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 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 21, 25-30, and 34-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miao et al. (US 2025/0175810 A1 – hereinafter Miao).
Regarding claim 21, Miao discloses a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (Fig. 3 – terminal device 110-2) comprising: a processor configured to: receive configuration information that indicates a mapping between a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) and a first physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) occasion, and between the PSSCH and a second PSFCH occasion, wherein the second PSFCH occasion is subsequent to the first PSFCH occasion (Figs. 3-4; [0052]-[0054] – receiving a mapping between PSSCH and PSFCH by the terminal device 110-2 to identify the slot and sub-channel of the PSSCH, using the mapping to determine which PSFCH resource block(s) to use for feedback, and then transmitting the PSFCH feedback using the selected resource block during the appropriate PSFCH transmission occasions); receive the PSSCH, wherein the PSSCH has hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback enabled ([0054] – receiving sidelink transmissions including PSSCH to decode, the PSSCH is HARQ enabled so that a corresponding HARQ feedback is transmitted to acknowledge whether receipt and decoding of the PSSCH transmission is successful); based on the mapping between the PSSCH and the first PSFCH occasion, perform a first channel access procedure (Figs. 8A-8D; [0066]-[0068] – based on the mapping between the PSSCH and the first PSFCH, performing a first channel access procedure on the first PSFCH occasion, i.e. PSFCH#1); perform a second channel access procedure based on a failure by the WTRU to access a channel via the first channel access procedure (Figs. 8A-8D; [0066]-[0068] – based on the first channel access procedure failure, performing a second channel access procedure on PSFCH#2); and on a condition that the WTRU accesses the channel via the second channel access procedure, send a PSFCH transmission in the second PSFCH occasion (Figs. 8A-8D; [0066]-[0068] – on a condition that the terminal device 110-2 accesses the channel via the second channel access procedure at PSFCH#2, sending a PSFCH transmission on the second PSFCH occasion).
Regarding claim 25, Miao also discloses the WTRU of claim 21, wherein the configuration information indicates a maximum HARQ feedback latency, and wherein, on a condition that the WTRU fails to access the channel via the second channel access procedure, the processor is further configured to: determine that the maximum HARQ feedback latency has been reached (Figs. 8A-8D; [0066]-[0068] – determining that the maximum opportunities to transmit the feedback information is reached); and based on the determination, send an indication to a network that the WTRU failed to access the channel ([0065] – sending an indication of the LBT failure to a network).
Regarding claim 26, Miao also discloses the WTRU of claim 21, wherein the configuration information indicates a first set of resource elements and a second set of resource elements, the first set of resource elements comprises common resource elements ([0046]-[0047]; [0090]-[0093] – a set of resource elements from resource pools), and the second set of resource elements is associated with sending HARQ acknowledgement (ACK)/no acknowledgement (NACK) feedback associated with the PSSCH ([0065]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 27, Miao also discloses the WTRU of claim 26, wherein the configuration information further indicates a mapping between PSSCHs and PSFCH resources in the second set of resource elements ([0105]-[0109]; Figs. 7A-7G, 8A-8D), and the processor is further configured to determine to send the HARQ ACK/NACK feedback in a PSFCH resource in the second set of resources based on a location of the PSSCH and the mapping between the PSSCHs and PSFCH resources (Figs. 8A-8D; [0065]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 28, Miao also discloses the WTRU of claim 26, wherein the processor is further configured to determine to send the PSFCH transmission in a PSFCH resource in the second set of resources based on one or more of: an interlace index of the PSSCH; a slot index of the PSSCH; a number of slots associated with the PSFCH resource; a number of resource elements, in the second set of resource elements, configured in a PSFCH slot; a source identifier (ID) of the PSSCH; a destination ID of the PSSCH; a cast type of a transport block associated with the PSSCH; or a member ID and a number of members in a groupcast group ([0084] – at least a number of slots associated with the PSFCH resource).
Regarding claim 29, Miao also discloses the WTRU of any one of claims 26-28, wherein the first set of resource elements is associated with satisfying an occupied channel bandwidth (OCB) condition ([0090]-[0093]), and the processor is further configured to send an index of a common interlace in the first set of resource elements ([0090]-[0093]).
Claim 30 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 21 above.
Claim 34 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 25 above.
Claim 35 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 26 above.
Claim 36 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 27 above.
Claim 37 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 28 above.
Claim 38 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 29 above.
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.
Claims 22-24 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miao as applied to claims 21, 25-30, and 34-38 above, and further in view of Kiilerich Pratas et al. (US 2023/0129493 A1 – hereinafter Kiilerich Pratas).
Regarding claim 22, Miao also discloses the WTRU of claim 21, wherein the configuration information indicates a number of PSFCH occasions comprising the first PSFCH occasion and the second PSFCH occasion (Figs. 8A-8D; [0066]-[0068] – indicating four number of PSFCH occasions including the first PSFCH occasion PSFCH#1 and second PSFCH occasion PSFCH #2), and wherein, on a condition that the WTRU fails to access the channel, the processor is further configured to: determine, based on the configuration information, that the WTRU has failed to access the channel ([0065] – determining the LBT fails); and based on the determination, send an indication to a network that the WTRU failed to access the channel (Figs. 8A-8D; [0066]-[0068] – on a condition that WTRU fails to access the channel via later channel access procedures including the second channel access procedure, the processor determines the terminal device has failed to access the channel in each of the PSFCH occasions, send a LBT failure to a network that the terminal device failed to access the channel as further described in [0065]).
However, Miao does not disclose on a condition that the WTRU fails to access the channel via the second channel access procedure, the processor is further configured to: determine, based on the configuration information, that the WTRU has failed to access the channel in each of the number of PSFCH occasions; and based on the determination, send an indication to a network that the WTRU failed to access the channel.
Kiilerich Pratas discloses on a condition that a WTRU fails to access a channel via a second channel access procedure, a processor is further configured to: determine, based on a configuration information, that the WTRU has failed to access the channel in each of the number of PSFCH occasions ([0135] – on a condition that a device fails to access a channel via a second access as further shown in Fig. 3, a processor, based on configuration information, i.e. information indicating a predetermined number of LBTs, the access still continuously fails after the predetermined number of LBTs); and based on the determination, that the WTRU failed to access the channel ([0135] – based on failing to access the channel after the predetermined number of times, determining that the LBT fails).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kiilerich Pratas in order to enhance a chance of detecting the channel availability for transmitting the feedback.
Regarding claim 23, Miao also discloses the WTRU of claim 21, wherein the configuration information indicates a number of PSFCH occasions comprising the first PSFCH occasion and the second PSFCH occasion (Figs. 8A-8D; [0066]-[0068] – comprising 4 PSFCH occasion comprising PSFCH#1 and PSFCH#2 as the first and the second PSFCH occasions).
However, Miao does not explicitly disclose on a condition that the WTRU fails to access the channel via the second channel access procedure, the processor is further configured to: determine, based on the configuration information, that the WTRU has failed to access the channel in each of the number of PSFCH occasions; and based on the determination, cancel the PSFCH transmission.
Kiilerich Pratas discloses on a condition that a WTRU fails to access a channel via a second channel access procedure, the processor is further configured to: determine, based on the configuration information, that the WTRU has failed to access the channel in each of the number of PSFCH occasions ([0135] – on a condition that a device fails to access a channel via a second access as further shown in Fig. 3, a processor, based on configuration information, i.e. information indicating a predetermined number of LBTs, the access still continuously fails after the predetermined number of LBTs); and based on the determination, cancel the PSFCH transmission ([0135] – failing to access the channel continuously after a predetermined number of LBTs, stop channel access attempts, thus cancel the PSFCH transmission because a channel is not available for such a transmission).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kiilerich Pratas in order to enhance a chance of detecting the channel availability for transmitting the feedback before cancelling the transmission.
Regarding claim 24, Miao also discloses the WTRU of claim 21, wherein the configuration information indicates a mapping between the PSSCH and a third PSFCH occasion, wherein the third PSFCH occasion is subsequent to the second PSFCH occasion (Figs. 8A-8D; [0066]-[0068]), and wherein, on a condition that the WTRU fails to access the channel via the second channel access procedure, the processor is further configured to: perform a third channel access procedure (Figs. 8A-8D; [0066]-[0068] – performing similar steps as for PSFCH#1 for each of the occasions PSFCH#2, PSFCH#3, and PSFCH#4, i.e. if access via second channel access procedure at PSFCH#2, repeats the same to PSFCH#3, etc.); and on a condition that the WTRU accesses the channel via the third channel access procedure, send a PSFCH transmission in the third PSFCH occasion (Figs. 8A-8D; [0066]-[0068] – performing similar steps as for PSFCH#1 for each of the occasions PSFCH#2, PSFCH#3, and PSFCH#4, i.e. if access via second channel access procedure at PSFCH#2, repeats the same to PSFCH#3, etc. – thus, if access via the third channel access procedure is successful, the feedback information transmitted in the third PSFCH occasion PSFCH#3).
However, Miao does not explicitly disclose on a condition that the WTRU fails to access the channel via the second channel access procedure, the processor is further configured to: perform a third channel access procedure; and on a condition that the WTRU accesses the channel via the third channel access procedure, send a PSFCH transmission in the third PSFCH occasion.
Kiilerich Pratas discloses on a condition that a WTRU fails to access a channel via a second channel access procedure, the processor is further configured to: perform a third channel access procedure ([0135] – if the second access attempt fails, reattempt the channel access until successful or until a predetermined number of attempts is reached); and on a condition that the WTRU accesses the channel via the third channel access procedure, send a PSFCH transmission in the third PSFCH occasion ([0135] – if the second access attempt fails, reattempt a third channel access until successful or until a predetermined number of attempts is reached).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kiilerich Pratas in order to enhance a chance of detecting the channel availability for transmitting the feedback.
Claim 31 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 22 above.
Claim 32 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 23 above.
Claim 33 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 24 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1116. The examiner can normally be reached IFT.
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, Thai Q Tran can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
/HUNG Q DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights