of the wireless communication system for the sidelink communication with a receiving UE (The Tx-UE [transmitting UE] receive a configuration for SL communication from the gNB, wherein the configuration comprises SL radio bearer [resources]; see figure 8 step 804A.),
wherein the UE is configured to allow a data duplication at a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer on the sidelink (The Tx-UE enables packet duplication (PD) and performs transmission of duplicated packets to the Rx-UE over multiple sidelink CCs to satisfy the reliability requirement; see figure 8 step 812.),
wherein the data duplication on the sidelink is activated or triggered dependent on an application service running on one of the UEs (When the Tx-UE has packets [application] for transmission, the Tx-UE sends a request to the gNB; see figure 8 step 808 & ¶ 127. In response to the request, the gNB provides the SL grant [activated] to enable PD; see figure 8 step 812.),
wherein in case the transmitting and receiving UEs are in-coverage (The Tx-UE and Rx-UE are in coverage; see figure 8 & ¶ 123.),
the UE is to receive from a base station of the wireless communication system a set of configurations with different parameters, the set of configurations comprising a first configuration causing the data duplication to be switched-on (The gNB [base station] provides the SL grant [first configuration] and component carrier (CC) [second configuration] to enable PD, wherein the SL grant configure the SL radio resources [parameters] associated with each activated SL channel and the CC activates multiple CC [parameters]; see figure 8 step 812 & ¶ 15.),
the UEs are configured to provide feedback information to the base station, the feedback information being sent by the transmitting UE directly to the base station (When the Tx-UE has packets for transmission, the Tx-UE send the sidelink channel CQI and CBR to gNB; see figure 8 step 808 & ¶ 127.), and responsive to the feedback information, switching-on or switching-off the data duplication is signaled (In response to the request, the gNB provides the SL grant to enable PD [switch-on data duplication]; see figure 8 step 812.),
wherein in case the transmitting and receiving UEs are out-of-coverage (The Tx-UE and Rx-UE are out of coverage; see figure 16 & ¶ 154.),
the UE is pre-configured with the set of configurations with the different parameters, the set of configurations comprising the first configuration causing the data duplication to be switched-on (The pre-configured SL-RB mapping is used by Tx UE to select the CCs; see figure 16 ¶ 156.),
the UE is configured to provide the feedback information via the sidelink (The CBR is measured [feedback] on the selected CCs; see ¶ 156. NOTE: It is interpreted that the feedback is provided to itself, see 112(b) rejection.), and
responsive to the feedback information, switching-on or switching-off the data duplication is signaled (Tx UE enables PD at PDCP and performs transmission of duplicated packets to Rx UE over multiple sidelink CCs, wherein the CCs are selected based on the measured CBR [feedback]; see figure 16 step 1608 & ¶ 156-158.).
Rao discloses the configuration of the Tx-UE within the coverage and outside of the coverage, but fails to explicitly disclose a second configuration causing the data duplication to be switched-off while in coverage, and a second configuration causing the data duplication to be switched-off while in out of coverage. However, in analogous art, Mok discloses that the base station may configure/pre-configured a duplication deactivation timer [second configuration] to be used for deactivating packet duplication, for the V2X terminal that is to perform packet duplication; see ¶ 286. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rao with deactivation timer of Mok in order to enable the transmitting UE to disable PD regardless of coverage.
Regarding claim 41, Rao discloses that the sidelink communication of claim 40 comprises one or more of " a unicast transmission from the UE to the receiving UE," a multicast transmission from the UE to a plurality of receiving UEs," a groupcast from the UE to the plurality of receiving UEs, the UE and the plurality of receiving UEs forming a group of UEs, and/or " a broadcast transmission by the UE (Sidelink communications involving one-to-one communications between a transmitting UE and a receiving UEs may be referred to as unicast; see¶ 56.).
Regarding claim 42, Rao discloses that the data duplication on the sidelink of claim 40 is activated or triggered responsive to the feedback information, the feedback information " comprising one or more parameters associated with the sidelink quality and/or the occupancy, or " being a function of one or more parameters associated with the sidelink quality and/or the occupancy (When the Tx-UE has packets for transmission, the Tx-UE send a request to the gNB, wherein the request includes the sidelink channel CQI [quality] and CBR [occupancy]; see figure 8 step 808 & ¶ 127.).
Regarding claim 43, Rao discloses that the switching-on or switching-off the data duplication of claim 40 is signaled or configured via a sidelink radio resource control (RRC) layer or over the top and indirectly via the RRC layer, in case the transmitting and receiving UEs are in-coverage (The RAN node (gNB) activation of CCs for packet duplication (PD) may be performed semi-statically via RRC or dynamically via MAC CE for sidelink CCs; see ¶ 129.),
a configuration for switching-on or switching-off the data duplication may be signaled from a base station using RRC signaling via the Uu interface or from another UE via a sidelink RRC message (Note: the limitation is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation), and/or
in case the transmitting and receiving UEs are out-of-coverage, a configuration for switching-on or switching-off the data duplication may be signaled via a sidelink RRC message (Note: the limitation is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding claim 44, Rao discloses a sidelink radio resource control (RRC) layer configures the data duplication of claim 40 and activates or deactivates the data duplication (The RAN node (gNB) activation of CCs for packet duplication (PD) may be performed semi-statically via RRC or dynamically via MAC CE for sidelink CCs; see ¶ 129.), or
"the RRC layer configures the set of configurations at least one of which allows the data duplication, wherein switching of the configurations may be done via RRC or downlink control information (DCI) signaling (Note: the limitation is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation), or
" the RRC configuration is a part of a semi-persistent-scheduling (SPS) -configuration (Note: the limitation is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding claim 45, Rao discloses the on/off-switching of the data duplication of claim 40 is handled by a medium access control (MAC) layer (The RAN node (gNB) activation of CCs for packet duplication (PD) may be performed semi-statically via RRC or dynamically via MAC CE for sidelink CCs; see ¶ 129.), and/or the on/off-switching of the data duplication is handled by a physical (PHY) layer.
Regarding claim 46, Rao discloses that the UE of claim 40 is configured to apply an algorithm for determining, using parameters of the wireless communication network and received or measured link quality indicators, whether data duplication it to be activated or deactivated (When out of coverage (mode 4) the enforcement of PD decision [algorithm] is made in the Tx UE, the Tx UE can provide the PD activation/deactivation status in the SCI, sent on the selected CCs, to the Rx UE to properly receive the transmitted packets; see ¶ 159.).
Regarding claim 47, Rao discloses the data duplication of claim 40 is deactivated or not activated in case one or more of the following criteria are not met:" a priority is higher than a certain priority threshold," an entailed latency is higher than a certain latency threshold," a data rate is higher than a certain data rate threshold," the sidelink quality is better than a certain link quality threshold," a service class is below a certain service class threshold (Pro-se Per Packet Priority (PPPP)-to-CBR threshold mapping for packet duplication; see figure 6.).
Regarding claim 48, Rao discloses that the data duplication is not used when the sidelink is established, and the UE is to turn on the data duplication responsive to meeting a certain condition (Performing packet duplication happens after activating the CC [SL establishment],wherein the PD is based on the Pro-se Per Packet Priority (PPPP)-to-CBR threshold [condition] mapping; see figures 6 & figure 8 step 812.).
Regarding claim 49, Rao discloses that responsive to activating the data duplication of claim 40, the UE is configured to transmit a plurality of different versions of one or more data packets over the sidelink to the receiving UE, wherein transmitting different versions of the data packet comprises one or more of:(i) transmitting the data packet itself, or (ii) transmitting one or more duplicates of the data packet, or (iii) transmitting one or more redundancy versions of the data packet, or (iv) transmitting one or more erasure correction codes for the data packet, or (v) a combination of any of (i) to (iv) (The activation of multiple CCs for sidelink allows the Tx UE to use different CCs to perform parallel transmission duplicated packets for high reliability to the Rx UE; see ¶ 73).
Regarding claim 50, Rao discloses that the UE of claim 40 and the receiving UEs are in- coverage (The Tx-UE and Rx-UE are in coverage; see figure 8 & ¶ 123.).
Regarding claim 51, Rao discloses the UE of claim 40 and the receiving UEs are out- of-coverage (The Tx-UE and Rx-UE are out of coverage; see figure 16 & ¶ 154.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hector Reyes (Hector.Reyes@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 270-0239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5.
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, Kevin Bates (Kevin.Bates@uspto.gov) can be reached on (571) 270-0239. 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.
/H.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights