DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 09/01/2026 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1-7, and 15-27 are presented for examination.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 15, 18, 21, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leon et al. (US Pub. 20230389051 A1) in view of Leon’ (US Pub. 20240260064 A1).
For claims 1, 15, and 18, Leon discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, the UE comprising:
a processor (902); a memory (904) coupled to the processor; and a transceiver (906) coupled to the processor (Fig. 9) [0190-191], wherein the processor is configured to cause the UE to:
receive, via the transceiver, a sidelink control information (SCI) format including a first indicator requesting transmission of hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) feedback for a plurality of physical sidelink shared channels (PSSCH) [0029-35, 0039-45, 0140-145],
transmit, via the transceiver, requested HARQ-ACK feedback for the plurality of PSSCHs [0029-35, 0039-45, 0140-145].
but, Leon doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of PSSCHs has an associated HARQ process number;
However, Leon’ discloses wherein each of the plurality of PSSCHs has an associated HARQ process number [0040-0045]; and
Leon’ also discloses receive, via the transceiver, a sidelink control information (SCI) format including a first indicator requesting transmission of hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) feedback for a plurality of physical sidelink shared channels (PSSCH) [0039-57].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing HARQ scheme use in a mobile network; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Leon with Leon’ to ensure all critical information can be used to improve the network efficiency.
Claim 15 differs from claim 1 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior art Leon further discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 6) [0029-35, 0039-45, 0140-145].
All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
Claim 18 differs from claim 1 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior art Leon further discloses a processor for wireless communication (Fig. 9) [0190-191].
All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
For claim 21, Leon discloses a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 8) for wireless communication, the UE comprising:
a processor; a memory coupled to the processor; and a transceiver coupled to the processor (Fig. 9) [0190-191], wherein the processor is configured to cause the UE to:
transmit, to a second user equipment (UE B/A), a sidelink control information (SCI) format including a first indicator requesting the second UE to transmit hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) feedback for a plurality of physical sidelink shared channels (PSSCH) [0029-35, 0039-45, 0140-145],
receive, from the second UE, requested HARQ-ACK feedback for the plurality of PSSCHs [0029-35, 0039-45, 0140-145].
but, Leon doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of PSSCHs has an associated HARQ process number;
However, Leon’ discloses wherein each of the plurality of PSSCHs has an associated HARQ process number [0040-0045]; and
Leon’ also discloses transmit, to a second user equipment, a sidelink control information (SCI) format including a first indicator requesting the second UE to transmit hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) feedback for a plurality of physical sidelink shared channels (PSSCH) [0039-57].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing HARQ scheme use in a mobile network; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Leon with Leon’ to ensure all critical information can be used to improve the network efficiency.
For claims 6 and 27, Leon, as modified by Leon’, discloses the requested HARQ-ACK feedback for the plurality of PSSCHs is transmitted on one PSSCH and a resource of the PSSCH is reserved by the SCI format [0147-149, 0029-35, 0039-45]; or
the requested HARQ-ACK feedback for the plurality of PSSCHs is included in one HARQ-ACK codebook and transmitted on one PSFCH [0013-14, 0029-35, 0039-45].
Claim(s) 2 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leon et al. (US Pub. 20230389051 A1) in view of Leon’ (US Pub. 20240260064 A1) in further view of He et al. (US Pub. 20200344722 A1).
For claims 2 and 22, Leon, as modified by Leon’, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Leon, as modified by Leon’, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by He.
He discloses the plurality of PSSCHs comprises at least two PSSCHs transmitted in respective previous slots for which the HARQ-ACK feedback is collectively requested by the first indicator (Fig. 24, 3720) [0218, 0233, 0235-236].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing HARQ scheme use in a mobile network; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Leon and Leon’ with He to ensure all data in targeted slot can be used to improve the communication links between users.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's latest filed arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the references failing to teach every element recited in the independent claims; the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments by the Applicant. Even though, the Examiner acknowledges Applicant's invention may possess some novel features, the claims are written too broad that can be read on the current cited prior art(s). Further actions must be taken to explicitly claim those novel features of the current application.
With regards to the argument for the limitation “…each of the plurality of PSSCHs has an associated HARQ process number”, the Examiner asserts that Leon explicitly teaches that each PSSCH transmission scheduled by an SCI format has an associated HARQ process number. In the description of SCI format 2-A, the specification states that the following information is transmitted: “HARQ process number 4 bits” . The same field is also present in SCI format 2-B, where the HARQ process number is again listed as 4 bits.
Paragraphs [0040]-[0045]: This means that for every PSSCH scheduled by an SCI format 2-A or 2-B, the SCI carries a 4-bit HARQ process number that identifies the HARQ process associated with that particular PSSCH. When the SCI format requests HARQ-ACK feedback for a plurality of PSSCHs, each of those PSSCHs will therefore have its own associated HARQ process number signaled in the corresponding SCI.
With regards to the argument for the limitation “…transmit, to a second user equipment, a sidelink control information (SCI) format including a first indicator requesting the second UE to transmit hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) feedback for a plurality of physical sidelink shared channels (PSSCH)”, the Examiner asserts that Leon’ discloses receiving an SCI format that carries resource allocation information necessary to decode PSSCH transmissions. Specifically, it describes that SCI format 1-A is used for scheduling the PSSCH and the 2nd-stage SCI, and that SCI format 1-A includes a field indicating frequency resource allocation and a field indicating time resource allocation. Paragraphs [0039]-[0057]: This section of Leon’ explains that SCI format 1-A is used for scheduling the PSSCH and the 2nd-stage SCI. It describes the fields carried by SCI format 1-A, including resource allocation information necessary to decode the PSSCH transmissions. While Leon’ focuses on inter-UE coordination, its disclosure of receiving SCI format 1-A provides the framework for receiving the SCI that schedules PSSCH transmissions. This is consistent with the broader system in which the SCI format (such as SCI format 2-A or 2-B as described in Leon) carries the HARQ feedback request indicator for the scheduled PSSCHs. Leon' therefore supports the reception of the SCI format that carries the scheduling information for the plurality of PSSCHs for which HARQ-ACK feedback is requested.
ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS
NECESSARY
The arguments made by the counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. The Applicant representative’s arguments for the obvious reason to combine the implicit and explicit teaching of the cited reference(s) failed to provide factual support to sustain the ground of arguments. The mere statement of disagreement of the prior art made by the Applicant’s representative cannot be served as evidence for support. Please see the following case law for detail:
In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
ARGUING AGAINST REFERENCES INDIVIDUALLY
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck and Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As discussed above, it is apparent that the Applicant's cited limitations, elements, and arguments have already been disclosed by the relevant prior art(s) or were thoroughly addressed by the Examiner. Additionally, the current Office Action provides further elaboration on the explicit and implicit teachings of the aforementioned disclosed reference(s). It is important to note that any justifications and citations utilized in the preceding Office Action which were not contested by the Applicant shall be regarded as an implicit admission by the Applicant on the matter at hand.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
