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 statements (IDS’s) submitted on 09/23/2024 and 11/26/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al. (2022/0029747), hereinafter Xue in view of Park et al. (KR 20210123938 A), hereinafter Park.
Re. Claim 1, Xue teaches a method performed by a first user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving, from a second UE, a plurality of physical sidelink shared channels (PSSCHs) on a first plurality of carriers (¶0006 - receiving, from the second UE, on the one or more resources on the primary carrier, the one or more HARQ responses for the one or more sidelink communications on the secondary carrier. & ¶0055 - the one or more sidelink channels 310 may include a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) 315, a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) 320, and/or a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) 325); and transmitting, to the second UE, a plurality of physical sidelink feedback channels (PSFCHs) on a second plurality of carriers (¶0006 - transmitting, to a second UE via a sidelink sub-channel of a primary carrier, an indication that identifies one or more resources on the primary carrier for transmitting one or more hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) responses for one or more sidelink communications between the first UE and the second UE on a secondary carrier, & ¶0055 - the one or more sidelink channels 310 may include a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) 315, a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) 320, and/or a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) 325).
However, Xue does not expressly teach transmitting based on a first maximum number of simultaneous PSFCH transmissions in a slot, wherein each PSFCH of the plurality of PSFCHs corresponds to a respective PSSCH of the plurality of PSSCHs.
Yet, Park explicitly teaches transmitting based on a first maximum number of simultaneous PSFCH transmissions in a slot (Pg. 24, Paragraph 4 - The above-described value of N may mean the maximum number of PSFCHs that the sidelink terminal can transmit simultaneously, and when actually transmitting the PSFCH, the terminal may transmit the PSFCH using a value smaller than N), wherein each PSFCH of the plurality of PSFCHs corresponds to a respective PSSCH of the plurality of PSSCHs (Pg. 29, Paragraph 2 - when the UE receives only one PSSCH, it will transmit one PSFCH, and when receiving a plurality of PSSCHs, it will transmit a plurality of PSFCHs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Park to the teaching of Xue. The motivation for such would be to improve transmission efficiency between two UEs as Park provides that the transmission between UEs is based on a maximum number of PSFCH transmissions where each transmission corresponds to a PSSCH (Pg. 24, Paragraph 4, Park). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 5, Xue teaches a method performed by a second user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: transmitting, to a first UE, a plurality of physical sidelink shared channels (PSSCHs) on a first plurality of carriers (¶0006 - receiving, from the second UE, on the one or more resources on the primary carrier, the one or more HARQ responses for the one or more sidelink communications on the secondary carrier. & ¶0055 - the one or more sidelink channels 310 may include a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) 315, a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) 320, and/or a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) 325); and receiving, from the first UE, a plurality of physical sidelink feedback channels (PSFCHs) on a second plurality of carriers (¶0006 - transmitting, to a second UE via a sidelink sub-channel of a primary carrier, an indication that identifies one or more resources on the primary carrier for transmitting one or more hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) responses for one or more sidelink communications between the first UE and the second UE on a secondary carrier, & ¶0055 - the one or more sidelink channels 310 may include a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) 315, a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) 320, and/or a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) 325).
However, Xue does not expressly teach transmitting based on a first maximum number of simultaneous PSFCH transmissions in a slot, wherein each PSFCH of the plurality of PSFCHs corresponds to a respective PSSCH of the plurality of PSSCHs.
Yet, Park explicitly teaches transmitting based on a first maximum number of simultaneous PSFCH transmissions in a slot (Pg. 24, Paragraph 4 - The above-described value of N may mean the maximum number of PSFCHs that the sidelink terminal can transmit simultaneously, and when actually transmitting the PSFCH, the terminal may transmit the PSFCH using a value smaller than N), wherein each PSFCH of the plurality of PSFCHs corresponds to a respective PSSCH of the plurality of PSSCHs (Pg. 29, Paragraph 2 - when the UE receives only one PSSCH, it will transmit one PSFCH, and when receiving a plurality of PSSCHs, it will transmit a plurality of PSFCHs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Park to the teaching of Xue. The motivation for such would be to improve transmission efficiency between two UEs as Park provides that the transmission between UEs is based on a maximum number of PSFCH transmissions where each transmission corresponds to a PSSCH (Pg. 24, Paragraph 4, Park). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claims 9 and 13, Claims 9 and 13 consist of the apparatus claims of Claims 1 and 5 and as such the methods within said claims are rejected under the same grounds. Additionally Xue further discloses both a first and second UE both with a transceiver and controller (Fig. 2).
Re. Claims 2, 6, 10, and 14, Xue and Park teach Claims 1, 5, 9, and 13.
However, Xue does not expressly teach wherein in case that the plurality of PSFCHs are transmitted on a carrier, the plurality of PSFCHs are transmitted based on a second maximum number of simultaneous PSFCH transmissions in a slot
Yet, Park explicitly teaches wherein in case that the plurality of PSFCHs are transmitted on a carrier, the plurality of PSFCHs are transmitted based on a second maximum number of simultaneous PSFCH transmissions in a slot (Pg. 24, Paragraph 5 - the number of PSFCHs to be simultaneously transmitted by the sidelink receiving terminal may be set for each resource pool. For example, when it is assumed that the number of PSFCHs to be simultaneously transmitted by the sidelink receiving terminal is L, L ≤ N may have to be satisfied… That is, in consideration of the capabilities of the sidelink receiving terminals, the L value may be set in the resource pool capable of transmitting the PSFCH based on the sidelink terminal having the minimum capability).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Park to the teaching of Xue. The motivation for such would be to improve transmission efficiency between two UEs as Park provides that the transmission between UEs is based on a maximum number of PSFCH transmissions (Pg. 24, Paragraph 5, Park). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claims 3, 7, 11, and 15, Xue and Park teach Claims 1, 5, 9, and 13.
However, Xue does not expressly teach wherein the plurality of PSFCHs are transmitted based on a maximum transmission power (PCMAX) for the first UE.
Yet, Park expressly teaches wherein the plurality of PSFCHs are transmitted based on a maximum transmission power (PCMAX) for the first UE (Pg. 29, Paragraph 3 - Accordingly, the UE will transmit PSFCH within the maximum transmit power (P CMAX) of the receiving terminal ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Park to the teaching of Xue. The motivation for such would be to improve transmission efficiency between two UEs as Park provides that the transmission between UEs is based on a maximum transmission power of the first UE (Pg. 29, Paragraph 3, Park). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claims 4, 8, 12, and 16, Xue and Park teach Claims 1, 5, 9, and 13.
However, Xue does not expressly teach wherein the plurality of PSFCHs to be transmitted are determined based on priorities of the plurality of PSFCHs.
Yet, Park explicitly teaches wherein the plurality of PSFCHs to be transmitted are determined based on priorities of the plurality of PSFCHs (Pg. 31, Paragraph 6 - The UE sequentially selects a PSFCH having a high priority based on the received priority value for the PSSCH. (S1925) PSFCH-1, PSFCH-2, PSFCH-3, . , PSFCH-k, ... When called, the receiving terminal must add one to the PSFCH PSFCH simultaneous transmission PSFCH_set set in a range which does not exceed the maximum transmit power (P CMAX) of the terminal in order).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Park to the teaching of Xue. The motivation for such would be to improve transmission efficiency between two UEs as Park provides that the transmission between UEs is based on priorities of the PSFCHs (Pg. 31, Paragraph 6, Park). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shilov et al. (2021/0014812) – Fig. 8, ¶0074-0097.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH JAMES SUGDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7406. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00-6:00 ET, Fri 9:00-1:00 ET.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/N.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights