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 Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following issues:
Claim 1 recites “…; performing a channel busy ratio (CBR) measurement for a first resource pool included in a first carrier among the plurality of carriers; selecting the first carrier based on a CBR measurement value related to the first resource pool being less than a threshold; determining the first resource pool for the CBR measurement as a resource pool for creation of a sidelink (SL) grant, based on the selection of the first carrier.”. These claim limitations need clarity. First, “the first resource pool for the CBR measurement” is not clear because the first resource pool is selected based on the CBR measurement, and is not “for the CBR measurement”. Second, the phase “a first resource pool included in a first carrier” is confusion because a resource pool normally includes a plurality of carries, not vice versa. These claim limitations need clarity.
Independent claims 14 and 18 are objected because each of them has the same problem as claim 1.
Dependent claims are objected because each of them has the same problem as the associated independent claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
To continue prosecution on merit, the claims will be interpreted as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US 20200163005 A1) in view of Li (CN 119485742 A).
For claim 1, Rao discloses a method for performing wireless communication by a first device (FIG. 2, one of V-UE), the method comprising:
obtaining configuration information related to a plurality of carriers (FIGs. 2, 14-20 and 23-24 and the associated text, such as [0021] “… The method also includes receiving the resource configuration from gNB, the resource configuration indicating the resource pool assigned to the platoon …”, [0054] “… the SL-RB configuration settings may include … iv) enforcements of mapping restrictions related to logical channel to sidelink carrier mapping in the MAC sublayer, …” or claim 4 “… wherein the AS-layer configuration comprises at least one of: UE-Identifier (ID), Group-ID, sidelink component carrier configuration, SL-RB configuration for data communications, and resource allocation configuration” and [0069] “… The SL-RBs can also be configured to support carrier aggregation (CA) and packet duplication (PD) functionalities for V2X services requiring high throughput and high reliability where the transmissions are performed with multiple sidelink component carriers (CCs) or bandwidth parts (BWP). Note that CC may imply a resource pool consisting of a set of time-frequency radio resources which can be configured by the network individually for each V-UE or for a group of V-UEs.”);
performing a channel busy ratio (CBR) measurement for a first resource pool included in a first carrier among the plurality of carriers (FIGs. 2, 14-20 and 23-24 and the associated text, such as [0087] “… the access stratum layer (gNB and L-UE) is responsible for one or more of: configuration of SL-RBs and corresponding QoS-related parameters (e.g. QoS flow indication (QFI), PC5 QoS Indication (PQI)); allocation of adequate resources for sidelink transmissions (Mode 1 and Mode 2) based on attributes such as traffic pattern (i.e. data volume, transmission timing information), channel conditions and UE location information (e.g. geo-location, positioning); mitigation of congestion and interference; measurement/reporting of channel and loading (Channel Busy Ratio (CBR)) conditions (i.e. channel measurement result reported by any F-UE in the platoon may be used to make resource scheduling decision at the L-UE for unicast transmission, …”);
selecting the first carrier based on a CBR measurement value related to the first resource pool being less than a threshold (FIGs. 2, 14-20 and 23-24 and the associated text, such as [0215] “… The resource pool configuration may indicate the pool of resources from which the F-UE 508 may select resources after sensing the resource availability (i.e. the CBR level is below a certain configured threshold). …”); and
determining the first resource pool based on CBR measurement (FIGs. 2, 14-20 and 23-24 and the associated text, such as [0215] “… The resource pool configuration may indicate the pool of resources from which the F-UE 508 may select resources after sensing the resource availability (i.e. the CBR level is below a certain configured threshold). …” and [0148] “…NR PC5 interface may be enhanced to provide support for configuration of SL-resource pool and SL-configured grant (SPS or grant free). In some embodiments, an authorized UE directly provides to another UE the resource pool configuration or grant free resources, indicating the pool of resources or resource grants from which the Rx UE 608 can select and reserve the resource …”).
Rao does not specifically state, but Li, in the same field of endeavor of sidelink communication, discloses that using the selected first resource pool as a sidelink (SL) grant (p7, last para extending to p8, “… there is an SL grant associated with the SL process on the carrier), … if the CBR of the current carrier wave is lower than the CBR threshold value threshCBR-FreqKeeping maintained by the control carrier wave related to the logic channel priority, selecting the current carrier wave and the resource in the related resource pool (not switching the carrier wave); … if the CBR of the carrier wave is lower than the CBR threshold value threshCBR-freqresselection of the control carrier wave related to the priority of the sub-link logic channel, the carrier wave is the candidate carrier wave selected or reselected by the sending carrier wave.”). In fact Rao also implicitly suggests it in [0148]. OOSA would have motivated to apply the teaching of Li above to the resource pool/carrier of Rao to yield a predictable result of selecting a grant for SL communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine Rao and Li for the benefit if selecting a grant for SL communication ([0148] of Rao).
Claim 14 is rejected because it is a claim of a generic device that performs the method of claim 1 and has the same subject matter.
Claim 18 is rejected because it is a claim of a generic device that performs the method of claim 1 and has the same subject matter.
As to claims 2, 15 and 19, Rao discloses claims 1, 14 and 18, Li further discloses: wherein the first resource pool for the CBR measurement is reused as the resource pool for the creation of the SL grant (p7, last para extending to p8, “… there is an SL grant associated with the SL process on the carrier), … if the CBR of the current carrier wave is lower than the CBR threshold value threshCBR-FreqKeeping maintained by the control carrier wave related to the logic channel priority, selecting the current carrier wave and the resource in the related resource pool (not switching the carrier wave); … if the CBR of the carrier wave is lower than the CBR threshold value threshCBR-freqresselection of the control carrier wave related to the priority of the sub-link logic channel, the carrier wave is the candidate carrier wave selected or reselected by the sending carrier wave.”). The motivation of combining Rao and Li is same as stated in the parent claims.
As to claim 6, Rao discloses claim 1, Rao further discloses: wherein the first carrier is selected based on the CBR measurement value related to the first resource pool included in the first carrier being the lowest CBR measurement value among CBR measurement values measured for each of at least one resource pool included in each of the plurality of carriers (using the is the lowest CBR measurement value is an obvious choice for OOSA because it is a design choice according MPEP 2143(F) in view of the parent claim).
As to claim 7, Rao discloses claim 1, Rao further discloses: wherein the first carrier and a second carrier are selected based on selecting one or more carriers including a resource pool related to a CBR measurement value with increasing order from the lowest CBR measurement value among CBR measurement values measured for each of at least one resource pool included in each of the plurality of carriers [0215] “… The resource pool configuration may indicate the pool of resources from which the F-UE 508 may select resources after sensing the resource availability (i.e. the CBR level is below a certain configured threshold). …”.
As to claim 8, Rao discloses claim 7, Li further discloses: wherein a carrier re-selection is triggered, based on a CBR measurement value measured for each of at least one resource pool included in the second carrier being greater than the threshold when determining the resource pool for the creation of the SL grant (p7, last para extending to p8, “… there is an SL grant associated with the SL process on the carrier), … if the CBR of the current carrier wave is lower than the CBR threshold value threshCBR-FreqKeeping maintained by the control carrier wave related to the logic channel priority, selecting the current carrier wave and the resource in the related resource pool (not switching the carrier wave); … if the CBR of the carrier wave is lower than the CBR threshold value threshCBR-freqresselection of the control carrier wave related to the priority of the sub-link logic channel, the carrier wave is the candidate carrier wave selected or reselected by the sending carrier wave.”). The motivation of combining Rao and Li is same as stated in the parent claim.
As to claim 9, Rao discloses claim 7, Rao further discloses: wherein the first resource pool included in the first carrier excluding the second carrier is determined as the resource pool for the creation of the SL grant, based on a CBR measurement value measured for each of at least one resource pool included in the second carrier being greater than the threshold after the first carrier and the second carrier are selected (This additional limitation is an obvious to OOSA because it is a design choice according MPEP 2143(F) in view of the parent claim)..
As to claim 10, Rao discloses claim 1, Rao further discloses: wherein the first resource pool for the CBR measurement is determined as the resource pool for the creation of the SL grant, based on the SL grant being related to an aperiodic resource reservation [0148] “…NR PC5 interface may be enhanced to provide support for configuration of SL-resource pool and SL-configured grant (SPS or grant free). In some embodiments, an authorized UE directly provides to another UE the resource pool configuration or grant free resources, indicating the pool of resources or resource grants from which the Rx UE 608 can select and reserve the resource …”).
As to claim 11, Rao discloses claim 1, Rao further discloses: wherein at least one of logical channel data, a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE), a PC5-radio resource control (RRC) message or a PC5-S message is transmitted to a second device through the first carrier based on the SL grant ([0020] “… the SL-RB operation status message is received in a sidelink Medium Access Control (MAC) control element (CE) sent by the authorized UE. In some embodiments, the SL-RB configuration message is received in a first sidelink MAC CE and the SL-RB operation status message is received in a second sidelink MAC CE sent by the authorized UE, …” and “[0025] FIG. 2 illustrates support of a SL-RB on NR PC5 interface in Mode 1 and Mode 2 …”).
As to claim 12, Rao discloses claim 1, Rao further discloses: wherein a higher layer of the first device determines the CBR measurement value related to the first resource pool among a plurality of resource pools included in the first carrier as a CBR measurement value of the first carrier, based on the CBR measurement for the first resource pool being performed on a lower layer of the first device and the CBR measurement value related to the first resource pool being available (FIGs. 3-7 and the associated text, such as “[0207] At the AS-level, to update the SL-RB configuration or resource allocation/pool configuration, the F-UE 508 intending to request an update to the vehicle platoon or leave the vehicle platoon also sends a lower layer group update/leave request message 2206 (AS-C <Group update/leave request> message in FIG. 22) to the L-UE 506 via AS-signaling (i.e. SL-RRC). …”).
As to claim 13, Rao discloses claim 12, Rao further discloses: wherein the lower layer of the first device is a physical (PHY) layer of the first device, and wherein the higher layer of the first device is a medium access control (MAC) layer of the first device (FIGs. 3-7 and the associated text, such as “[0203] … enables the data packets to be relayed via the L-UE 506 at the PHY layer, the MAC layer, the RLC layer or at the PDCP layer …”).
Claims 3-5, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US 20200163005 A1) in view of Li (CN 119485742 A), further in view of Hong (US 20240114534 A1).
As to claims 3 and 20, Rao discloses claims 1 and 18, and is silent but Hong, in the same field of SL communication, discloses: wherein the first resource pool among a plurality of resource pools included in the first carrier is determined as a resource pool for the CBR measurement, based on whether hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback for a logical channel related to the first carrier is enabled or disabled (“[0259] A MAC entity of first wireless device may select a sidelink grant corresponding to SL transmission of multiple MAC PDUs and an SL data is available in an SL logical channel. When the MAC entity of the first wireless device does not select a pool of resources allowed for the logical channel and an SL feedback transmission being enabled for the SL logical channel (e.g., sl-HARQ-FeedbackEnabled is set to enabled for the logical channel), the first wireless device may select any pool of resources configured with PSFCH resources among the configured pools of resources. …”). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Hong above to the SL system by Rao in view of Li to yield a predictable result of supporting SL feedback transmission.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine Rao and Li with Hong for the benefit of supporting “SL feedback transmission” ([0259] of Hong).
As to claims 4 and 16, Rao discloses claims 1 and 14, and is silent but Hong, in the same field of SL communication, discloses: wherein a resource pool configured with physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) resource among a plurality of resource pools included in the first carrier is selected as the first resource pool, based on HARQ feedback for a logical channel related to the first carrier being enabled (“[0259] A MAC entity of first wireless device may select a sidelink grant corresponding to SL transmission of multiple MAC PDUs and an SL data is available in an SL logical channel. When the MAC entity of the first wireless device does not select a pool of resources allowed for the logical channel and an SL feedback transmission being enabled for the SL logical channel (e.g., sl-HARQ-FeedbackEnabled is set to enabled for the logical channel), the first wireless device may select any pool of resources configured with PSFCH resources among the configured pools of resources. …”). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Hong above to the SL system by Rao in view of Li to yield a predictable result of supporting SL feedback transmission.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine Rao and Li with Hong for the benefit of supporting “SL feedback transmission” ([0259] of Hong).
As to claims 5 and 17, Rao discloses claims 1 and 14, and is silent but Hong, in the same field of SL communication, discloses: wherein a resource pool not configured with PSFCH resource among a plurality of resource pools included in the first carrier is selected as the first resource pool, based on HARQ feedback for a logical channel related to the first carrier being disabled (“[0259] A MAC entity of first wireless device may select a sidelink grant corresponding to SL transmission of multiple MAC PDUs and an SL data is available in an SL logical channel. When the MAC entity of the first wireless device does not select a pool of resources allowed for the logical channel and an SL feedback transmission being enabled for the SL logical channel (e.g., sl-HARQ-FeedbackEnabled is set to enabled for the logical channel), the first wireless device may select any pool of resources configured with PSFCH resources among the configured pools of resources. …”). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Hong above to the SL system by Rao in view of Li to yield a predictable result of supporting SL feedback transmission.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine Rao and Li with Hong for the benefit of supporting “SL feedback transmission” ([0259] of Hong).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANYE WU whose telephone number is (571)270-1665. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8am-6pm.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571) 272-3927. 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.
/JIANYE WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights