DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the response to the restriction requirement received 24 August 2026. Claims 21-40 are pending in this application. Claims 21-28 are examined herein; claims 29-40 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group ! (Claims 21-28) in the reply filed on 24 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21-23 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wagner (WO2021/023081).
For Claim 21, Wagner teaches an apparatus for use in a user equipment (UE), wherein the apparatus comprises:
memory to store a received physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) or a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) (see paragraphs 89-90); and one or more processors (see paragraph 88) configured to:
identify sidelink resources for a plurality of physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) occasions associated with the PSCCH or PSSCH, wherein the sidelink resources are identified based on mapping information that defines the sidelink resources for respective individual PSFCH occasions of the plurality of PSFCH occasions (see abstract, paragraphs 8, 11, 63-65, 82); and
facilitate transmission, by the UE, of a PSFCH in one or more of the PSFCH occasions using the respective sidelink resources (see abstract, paragraphs 77-78, 82-83).
For Claim 22, Wagner teaches the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify the mapping information received as part of configuration information for a resource pool (see paragraphs 7-9, 13).
For Claim 23, Wagner teaches the apparatus, wherein the sidelink resources for different PSFCH occasions include different physical resource blocks (PRBs) in a frequency domain (see paragraphs 63, 65, 67: PRBs; paragraphs 34, 37, 46: frequency resources).
For Claim 28, Wagner teaches the apparatus, wherein the sidelink resources includes a set of interlaced resource blocks that are common for PSFCHs of multiple UEs, and one or more dedicated physical resource blocks (PRBs) that are dedicated to the respective individual PSFCH occasion (see paragraphs 51, 59, 83-85).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (WO2021/023081) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2023/0171807).
For Claim 24, while Wagner does indicate the use of LBT (see paragraph 35), Wagner as applied above is not explicit as to, but Xu teaches the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
determine that the PSFCH is to be transmitted outside of a channel occupancy time (COT) shared by another device (see paragraphs 35, 71); and
facilitate performance, by the UE based on the determination, of a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure for the transmission of the PSFCH (see paragraphs 35, 71).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the mechanism of Xu when implementing the method of Wagner. The motivation would be to improve throughput by allowing terminals to avoid collisions on the sidelink.
Claim(s) 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (WO2021/023081) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Ye et al. (US 2022/0085923).
For Claim 25, Wagner as applied above is not explicit as to, but Ye teaches the apparatus, wherein the sidelink resources for the respective individual PSFCH occasions include a set of resource blocks that are interlaced in a frequency domain (see paragraphs 132, 129, 203).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide for sharing channels as in Ye when implementing the method of Wagner. One of ordinary skill would have been able to employ a known method of multiplexing with the reasonably predictable result of terminals sharing unlicensed frequencies.
For Claim 26, Wagner as applied above is not explicit as to, but Ye teaches the apparatus, wherein a frequency-domain orthogonal cover code (OCC) is applied for the transmission of the PSFCH (see paragraphs 140-144).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide for encoding channels as in Ye when implementing the method of Wagner. One of ordinary skill would have been able to employ a known method of multiplexing with the reasonably predictable result of terminals sharing unlicensed frequencies.
For Claim 27, Wagner as applied above is not explicit as to, but Ye teaches the apparatus, wherein a PRB-level cyclic shift is applied for the transmission of the PSFCH (see paragraphs 124-128).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide for modulating channels as in Ye when implementing the method of Wagner. One of ordinary skill would have been able to employ a known method of multiplexing with the reasonably predictable result of terminals sharing unlicensed frequencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhao et al. (US 2025/0097960) teaches employing an RB level cover code for a PSFCH. Li et al. (US 2021/0321396) teaches indexing PSFCH resources by frequency and cyclic shift.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSANDRA L DECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3946. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/CASSANDRA L DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2466 9/10/2026
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
