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, 14 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 8 and claim 16 line 4: “receive downlink control information (DCI) allocating sidelink resources” lacks of clarity. It is not clear from where to receive. Examiner interprets, based on claim 14, receive from a network unit such as a base station.
Claim 14 line 8: “transmit downlink control information (DCI) allocating sidelink resources” lacks of clarity. It is not clear to where to transmit. Examiner interprets, based on claim 1 and 14, transmit to a remote unit such as a UE or terminal apparatus (processor).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min Wang (US 20250008558 A1), hereinafter “Wang”, in view of Alfarhan et al. (US 20220210823 A1), hereinafter “Alfarhan”.
Per claim 1, 8, 14 and 16:
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches ‘A user equipment (UE)’ (Wang: [FIG.8]: “UE”); ‘comprising: at least one memory’ (Wang: [FIG.8]: “MEMORY”); ‘at least one processor’ (Wang: [FIG.8]: “PROCESSING CIRCUITRY”; [0308]: “multiple processors”; [0309]: “the processing circuitry 802 may include multiple central processing units (CPUs)”); ‘coupled with the at least one memory’ (this is implied); ‘configured to cause the UE to’ (Wang: [0309]: “the processing circuitry 802 may be configured to cause the UE 802 to perform the methods”);
‘receive downlink control information (DCI) allocating sidelink resources’ (Wang: [0074]: “During the resource request procedure, a gNB may allocate a sidelink radio network temporary identifier (SL-RNTI) to the transmitter UE. If this sidelink resource request is granted by a gNB, then a gNB indicates the resource allocation for the PSCCH and the PSSCH in the downlink control information (DCI)”, receive grant about sidelink resources in DCI from a gNB);
‘wherein the DCI comprises a channel access priority class (CAPC) field indicating a CAPC value’ (Wang: [0135]-[0139]: “the network node assigns the SL grants to the UE, the network node may additionally indicate one or more of the following parameters to the UE … Channel access priority classes that the UE shall apply for the selected channel access category/LBT type prior to transmissions using the grants … This information may be provided in the same message as the grant of resources, e.g., in the DCI”);
‘perform a sidelink logical channel prioritization procedure based on the CAPC value for generation of a sidelink transport block according to the sidelink resources’ (Wang: [FIG.4]; [0131]: “The resources may be determined based on a scheduling message from a network node (e.g., network node 710) comprising an indication of the resources which have been granted to the UE for the sidelink transmission”; [0146]: “When choosing the CAPC of a data radio bearer (DRB), the network node may take into account quality-of-service parameters associated with the flows multiplexed in that DRB, such as the SL 5G QoS parameters, e.g., PC5 QOS Identifier (PQI), where PC5 is the interface between UEs. The network node may additionally consider fairness between different traffic types and transmissions”; [0088]: “SL grant”; [0146]-[0161]: the CAPC of SL TB with multiplexed MAC SDUs is the CAPC with the highest priority CAPC corresponding to the logical channels with highest LCH priority among all MAC SDUs multiplexed in the TB => implicitly teach that for a given SL grant with a CAPC, can only multiplex MAC SDU with priority of CAPC not exceed the priority of CAPC in SL grant, i.e. CAPC value greater than or equal to CAPC value in SL grant, in another word).
‘perform a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure for transmission of a sidelink transport block on the sidelink resources’ (Wang: [0162]: “the first UE performs channel access/LBT according to the received signaling (e.g., the configuration information) and, upon a successful LBT process, initiates a sidelink transmission to the one or more second UEs using the determined resources”).
Moreover, Alfarhan in the same field of endeavor teaches LCP to map a PDU to a grant by CAPC restriction that a LCH with a given CAPC can only multiplex LCH with CAPC (value) greater than or equal to the given CAPC (value) (Alfarhan: [FIG.5]; [0211]: “a WTRU 102 determining whether a first LCH, having data to be sent in a packet data unit (PDU), has a channel access priority class (CAPC) restriction. At block 520, the WTRU 102, on condition that the first LCH has the CAPC restriction, may determine whether to multiplex data from the first LCH with data from one or more further LCHs based on the CAPC of the first LCH and the CAPC of some or each of the one or more further LCHs”; [0215]: “the first LCH may have a CAPC restriction on condition that the first LCH is carrying priority data/signaling (e.g., URLLC data/signaling and/or a Signaling Radio Bearer (SBR), among others)”; [0216]: “the WTRU 102 may selective multiplex the data from the first and further LCHs such that the data from the second LCH is multiplexed in the PDU on condition that the CAPC of the second LCH is greater than or equal to the CAPC of the first LCH”; [0087]: “The term “highest priority CAPC” is generally synonymous with a lowest CAPC number and/or a lowest CAPC”, the higher the CAPC, the lower the priority, here, CAPC = CAPC number (value); [0139]: “based on Logical Channel Prioritization (LCP) parameters (for example, the WTRU 102 may select a different active CG to perform the next transmission or retransmission, for example if data included in a PDU can be mapped to a grant and/or the grant meets the LCP mapping restrictions configured for LCHs included in the PDU”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alfarhan’s teaching with that of Wang in order to map a PDU to a grant by CAPC restriction (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the method implemented by the UE of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches ‘A base station’ (Wang: [FIG.9]: “Network Node”; [0321]: “network nodes include … base stations”); ‘comprising: at least one memory’ (Wang: [FIG.9]: “MEMORY”); ‘at least one processor’ (Wang: [FIG.9]: “PROCESSING CIRCUITRY”; [0325]: “The processing circuitry 902 may comprise … processor”); ‘coupled with the at least one memory’ (this is implied); ‘configured to cause the base station to’ (Wang: [0325]: “the processing circuitry 902 may be configured to cause the network node to perform the methods”);
‘transmit downlink control information (DCI) allocating sidelink resources’ (Wang: [0074]: “During the resource request procedure, a gNB may allocate a sidelink radio network temporary identifier (SL-RNTI) to the transmitter UE. If this sidelink resource request is granted by a gNB, then a gNB indicates the resource allocation for the PSCCH and the PSSCH in the downlink control information (DCI)”, transmit grant about sidelink resources in DCI to UE);
‘wherein the DCI comprises a channel access priority class (CAPC) field indicating a CAPC value’ (Wang: [0135]-[0139]: “the network node assigns the SL grants to the UE, the network node may additionally indicate one or more of the following parameters to the UE … Channel access priority classes that the UE shall apply for the selected channel access category/LBT type prior to transmissions using the grants … This information may be provided in the same message as the grant of resources, e.g., in the DCI”);
‘wherein a sidelink logical channel prioritization procedure is performed based on the CAPC value for generation of a sidelink transport block according to the sidelink resources’ (Wang: [FIG.4]; [0131]: “The resources may be determined based on a scheduling message from a network node (e.g., network node 710) comprising an indication of the resources which have been granted to the UE for the sidelink transmission”; [0146]: “When choosing the CAPC of a data radio bearer (DRB), the network node may take into account quality-of-service parameters associated with the flows multiplexed in that DRB, such as the SL 5G QoS parameters, e.g., PC5 QOS Identifier (PQI), where PC5 is the interface between UEs. The network node may additionally consider fairness between different traffic types and transmissions”; [0088]: “SL grant”; [0146]-[0161]: the CAPC of SL TB with multiplexed MAC SDUs is the CAPC with the highest priority CAPC corresponding to the logical channels with highest LCH priority among all MAC SDUs multiplexed in the TB => implicitly teach that for a given SL grant with a CAPC, can only multiplex MAC SDU with priority of CAPC not exceed the priority of CAPC in SL grant, i.e. CAPC value greater than or equal to CAPC value in SL grant).
Moreover, Alfarhan in the same field of endeavor teaches LCP to map a PDU to a grant by CAPC restriction that a LCH with a given CAPC can only multiplex LCH with CAPC (value) greater than or equal to the given CAPC (value) (Alfarhan: [FIG.5]; [0211]: “a WTRU 102 determining whether a first LCH, having data to be sent in a packet data unit (PDU), has a channel access priority class (CAPC) restriction. At block 520, the WTRU 102, on condition that the first LCH has the CAPC restriction, may determine whether to multiplex data from the first LCH with data from one or more further LCHs based on the CAPC of the first LCH and the CAPC of some or each of the one or more further LCHs”; [0215]: “the first LCH may have a CAPC restriction on condition that the first LCH is carrying priority data/signaling (e.g., URLLC data/signaling and/or a Signaling Radio Bearer (SBR), among others)”; [0216]: “the WTRU 102 may selective multiplex the data from the first and further LCHs such that the data from the second LCH is multiplexed in the PDU on condition that the CAPC of the second LCH is greater than or equal to the CAPC of the first LCH”; [0087]: “The term “highest priority CAPC” is generally synonymous with a lowest CAPC number and/or a lowest CAPC”, the higher the CAPC, the lower the priority, here, CAPC = CAPC number (value); [0139]: “based on Logical Channel Prioritization (LCP) parameters (for example, the WTRU 102 may select a different active CG to perform the next transmission or retransmission, for example if data included in a PDU can be mapped to a grant and/or the grant meets the LCP mapping restrictions configured for LCHs included in the PDU”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alfarhan’s teaching with that of Wang in order to map a PDU to a grant by CAPC restriction (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 16, Wang teaches ‘A processor for wireless communication’ (Wang: [FIG.8]: “UE”->“PROCESSING CIRCUITRY”; [0309]: “processors … the processing circuitry 802 may include multiple central processing units (CPUs)”; [0305]: “a UE refers to a device capable, configured, arranged and/or operable to communicate wirelessly with network nodes and/or other UEs”); ‘comprising: at least one controller coupled with at least one memory’ (Wang: [FIG.8]: “PROCESSING CIRCUITRY”, “MEMORY”; [0308]: “The UE 800 includes processing circuitry 802 that is operatively coupled via a bus 804 to an input/output interface 806, a power source 808, a memory”, existence of a controller for processing circuitry is implied); ‘configured to cause the processor to’ (Wang: [0309]: “the processing circuitry 802 may be configured to cause the UE 802 to perform the methods”);
‘receive downlink control information (DCI) allocating sidelink resources’ (Wang: [0074]: “During the resource request procedure, a gNB may allocate a sidelink radio network temporary identifier (SL-RNTI) to the transmitter UE. If this sidelink resource request is granted by a gNB, then a gNB indicates the resource allocation for the PSCCH and the PSSCH in the downlink control information (DCI)”, receive grant about sidelink resources in DCI from a gNB);
‘wherein the DCI comprises a channel access priority class (CAPC) field indicating a CAPC value’ (Wang: [0135]-[0139]: “the network node assigns the SL grants to the UE, the network node may additionally indicate one or more of the following parameters to the UE … Channel access priority classes that the UE shall apply for the selected channel access category/LBT type prior to transmissions using the grants … This information may be provided in the same message as the grant of resources, e.g., in the DCI”);
‘perform a sidelink logical channel prioritization procedure based on the CAPC value for generation of a sidelink transport block according to the sidelink resources’ (Wang: [FIG.4]; [0131]: “The resources may be determined based on a scheduling message from a network node (e.g., network node 710) comprising an indication of the resources which have been granted to the UE for the sidelink transmission”; [0146]: “When choosing the CAPC of a data radio bearer (DRB), the network node may take into account quality-of-service parameters associated with the flows multiplexed in that DRB, such as the SL 5G QoS parameters, e.g., PC5 QOS Identifier (PQI), where PC5 is the interface between UEs. The network node may additionally consider fairness between different traffic types and transmissions”; [0088]: “SL grant”; [0146]-[0161]: the CAPC of SL TB with multiplexed MAC SDUs is the CAPC with the highest priority CAPC corresponding to the logical channels with highest LCH priority among all MAC SDUs multiplexed in the TB => implicitly teach that for a given SL grant with a CAPC, can only multiplex MAC SDU with priority of CAPC not exceed the priority of CAPC in SL grant, i.e. CAPC value greater than or equal to CAPC value in SL grant);
‘perform a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure for transmission of a sidelink transport block on the sidelink resources’ (Wang: [0162]: “the first UE performs channel access/LBT according to the received signaling (e.g., the configuration information) and, upon a successful LBT process, initiates a sidelink transmission to the one or more second UEs using the determined resources”).
Moreover, Alfarhan in the same field of endeavor teaches LCP to map a PDU to a grant by CAPC restriction that a LCH with a given CAPC can only multiplex LCH with CAPC (value) greater than or equal to the given CAPC (value) (Alfarhan: [FIG.5]; [0211]: “a WTRU 102 determining whether a first LCH, having data to be sent in a packet data unit (PDU), has a channel access priority class (CAPC) restriction. At block 520, the WTRU 102, on condition that the first LCH has the CAPC restriction, may determine whether to multiplex data from the first LCH with data from one or more further LCHs based on the CAPC of the first LCH and the CAPC of some or each of the one or more further LCHs”; [0215]: “the first LCH may have a CAPC restriction on condition that the first LCH is carrying priority data/signaling (e.g., URLLC data/signaling and/or a Signaling Radio Bearer (SBR), among others)”; [0216]: “the WTRU 102 may selective multiplex the data from the first and further LCHs such that the data from the second LCH is multiplexed in the PDU on condition that the CAPC of the second LCH is greater than or equal to the CAPC of the first LCH”; [0087]: “The term “highest priority CAPC” is generally synonymous with a lowest CAPC number and/or a lowest CAPC”, the higher the CAPC, the lower the priority, here, CAPC = CAPC number (value); [0139]: “based on Logical Channel Prioritization (LCP) parameters (for example, the WTRU 102 may select a different active CG to perform the next transmission or retransmission, for example if data included in a PDU can be mapped to a grant and/or the grant meets the LCP mapping restrictions configured for LCHs included in the PDU”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alfarhan’s teaching with that of Wang in order to map a PDU to a grant by CAPC restriction (see reference quotes in element above).
Per claim 2, 9 and 17:
Regarding claim 2, combination of Wang and Alfarhan teaches the UE of claim 1 (discussed above).
Wang teaches ‘using use the CAPC value for selection of a channel access parameter’ (Wang: [TABLE 1]: “
PNG
media_image1.png
65
397
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”, CAPC vs channel access parameters; [0034]-[0044]: channel access parameters such as contention window for LBT; [0162]: “the first UE performs channel access/LBT according to the received signaling (e.g., the configuration information)”).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the method implemented by the UE of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 17, combination of Wang and Alfarhan teaches the processor of claim 16 (discussed above).
Wang teaches ‘use the CAPC value for selection of a channel access parameter’ (Wang: [TABLE 1]: “
PNG
media_image1.png
65
397
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”, CAPC vs channel access parameters; [0034]-[0044]: channel access parameters such as contention window for LBT; [0162]: “the first UE performs channel access/LBT according to the received signaling (e.g., the configuration information)”).
Per claim 3, 10 and 18:
Regarding claim 3, combination of Wang and Alfarhan teaches the UE of claim 1 (discussed above).
Combination of Wang and Alfarhan teaches ‘use sidelink (SL) logical channels having an associated CAPC value greater than or equal to the CAPC value signaled within the DCI for the sidelink logical channel prioritization procedure’ (Wang: [0088]: “SL grant”; [0146]-[0161]: the CAPC of SL TB with multiplexed MAC SDUs is the CAPC with the highest priority CAPC corresponding to the logical channels with highest LCH priority among all MAC SDUs multiplexed in the TB => implicitly teach that for a given SL grant with a CAPC, can only multiplex MAC SDU with priority of CAPC not exceed the priority of CAPC in SL grant, i.e. CAPC value greater than or equal to CAPC value in SL grant. Alfarhan: [0216]: “the WTRU 102 may selective multiplex the data from the first and further LCHs such that the data from the second LCH is multiplexed in the PDU on condition that the CAPC of the second LCH is greater than or equal to the CAPC of the first LCH”; [0087]: “The term “highest priority CAPC” is generally synonymous with a lowest CAPC number and/or a lowest CAPC”, the higher the CAPC, the lower the priority, here, CAPC = CAPC number (value); [0139]: “based on Logical Channel Prioritization (LCP) parameters (for example, the WTRU 102 may select a different active CG to perform the next transmission or retransmission, for example if data included in a PDU can be mapped to a grant and/or the grant meets the LCP mapping restrictions configured for LCHs included in the PDU”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alfarhan’s teaching of CAPC restriction with that of Wang in order to map a PDU to a grant by CAPC restriction (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the method implemented by the UE of claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above).
Regarding claim 18, combination of Wang and Alfarhan teaches the processor of claim 16 (discussed above).
Combination of Wang and Alfarhan teaches ‘use sidelink (SL) logical channels having an associated CAPC value greater than or equal to the CAPC value signaled within the DCI for the sidelink logical channel prioritization procedure’ (Wang: [0088]: “SL grant”; [0146]-[0161]: the CAPC of SL TB with multiplexed MAC SDUs is the CAPC with the highest priority CAPC corresponding to the logical channels with highest LCH priority among all MAC SDUs multiplexed in the TB => implicitly teach that for a given SL grant with a CAPC, can only multiplex MAC SDU with priority of CAPC not exceed the priority of CAPC in SL grant, i.e. CAPC value greater than or equal to CAPC value in SL grant. Alfarhan: [0216]: “the WTRU 102 may selective multiplex the data from the first and further LCHs such that the data from the second LCH is multiplexed in the PDU on condition that the CAPC of the second LCH is greater than or equal to the CAPC of the first LCH”; [0087]: “The term “highest priority CAPC” is generally synonymous with a lowest CAPC number and/or a lowest CAPC”, the higher the CAPC, the lower the priority, here, CAPC = CAPC number (value); [0139]: “based on Logical Channel Prioritization (LCP) parameters (for example, the WTRU 102 may select a different active CG to perform the next transmission or retransmission, for example if data included in a PDU can be mapped to a grant and/or the grant meets the LCP mapping restrictions configured for LCHs included in the PDU”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alfarhan’s teaching of CAPC restriction with that of Wang in order to map a PDU to a grant by CAPC restriction (see reference quotes in element above).
Per claim 4, 11 and 19:
Regarding claim 4, combination of Wang and Alfarhan teaches the UE of claim 1 (discussed above).
Combination of Wang and Alfarhan teaches ‘not use SL logical channels having an associated CAPC value less than the CAPC value signaled within the DCI for the sidelink logical channel prioritization procedure’ (Wang: [0088]: “SL grant”; [0146]-[0161]: the CAPC of SL TB with multiplexed MAC SDUs is the CAPC with the highest priority CAPC corresponding to the logical channels with highest LCH priority among all MAC SDUs multiplexed in the TB => implicitly teach that for a given SL grant with a CAPC, cannot multiplex MAC SDU with priority of CAPC exceed the priority of CAPC in SL grant, i.e. CAPC value less than CAPC value in SL grant. Alfarhan: [0217]: “the WTRU 102 may selective multiplex the data from the first and further LCHs such that the data from the second LCH is not multiplexed in the PDU on condition that the CAPC of the second LCH is less than the CAPC of the first LCH (e.g., only data corresponding to a CAPC at or above the CAPC corresponding to the first LCH is multiplexed into the PDU)”; [0087]: “The term “highest priority CAPC” is generally synonymous with a lowest CAPC number and/or a lowest CAPC”, the higher the CAPC, the lower the priority, here, CAPC = CAPC number (value); [0139]: “based on Logical Channel Prioritization (LCP) parameters (for example, the WTRU 102 may select a different active CG to perform the next transmission or retransmission, for example if data included in a PDU can be mapped to a grant and/or the grant meets the LCP mapping restrictions configured for LCHs included in the PDU”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alfarhan’s teaching of CAPC restriction with that of Wang in order to map a PDU to a grant by CAPC restriction (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites the method implemented by the UE of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above).
Regarding claim 19, combination of Wang and Alfarhan teaches the processor of claim 16 (discussed above).
Combination of Wang and Alfarhan teaches ‘not use SL logical channels having an associated CAPC value less than the CAPC value signaled within the DCI for the sidelink logical channel prioritization procedure’ (Wang: [0088]: “SL grant”; [0146]-[0161]: the CAPC of SL TB with multiplexed MAC SDUs is the CAPC with the highest priority CAPC corresponding to the logical channels with highest LCH priority among all MAC SDUs multiplexed in the TB => implicitly teach that for a given SL grant with a CAPC, cannot multiplex MAC SDU with priority of CAPC exceed the priority of CAPC in SL grant, i.e. CAPC value less than CAPC value in SL grant. Alfarhan: [0217]: “the WTRU 102 may selective multiplex the data from the first and further LCHs such that the data from the second LCH is not multiplexed in the PDU on condition that the CAPC of the second LCH is less than the CAPC of the first LCH (e.g., only data corresponding to a CAPC at or above the CAPC corresponding to the first LCH is multiplexed into the PDU)”; [0087]: “The term “highest priority CAPC” is generally synonymous with a lowest CAPC number and/or a lowest CAPC”, the higher the CAPC, the lower the priority, here, CAPC = CAPC number (value); [0139]: “based on Logical Channel Prioritization (LCP) parameters (for example, the WTRU 102 may select a different active CG to perform the next transmission or retransmission, for example if data included in a PDU can be mapped to a grant and/or the grant meets the LCP mapping restrictions configured for LCHs included in the PDU”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Alfarhan’s teaching of CAPC restriction with that of Wang in order to map a PDU to a grant by CAPC restriction (see reference quotes in element above).
Claims 5-7, 12-13, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Wang and Alfarhan, in view of Selvanesan et al. (US 20250056600 A1), hereinafter “Selvanesan”.
Per claim 5, 12, 15 and 20:
Regarding claim 5, combination of Wang and Alfarhan teaches the UE of claim 1 (discussed above).
Combination of Wang and Alfarhan does not expressly teach, but Selvanesan in the same field of endeavor teaches ‘wherein the CAPC value is configured for a resource pool’ (Selvanesan: [FIG.7]; [FIG.8A]; [FIG.8B]; [0144]: “A resource pool configuration of the wireless communication network may be used by the device for transmitting the signal, the resource pool configuration associated with the transmission requirement parameter of the signal and with the channel access class”; [0042]: “V2X UEs (VUEs) can also perform random resource selection. This might be limited to certain resources, e.g., a partition N which is a subset of resources of a resource pool, or resource pools, e.g., the exceptional resource pool … This is done in order to reduce interference within resource pools as well as to protect high priority transmissions, and avoid that resource pools become congested”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Selvanesan’s teaching with that of combination of Wang and Alfarhan in order to protect high priority transmissions and avoid that resource pools become congested (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites the method implemented by the UE of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above).
Regarding claim 15, combination of Wang and Alfarhan teaches the base station of claim 14 (discussed above).
Combination of Wang and Alfarhan does not expressly teach, but Selvanesan in the same field of endeavor teaches ‘wherein the CAPC value is configured for a resource pool’ (Selvanesan: [FIG.7]; [FIG.8A]; [FIG.8B]; [0144]: “A resource pool configuration of the wireless communication network may be used by the device for transmitting the signal, the resource pool configuration associated with the transmission requirement parameter of the signal and with the channel access class”; [0042]: “V2X UEs (VUEs) can also perform random resource selection. This might be limited to certain resources, e.g., a partition N which is a subset of resources of a resource pool, or resource pools, e.g., the exceptional resource pool … This is done in order to reduce interference within resource pools as well as to protect high priority transmissions, and avoid that resource pools become congested”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Selvanesan’s teaching with that of combination of Wang and Alfarhan in order to protect high priority transmissions and avoid that resource pools become congested (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 20, combination of Wang and Alfarhan teaches the processor of claim 16 (discussed above).
Combination of Wang and Alfarhan does not expressly teach, but Selvanesan in the same field of endeavor teaches ‘wherein the CAPC value is configured for a resource pool’ (Selvanesan: [FIG.7]; [FIG.8A]; [FIG.8B]; [0144]: “A resource pool configuration of the wireless communication network may be used by the device for transmitting the signal, the resource pool configuration associated with the transmission requirement parameter of the signal and with the channel access class”; [0042]: “V2X UEs (VUEs) can also perform random resource selection. This might be limited to certain resources, e.g., a partition N which is a subset of resources of a resource pool, or resource pools, e.g., the exceptional resource pool … This is done in order to reduce interference within resource pools as well as to protect high priority transmissions, and avoid that resource pools become congested”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Selvanesan’s teaching with that of combination of Wang and Alfarhan in order to protect high priority transmissions and avoid that resource pools become congested (see reference quotes in element above).
Per claim 6 and 13:
Regarding claim 6, combination of Wang, Alfarhan and Selvanesan teaches the UE of claim 5 (discussed above).
Wang teaches ‘wherein the sidelink transport block for transmission corresponds to the resource pool’ (Wang: [0074]: “Dynamic grant … A transmitter UE then indicates the time-frequency resources and the transmission scheme of the allocated PSSCH in the PSCCH, and launches the PSCCH and the PSSCH on the allocated resources for sidelink transmissions. When a grant is obtained from a gNB, a transmitter UE can only transmit a single TB”; [0214]: “The configuration information may be transmitted together with a grant of resources (on unlicensed spectrum) for the first UE to use when transmitting to the one or more second UEs … configuring one or more resource pools from which the first UE selects resources for its transmissions over the sidelink connection”; [0142]: “configuration information may be signalled to the first UE by the network node when configuring the pools of resources from which the first UE selects resources on which to transmit”).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites the method implemented by the UE of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above).
Regarding claim 7, combination of Wang, Alfarhan and Selvanesan teaches the UE of claim 6 (discussed above).
Wang teaches ‘transmit the sidelink transport block in response to the LBT procedure being successful’ (Wang: [0162]: “the first UE performs channel access/LBT according to the received signaling (e.g., the configuration information) and, upon a successful LBT process, initiates a sidelink transmission to the one or more second UEs using the determined resources”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210219322 A1 see [FIG.6]-[FIG.8], [0013]-[0032];
US 20210051718 A1 see [FIG.3]-[FIG.15], [0081]-[0095];
US 20210243795 A1 see [FIG.3]-[FIG.7], [0069]-[0098];
US 20230064680 A1 see [FIG.5]-[FIG.20], [0005]-[0007];
US 20210274545 A1 see [FIG.3]-[FIG.15], [0103]-[0164];
US 20250089073 A1 see [FIG.1]-[FIG.4], [0054].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUOXING FAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm 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, 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.
/G.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2462
/YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights