1-9DETAILED 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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on 17 October 2024.
Claims 1-18, 46 and 47 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 29 May 2026 and 17 October 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 46 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 46 and 47 recites a computer readable medium which appears to cover both transitory and non-transitory embodiments. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is required to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir.1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non- transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijiten, 500 F.3d 1346,1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter eligibility Under 35 U.S.C § 10, Aug. 24,2009:p.2.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11, 16-18 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Di Girolamo et al. (US Publication 2025/0038807).
With respect to claims 1, 16, and 46, Di Girolamo teaches A terminal, (terminal, figure 8F) comprising a memory, (memory, figure 8F) a processor, (processor, figure 8F) and a transceiver, (transceiver, figure 8F) wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program; (computer-executable instructions (software) stored in a memory, paragraph 420) the transceiver is configured to transmit and receive data under control of the processor; (a transceiver 120, a transmit/receive element, paragraph 443) and the processor is configured to read the computer program in the memory (the processor 118 may access information from, and store data in, any type of suitable memory, such as the non-removable memory, paragraph 446) and perform:
performing Listen Before Talk (LBT) on a target object of a sidelink interface; wherein the target object is one frequency domain resource unit configured for the sidelink interface or one frequency domain resource unit in an activated state, and the one frequency domain resource unit comprises one of one carrier, one Bandwidth Part (BWP), one resource pool, one frequency subband, and one resource set; (the declaration of consistent LBT failure may be determined at the granularity of one or more of the following: per LBT type, per band, per PC5 RRC connection, per cast type, per destination layer 2 ID, per source Layer 2 UID, per QoS profile, per sidelink service, per resource pool, per traffic type, per beam, per carrier, paragraph 128. The WTRU may monitor the LBT events for a specific resource pool or group of resource pools. For example, a WTRU may be configured with multiple TX resource pools. These resource pools may be in one SL BWP or over multiple SL BWP, paragraph 179) and
in response to determining that consistent LBT failure occurs on the target object, performing target object reselection, or reporting first indication information to a network device serving the terminal, or determining a Side Link Radio Link Failure (SL RLF); wherein the first indication information is configured to indicate that the terminal has experienced consistent LBT failure on the sidelink interface or that the terminal has experienced consistent LBT failure on the target object of the sidelink interface. (the WTRU may inform the gNB. If the WTRU is in RRC CONNECTED, it may notify its serving gNB about the consistent LBT failure, using an LBTR. The message carrying the notification may also include the granularity of the consistent LBT failure. For each type of granularity, the WTRU may also include additional information in the message carrying the notification, paragraph 234)
With respect to claims 2 and 17, Di Girolamo teaches wherein the performing, by the terminal, target object reselection comprises:
determining, by the terminal, a candidate target object set corresponding to the sidelink interface, wherein the candidate object target set contains at least one candidate target object; (a consistent LBT failure is determined on a “active” TX resource pool, the WTRU may autonomously change to an alternate TX resource pool that is being monitored, one for which no consistent LBT failure has been determined. The alternate TX resource pool may be “active” TX resource pool or an “inactive” TX resource pool, paragraph 251) and
reselecting, by the terminal, a target object of the sidelink interface from the candidate target object set. (This may be achieved by monitoring for consistent LBT failure. When consistent LBT failure is declared, the WTRU may perform SL resource reselection, paragraph 279)
With respect to claims 3 and 18, Di Girolamo teaches wherein each candidate target object in the candidate target object set satisfies a part of or all of following conditions:
each candidate target object in the candidate target object set is a target object of the sidelink interface supported by capability of the terminal;
a channel measurement result corresponding to each candidate target object in the candidatetarget object set is greater than or equal to a preset threshold; and
each candidate target object in the candidate target object set is a target object available to the sidelink interface configured for the terminal by a network device accessed by the terminal. (. The alternate TX resource pool may be “active” TX resource pool or an “inactive” TX resource pool, paragraph 251)
With respect to claim 4, Di Girolamo teaches after the target object reselection is performed by the terminal, further comprising: if the target object reselected from the candidate target object set is a shared spectrum, performing, by the terminal, LBT on the reselected target object. (When consistent LBT failure is declared, the WTRU may perform SL resource reselection, paragraph 279)
With respect to claim 5, Di Girolamo teaches after the target object reselection is performed by the terminal, further comprising: if the terminal determines that consistent LBT failure has occurred on each candidate target object in the candidate target object set, reporting, by a Medium Access Control (MAC) layer of the terminal to a higher layer of the terminal, that the terminal has experienced consistent LBT failure on the sidelink interface. (In a second action, the WTRU may inform higher layers. The WTRU may inform higher layers about the consistent LBT failure. For example, if the consistent LBT failure is determined at the MAC layer, the MAC layer may send an indication to its higher layers, such as the RRC and the NAS layer, paragraph 231)
With respect to claim 6, Di Girolamo teaches further comprising: after the higher layer of the terminal receives a report from the MAC layer of the terminal that the terminal has experienced consistent LBT failure on the sidelink interface, determining, by the terminal, that an SL RLF has occurred. (the WTRU may declare SL RLF for sidelink. If the consistent LBT failure is for a specific band, the WTRU may declare a SL RLF for all sidelinks using this band. If the consistent LBT failure is for a specific PC5 RRC connection, the WTRU may declare a SL RLF for this particular sidelink, paragraph 233)
With respect to claim 7, Di Girolamo teaches after the terminal determines that the SL RLF has occurred, further comprising: if the terminal is in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) connected state, reporting, by the terminal, a first message to a network device serving the terminal, the first message being an RRC message or a MAC Control Element (CE). (the WTRU may inform the gNB. If the WTRU is in RRC CONNECTED, it may notify its serving gNB about the consistent LBT failure, using an LBTR. The message carrying the notification may also include the granularity of the consistent LBT failure. For each type of granularity, the WTRU may also include additional information in the message carrying the notification, paragraph 234)
With respect to claim 8, Di Girolamo teaches wherein the reporting, by the terminal, the first message to the network device serving the terminal if the terminal is in the RRC connected state comprises: if the terminal is in the RRC connected state and the terminal uses a resource allocation mode of network scheduling, reporting, by the terminal, the first message to the network device serving the terminal. (the WTRU may inform the gNB. If the WTRU is in RRC CONNECTED, it may notify its serving gNB about the consistent LBT failure, using an LBTR. The message carrying the notification may also include the granularity of the consistent LBT failure. For each type of granularity, the WTRU may also include additional information in the message carrying the notification, paragraph 234. the WTRU is using resource allocation mode 2, Paragraph 251)
With respect to claim 9, Di Girolamo teaches wherein the first message carries second indication information, and the second indication information is configured to indicate that the terminal has experienced the SL RLF because the terminal has experienced consistent LBT failure on the sidelink interface. (the WTRU may inform the gNB. If the WTRU is in RRC CONNECTED, it may notify its serving gNB about the consistent LBT failure, using an LBTR. The message carrying the notification may also include the granularity of the consistent LBT failure. For each type of granularity, the WTRU may also include additional information in the message carrying the notification, paragraph 234)
With respect to claim 10, Di Girolamo teaches wherein the reporting, by the terminal, first indication information to a network device serving the terminal comprises: if the terminal is in an RRC connected state or if the terminal is in an RRC connected state and uses a resource allocation mode of network scheduling, reporting, by the terminal, the first indication information to the network device serving the terminal. (the WTRU may inform the gNB. If the WTRU is in RRC CONNECTED, it may notify its serving gNB about the consistent LBT failure, using an LBTR. The message carrying the notification may also include the granularity of the consistent LBT failure. For each type of granularity, the WTRU may also include additional information in the message carrying the notification, paragraph 234)
With respect to claim 11, Di Girolamo teaches wherein the reporting, by the terminal, first indication information to a network device serving the terminal comprises: reporting, by the terminal, the first indication information to the network device in way of an RRC signaling or a MAC CE; wherein the RRC signaling or the MAC CE at least comprises one or combination of identification information of the target object and a link identification of the sidelink interface; and wherein the link identification of the sidelink interface comprises a part of or all of following information: a destination address of the sidelink interface, a source address of the sidelink interface, and a cast type of the sidelink interface. (the WTRU may inform the gNB. If the WTRU is in RRC CONNECTED, it may notify its serving gNB about the consistent LBT failure, using an LBTR. The message carrying the notification may also include the granularity of the consistent LBT failure. For each type of granularity, the WTRU may also include additional information in the message carrying the notification, paragraph 234. Cast type, paragraph 237)
Claims 13, 14 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Agiwal et al. (US Publication 2024/0121821).
With respect to claims 13 and 47, Agiwal teaches A method for handling consistent Listen Before Talk (LBT) failure, comprising:
receiving, by a network device, first indication information reported by a terminal, wherein the first indication information is configured to indicate that the terminal has experienced consistent LBT failure on a sidelink interface or that the terminal has experienced consistent LBT failure on a target object of a sidelink interface, the target object is one frequency domain resource unit configured for the sidelink interface or one frequency domain resource unit in an activated state, and the one frequency domain resource unit comprises one of one carrier, one Bandwidth Part (BWP), one resource pool, one frequency subband, and one resource set; (Upon consistent sidelink LBT failure detection on the SL BWP, or SL carrier, or SL resource pool/resource set/resource block set, paragraph 135. The UE may transmit an RRC message to the gNB indicating consistent sidelink LBT failure. The UE may additionally indicate to the gNB information about SL carrier(s) and/or SL BWP ID (s) and/or SL resource pool/resource set/resource block set index(s) on which consistent sidelink LBT failure is detected. In an embodiment, the UE may perform this operation when the UE is in RRC CONNECTED state. In an embodiment, the UE may send an RRC message indicating consistent sidelink LBT failure in Msg3 or MsgA using random access procedure when the UE is in RRC IDLE or RRC INACTIVE state, paragraph 136)
sending, by the network device, a target object reconfiguration signaling to the terminal or notifying, by the network device, the terminal to release connection of the sidelink interface. (In response to SL LBT failure indication as per option 1 and option 2, the network can configure/change the SL BWP, or SL carrier, or SL resource pool/resource set/resource block set, paragraph 139)
With respect to claim 14, Agiwal teaches further comprising: receiving, by the network device, a first message reported by the terminal, the first message being a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message or a Medium Access Control Control Element (MAC CE); wherein the first message is reported by the terminal to the network device after the terminal determines that a Side Link Radio Link Failure (SL RLF) has occurred. (the UE may send an RRC message indicating consistent sidelink LBT failure in Msg3 or MsgA using random access procedure when the UE is in RRC IDLE or RRC INACTIVE state, paragraph 136)
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Di Girolamo et al. (US Publication 2025/0038807) in view of Agiwal et al. (US Publication 2024/0121821).
With respect to claim 12, Di Girolamo doesn’t teach after the terminal reports the first indication information to the network device, further comprising: receiving, by the terminal, a target object reconfiguration signaling sent by the network device; or receiving, by the terminal, a notification to release connection of the sidelink interface, the notification being issued by the network device.
Agiwal teaches after the terminal reports the first indication information to the network device, further comprising: receiving, by the terminal, a target object reconfiguration signaling sent by the network device; or receiving, by the terminal, a notification to release connection of the sidelink interface, the notification being issued by the network device. (In response to SL LBT failure indication as per option 1 and option 2, the network can configure/change the SL BWP, or SL carrier, or SL resource pool/resource set/resource block set, paragraph 139)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement system of Di Girolamo with receiving, by the terminal, a target object reconfiguration signaling sent by the network device as taught by Agiwal. The motivation for combining Di Girolamo and Agiwal is to be able to reduce the transmission interruption.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agiwal et al. (US Publication 2024/0121821) in view of Di Girolamo et al. (US Publication 2025/0038807).
With respect to claim 15, Agiwal doesn’t teach wherein the first message carries second indication information, and the second indication information is configured to indicate that the terminal has experienced the SL RLF because the terminal has experienced consistent LBT failure on the sidelink interface.
Di Girolamo teaches wherein the first message carries second indication information, and the second indication information is configured to indicate that the terminal has experienced the SL RLF because the terminal has experienced consistent LBT failure on the sidelink interface. (the WTRU may inform the gNB. If the WTRU is in RRC CONNECTED, it may notify its serving gNB about the consistent LBT failure, using an LBTR. The message carrying the notification may also include the granularity of the consistent LBT failure. For each type of granularity, the WTRU may also include additional information in the message carrying the notification, paragraph 234)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement system of Agiwal with receiving, by the terminal, a target object reconfiguration signaling sent by the network device as taught by Di Girolamo. The motivation for combining Agiwal and Di Girolamo is to be able to improve efficiency of the UL/SL prioritization procedure over unlicensed bands.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu et al. (US Publication 2024/0224326) discloses the first failure processing operation includes performing an SL RLF operation on a SL corresponding to the unlicensed band; reporting the consistent LBT failures to a network side device; suspending the SL corresponding to the unlicensed band; or performing SL transmission on a resource of a licensed band.
Han et al. (US publication 2024/0008077) discloses the terminal device generates an LBT failure indication if a channel for a side Link transmission is occupied during the LBT procedure. If the number of LBT failure indications is equal to or greater than a predetermined number threshold, the terminal device determines a consistent LBT failure associated with the sidelink transmission. In this way, the sidelink transmission associated with the terminal device can coexist with other transmissions based on other wireless technologies, for example, on an unlicensed band.
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAHI AHMED whose telephone number is (571) 270-3652. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khalid Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3370. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDULLAHI AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights