DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority to PCT/KR2023005703 filed 4/26/2023 and Provisional Application 63/335197 filed 4/26/2022 is acknowledged.
Preliminary Amendment filed 10/23/2024 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-15 have been cancelled.
Claims 16-25 have been newly added and remain pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2024 and 7/13/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2, the claim reads “the UE comprising” when it should read - - the method comprising - -
In the last limitation, the claims “indicated to a upper layer” when it should read - - indicated to an upper layer - -
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term “consistent” in claims 16 and 25 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “consistent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For examination purposes, the term “consistent” will be considered as continuous (paragraphs 184, 263-264 of the instant specification), amounting to more than 1 consecutive failure, under BRI.
Claims 17-24 are rejected based on their dependence from claim 16.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-18 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US20230269610A1), hereafter Li.
Regarding claims 16 and 25,
Li (Title: Sidelink Radio Link Failure Detection) discloses a method (Fig. 5-10) performed by a first UE (Fig. 5, 6, 8, 11; First UE 505) in a wireless communication system (Fig. 1, 11) comprising at least one transceiver (Transmission/Reception Components 1102/1104); and at least one processor (Fig. 11, Communication Manager 140; paragraph 7-10, 41, 199) connected to the at least one transceiver, the method comprising detecting a SL radio link failure (Fig. 5, steps 515-525) of a second UE (Fig. 5, 6, 8; Second UE 510) based on at least one indication of consistent (i.e. consecutive) SL LBT failure for all RB sets for the second UE (Fig. 5, step 530; paragraphs 66-70, 80-93; maximum number of consecutive LBT failures).
Li further discloses transmitting, to a base station, sidelink UE information including information related to the SL radio link failure, wherein a PC5-RRC connection for the second UE is released and indicated to an upper layer for the second UE (Fig. 4; Fig. 5, step 535; paragraph 64-67, 74, 79, 81, 83-99, 180; indicate release of PC5-RRC to upper layers for the destination/second UE and base station; see also Figs. 6-10 for additional disclosure).
Regarding claim 17,
Li discloses higher layer signaling including information for releasing the PC5-RRC connection of the second UE related to the consistent SL LBT failure is transmitted by the first UE to the second UE (paragraph 81; indicate the release of the PC5-RRC connection to the upper layers for the destination/second UE).
Regarding claim 18,
Li discloses first configuration information related to a SL LBT failure detection timer and second configuration information related to a maximum number of SL LBT failure indications for the consistent SL LBT failure are received from the base station (Fig. 6, steps 605-610; paragraph 97-98; SL UL configuration provided by base station).
Regarding claim 21,
Li discloses the first configuration information and the second configuration information are received from the base station through a higher layer signaling related to SL-specific LBT failure recovery (paragraph 94, 125; above disclosure illustrates channel recovery based on sidelink RLF detection).
Regarding claim 22,
Li discloses the consistent SL LBT failure is triggered based on the SL LBT failure detection timer and the maximum number of SL LBT failure for the consistent SL LBT failure for at least one RB set (Fig. 5, step 530; paragraphs 66-70, 80-93; maximum number of consecutive LBT failures; see also Fig. 7, S710, 720, 730; Fig. 8, S850).
Regarding claims 23 and 24,
Li discloses based on at least one of an expiration of the SL LBT failure detection timer and the maximum number of SL LBT failure for the consistent SL LBT failure being reconfigured for the UE, a value of a SL LBT counter is set to 0 (paragraph 130; reset counter when detected LBTs not consecutive).
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li.
Regarding claim 19,
Li discloses the SL LBT failure detection timer and the maximum number of SL LBT failure for the consistent SL LBT failure are configured for the first UE on SL bandwidth, as shown above. Although Li does not expressly use the term “bandwidth part/BWP” but does disclose implementation in 5G (paragraph 4, 30-33, 42-45) in which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this terminology as consistent with 5G usage.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Tseng et al. (US20220346180A1), hereafter Tseng.
Regarding claim 20,
Li suggests but does not expressly show information indicating at least one of the consistent SL-specific LBT failure or release of the PC5-RRC connection is transmitted to the base station via a PUCCH by triggering a SR (paragraph 64; PSFCH via PUCCH/SR).
Further analogous art to Tseng (paragraphs 163-165, 185-196; SL configuration, LBT failure, PC5 release) expressly discloses information indicating at least one of the consistent SL-specific LBT failure or release of the PC5-RRC connection is transmitted to the base station via a PUCCH by triggering a SR (paragraphs 385, 555; trigger SR on PUCCH).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Li by providing information indicating at least one of the consistent SL-specific LBT failure or release of the PC5-RRC connection is transmitted to the base station via a PUCCH by triggering a SR, as shown by Tseng, thereby utilizing SR resources/configurations that are common for both sidelink operations and uplink traffic.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
He et al. (US20210321275A1); Link Management for Sidelink utilizing LBT failure count as an aspect of the disclosed devices and processes.
Kung et al. (US20220078670A1); LBT failure triggering SR; PC5-RRC connection release.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights