SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND DEVICES FOR MAC LAYER INTER-UE COORDINATION (IUC) AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION

DETAILED ACTION Response to Remark This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 09/10/26. Independent claims have been amended. The previous 102 rejection by Park has been replaced with a new 103 rejection over Park in view of Farag for amended independent claims. 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. Claims 1-5 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2023/0254862, “Park”) in view of Farag (US 2023/0217462, “Farag”; Provisional application No. 63/302,348 filed on Jan. 24. 2022, hereinafter “Prov’348”). Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a baseband processor, comprising: - a memory and one or more processors configured to (See Fig.13): - receive, via sidelink (SL) transmission from another UE, an inter-UE coordination (IUC) request messages (See S820 Fig.8, PNG media_image1.png 160 570 media_image1.png Greyscale ; See S1020 Fig.10) communicated in a first MAC CE, the first MAC CE including a single resource reservation period (See ¶.110, UE A may operate a timer set to a latency bound (restriction of latency that must transmit IUC information within time), may have to transmit the IUC information MAC CE to UE B before the timer expires, that is, in a state in which transmission is triggered and has not yet been transmitted. If the UE A fails to perform the IUC information MAC CE transmission within the latency bound, the UE A may cancel the pending IUC information MAC CE transmission; See ¶.100, a type-A UE receiving an IUC request MAC CE from a type-B UE may transmit an IUC MAC CE to the type-B UE); and - generate, for transmission to the other UE via SL transmission, an IUC information messages communicated in a second MAC CE responsive to the first MAC CE (See ¶.6, from the second device, an IUC request; trigger the IUC information report, based on the IUC request; See ¶.109, when UE A receives an explicit request MAC CE for IUC information MAC CE transmission from UE B, the UE A may generate IUC information MAC CE and transmit it to the UE B; See ¶.100, a type-A UE receiving an IUC request MAC CE from a type-B UE may transmit an IUC MAC CE to the type-B UE, i.e., a different MAC CE; Examiner’s Note: Farag further explicitly discloses the limitation “a second MAC”), the IUC information message indicating at least one wireless resource that the other UE is permitted to use to communicate with the UE (See S850 Fig.8, sending IUC response information; See ¶.100, when a type-B UE (SL data transmission UE) receives an IUC MAC CE from a type-A UE (a UE transmitting IUC MAC CE), it selects a resource for SL data transmission with reference to the received IUC-MAC CE information; See ¶.147, the IUC information may include information related to a preferred resource set and/or information related to a non-preferred resource set; See Table #6, UE-A uses the received information to determine the preferred resource set), - wherein the IUC information message corresponds to the single resource reservation period indicated by the IUC request message (See S850 Fig.8, PNG media_image2.png 224 642 media_image2.png Greyscale ; and wherein the IUC information is reported within a latency bound with respect to the IUC request message (See S810 Fig.8, receiving ‘latency bound related to IUC information report’; See ¶.110, at this time, for example, UE A may operate a timer set to a latency bound (restriction of latency that must transmit IUC information within time), may have to transmit the IUC information MAC CE to UE B before the timer expires, that is, in a state in which transmission is triggered and has not yet been transmitted. If the UE A fails to perform the IUC information MAC CE transmission within the latency bound, the UE A may cancel the pending IUC information MAC CE transmission; See further Figs.9-11 for latency bound). Park discloses that “a type-A UE receiving an IUC request MAC CE from a type-B UE may transmit an IUC MAC CE to the type-B UE” (Park, See ¶.100) and Farag further explicitly discloses “the second MAC CE which is different with the first MAC CE (Farag, See ¶.24-25, an example of a SL transmission includes RSAI (IUC message) transmitted in second stage SCI and in corresponding MAC CE, i.e., a different MAC CE; Prov’348, PNG media_image3.png 95 660 media_image3.png Greyscale ). Regarding claim 2, Park discloses “the latency bound is based on a resource selection window received from the other UE (See ¶.97, in the case of condition-based IUC, a selection window may be determined by a UE implementation. For example, for resource selection for transmitting IUC information, the following operation may be possible; See further Table #5).” Regarding claim 3, Park discloses “the latency bound is based on a configured time value received via Uu radio resource control (RRC) signaling by a base station or PC5 RRC signaling by the other UE (See ¶.132-135, UE B Sets a Timer Value to UE A Through PC5 RRC Signaling. For example, UE B may determine a timer value (latency bound) and transmit the timer value to UE A through PC5 RRC signaling. The Timer is Set Based on (Pre)Configuration of a Network. For example, a timer value (latency bound) may be set by a base station and informed to the UE or may be preset).” Regarding claim 4, Park discloses “the latency bound comprises a processing gap corresponding to a duration of time for the other UE to process IUC information messages (See S840 Fig.8; See ¶.168, a processor of a first device may control a transceiver to receive, from a second device, latency bound related to an inter UE coordination (IUC) information report. And, the processor of the first device may control the transceiver to receive, from the second device, an IUC request. And, the processor of the first device may trigger the IUC information report, based on the IUC request. And, the processor of the first device may start an IUC report timer related to a transmission of IUC information, based on the triggered IUC information report. For example, a timer value of the IUC report timer may be the same as the latency bound. And, the processor of the first device may control the transceiver to transmit, to the second device, the IUC information, based on the IUC report timer being running. And, the processor of the first device may stop the IUC report timer, based on the IUC information being transmitted. And, the processor of the first device may cancel the triggered IUC information report, based on the IUC information being transmitted; See further ¶.98 for a selection window).” Regarding claim 5, Park discloses “the processing gap is configured by the base station (See ¶.134-135, the Timer is Set Based on (Pre)Configuration of a Network. For example, a timer value (latency bound) may be set by a base station and informed to the UE or may be preset).” Regarding claim 11, it is a user equipment claim corresponding to the baseband processor claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim. Regarding claims 12-14, they are claims corresponding to claims 2, 3, & 3, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims. Regarding claim 15, it is a method claim corresponding to the claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim. Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Farag and further in view of Luo et al. (US 2025/0159698, “Luo”). Regarding claim 6, Park and Farag disclose “for different resource reservation period, the UE communicates different IUC information message in different MAC CEs, and each MAC CE is transmitted in a respective transport (Park, See ¶.94, (a)periodic resource reservation execution, a case in which a request-based IUC operation is performed, a case in which a condition-based IUC operation is performed, a case in which preferred resource set information is transmitted through IUC information MAC CE, a case in which non-preferred resource set information is transmitted through IUC information MAC CE; Farag, See ¶.327, when the UE receiving the RSAI (IUC) message successfully decodes SCI format 2-C, and possibly also successfully decodes the SL transport block; Examiner’s Note: Farag discloses “in different MAC CE” as rejected in claim 1),” but do not explicitly disclose what Luo discloses “each MAC CE is transmitted in a respective transport (Luo, See ¶.153, the transport block corresponding to the SL process associated with the SL transmission includes a coordination information MAC CE).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “each MAC CE being transmitted in a respective transport” as taught by Luo into the system of Park and Farag, so that it provides a way for the transport block corresponding to the SL to process associated with the SL transmission including the corresponding MAC CE (Luo, See ¶.153). Regarding claim 16, it is a claim corresponding to the claim 6 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim. Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Farag and Luo and further in view of Ganesan et al. (US 2024/0430917, “Ganesan”). Regarding claim 7, Park, Farag, and Luo do not explicitly disclose what Ganesan discloses “respond to the plurality of IUC request messages within a single delay bound associated with the plurality of IUC request messages (Ganesan, See Fig.5, same min latency for IUC report 1 & report 2; See ¶.183, transmission of explicit requests; Examiner’s Note: Provisional 63/275,352 shows the same Figure.5).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “respond to the plurality of IUC request messages within a single delay bound associated with the plurality of IUC request messages” as taught by Ganesan into the system of Park, Farag and Luo, so that it provides a way of considering the processing time at UE to do the sensing for preparing the IUC reports (Ganesan, See Fig.5 and ¶.207). Regarding claim 17, it is a claim corresponding to the claim 7 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim. Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Farag and further in view of Hui et al. (US 2023/0397168, “Hui”). Regarding claim 8, Park does not explicitly disclose what Farag and Hui disclose “wherein, for different resource reservation periods, the UE communicates different IUC information messages in different MAC CEs (Farag discloses different MAC CEs as rejected in claim 1), the different MAC CEs being multiplexed in a single transport block (TB) (Hui, See 221 Fig.4A and ¶.79, the MAC may multiplex a number of RLC PDUs and may attach a MAC sub-header to an RLC PDU to form a transport block; See Fig.20 and Fig.24-25, resource with a different periodicity in time domain/axis).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “the different MAC CEs being multiplexed in a single transport block (TB)” as taught as taught by Hui into the system of Park and Farag, so that it provides a way of multiplexing a number of RLC PDUs and may attach a MAC sub-header to form a signal transport block (Hui, See ¶.79). Regarding claim 9, Park and Farag do not explicitly disclose what Hui discloses “the plurality of IUC information messages are multiplexed using multiple MAC CEs (Hui, See Fig.4B and ¶.81, MAC CEs).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 8. Regarding claim 10, Park and Farag do not explicitly disclose what Hui discloses “respond to a first IUC request message, of the plurality of IUC request messages, using a first MAC CE that includes a first IUC information message corresponding to a periodicity of the first IUC request message; and respond to a second IUC request message, of the plurality of IUC request messages, using a second MAC CE that includes a second IUC information message corresponding to a periodicity of the second IUC request message that is different than the periodicity of the first IUC request message (Hui, See Fig.4B, a plurality of MAC CEs; See claim 1 and abstract, MAC CE requesting for an inter-UE coordination; See ¶.232, selecting periodic resource units; See ¶.272, time periodic of a processing delay). Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 8. Regarding claims 18-20, they are claims corresponding to claims 8-10, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed have been considered. But, in view of the applicant’s amendment to the claims, examiner has clarified and totally remapped the rejection to the argued claim limitations, using the prior art of record in the current prosecution of the claims and a new prior art by Farag for claim 1. The previous 102 rejection by Park has been replaced with a new 103 rejection over Park in view of Farag. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 date of this final action. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jung H Park whose telephone number is 571-272-8565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM-3:00 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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. /JUNG H PARK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411