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
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 discloses “a second SL resource set”. For consistency with the rest of the claims, it should likely be “a second SL CG resource set” 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the information" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 discloses 2 distinct pieces of information, “information on one or more CG configurations for sidelink communication with at least one second UE from a base station” and “information for activating a specific CG configuration among the one or more CG configuration from the base station”. As there are two antecedents “the information” of claim 10 is ambiguous and therefore should be amended to specify which information is referenced.
The term “certain time” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “certain time” 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. Without a standard or metric in the claims or specification to determine what this “certain time” is, a POSITA cannot determine the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-4, 6-12, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vivo (3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #98bis R1-1911419, “Discussion on mode 1 resource allocation mechanism”).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 14 Vivo discloses:
A method comprising:
receiving information on one or more CG (configured grant) configurations for sidelink (SL) communication with at least one second UE from a base station; (Page 7, Proposal 12: “The RRC configuration of a sidelink configured grant should contain the number of occasions…”)
receiving information for activating a specific CG configuration among the one or more CG configurations from the base station, (Page 8, Activating/deactivating multiple sidelink configured grant type2, “Option 1. Single DCI is used to activate/de-activate all sidelink configured grants…Option 2. Each sidelink configured grant is activated/de-activated by an individual DCI.”)
wherein, for the specific CG configuration, a plurality of SL CG resource sets are configured within one CG period; (Page 7 Transmission of different TBs for a given grant, “An example of group casting multiple TBs to RX UE1&UE2 within the same periodicity is shown as below” and Figure 12 where it discloses multiple TBs (resource sets) being configured within the same period.)
and performing multi-Transport block (multi-TB) transmission for the at least one second UE in the plurality of SL CG resource sets, (Figure 12 where it discloses multiple TBs (resource sets) being configured within the same period.)
wherein a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) resource is respectively allocated for each SL CG resource set included in the plurality of SL CG resource sets for the one CG period. (Proposal 15. “HARQ-ACK feedback is supported for transmission on sidelink configured grant.” And Transmission of different TBs for a given grant, “If HARQ feedback is enabled for sidelink configured grant, the TX UE can expect acknowledgement /non-acknowledgement from the RX UE… An example of group casting multiple TBs to RX UE1&UE2 within the same periodicity is shown as below” and Figure 4-9 showing PSFCH1/2 for the sets.)
Specifically regarding claim 12:
at least one transceiver; and at least one processor connected to the at least one transceiver, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: (While the 3GPP does not explicitly disclose a transceiver or processor for the UEs there must be these components for the UEs to perform the functions indicated within the discussion. It is well known in the art.)
Specifically regarding claim 14:
A base station at least one transceiver; and at least one processor connected to the at least one transceiver, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: (While the 3GPP does not explicitly disclose a transceiver or processor for the BS/NW there must be these components for the BS/NW to perform the functions indicated within the discussion. It is well known in the art.)
And receiving, through the at least one processor, HARQ-ACK information for multi-Transport block (multi-TB) transmission between the first UE and the at least one second UE in the plurality of SL CG resource sets from the first UE, wherein a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) resource is respectively allocated for each SL CG resource set included in the plurality of SL CG resource sets for the one CG period. (Pages 3-4, discloses several options to transmit HARQ-ACK information. Page 7-8 and figure 12 discloses “If HARQ feedback is enabled for sidelink configured grant, the TX UE can expect acknowledgment/non-acknowledgment from the RX UE and can, therefore, perform the appropriate transmission of a new TB in the following occasions on its demands…” and multi TBs in one period.)
Regarding claim 2 Vivo discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein different SL CG resource sets included in the plurality of SL CG resource sets are used for transmission of different TBs. (Page 7 Transmission of different TBs for a given grant, “If HARQ feedback is enabled for sidelink configured grant, the TX UE can expect acknowledgment/non-acknowledgment from the RX UE and can, therefore, perform the appropriate transmission of a new TB in the following occasions on its demands. An example of group casting multiple TBs to RX UE1&UE2 within the same periodicity is shown as below.” And figure 12.)
Regarding claims 3 and 9 Vivo discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein each SL CG resource set included in the plurality of SL CG resource sets includes consecutive SL CG resources. (Figure 12 discloses the TBs having consecutive occasions # 0-3)
Regarding claim 4 Vivo discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein the plurality of SL CG resource sets are allocated by the base station. (Page 7 proposal 12. “The RRC configuration of a sidelink configured grant should contain the number of occasions”)
Regarding claim 6 Vivo discloses:
reporting HARQ-ACK information received from at least one second UE to the base station on a plurality of PUCCH resources. (Page 3 option 1-1, “sidelink HARQ-ACK reports should be multiplexed in one determined PUCCH” Fig. 4 the HARQ-ACK information of the at least second UE is multiplexed with a UE and is transmitted to BS on PUCCH.)
Regarding claim 7 Vivo discloses:
The method of claim 6 wherein a PUCCH resource for reporting the HARQ-ACK information to the base station is configured differently for each SL CG resource set included in the plurality of SL CG resource sets. (Page 3, “Option 1-2: sidelink HARQ-ACK reports can be sent in separate PUCCHs in one slot if their associated PUCCH resources are non-overlapped” and Figure 5, For each of the resource the HARQ-ACK info can be sent separately.)
Regarding claim 8 Vivo discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein, based on that a plurality of consecutive SL CG resources exist within the one CG period for the specific CG configuration, the plurality of consecutive SL CG resources are divided into a plurality of SL CG resource sets based on a pre-defined rule. (Page 7. Transmission of different TBs for a given grant discloses consecutive occasions of TBs for a given grant. Fig. 12 and Proposal 16. “Transmissions of different TBs within the same periodicity of a given sidelink configured grant is supported”)
Regarding claim 10 Vivo discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein the information includes information on a number of TBs or a number of HARQ processes in the one CG period. (Page 7. “For each configured uplink grant, it is up to NW to decide the redundancy version as well as the number of HARQ processes being cascaded to cater to the varying needs of reliability. One reason is to maintain the same understanding between NW and UE about the RV and HARQ ID of the uplink transmission so that NW does not have to decode an uplink transmission with multiple hypotheses.”)
Regarding claim 11 Vivo discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein, based on the plurality of SL CG resource sets including a first SL CG resource set and a second SL resource set, a first PSFCH resource for TB transmission on the first SL CG resource set is allocated after a certain time based on a last TB transmission time in the first SL CG resource set, and a second PSFCH resource for TB transmission in the second SL CG resource set is allocated after a certain time based on a last TB transmission time in the second SL CG resource set. (section 2.2, “In each SL DCI, a HARQ-ACK timing indication and a PUCCH resource indication are provided, resulting in both sidelink TBs being associated with the same feedback slot…” and Page 7. Transmission of different TBs for a given grant, “If HARQ feedback is enabled for sidelink configured grant, the TX UE can expect acknowledgment/non-acknowledgment from the RX UE and can, therefore, perform the appropriate transmission of a new TB in the following occasions on its demands. An example of group casting multiple TBs to RX UE1&UE2 within the same periodicity is shown as below.” And Fig. 12 discloses that there are timing for each resource and HARQ feedback.)
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vivo in view of Huang (US 20230345475 A1)
Regarding claim 5 Vivo does not disclose:
receiving downlink control information (DCI) indicating retransmission for the multi-TB transmission from the base station,
wherein the DCI includes information on allocation of retransmission resources for different TBs in the multi-TB transmission.
Huang discloses:
receiving downlink control information (DCI) indicating retransmission for the multi-TB transmission from the base station, (paragraph [0069], “a network node may transmit, and UE may receive, DCI that includes an uplink grant indicating information relating to multiple transport blocks for an uplink transmission… In this way, initial transmissions and retransmissions in connection with multiple transport blocks may be scheduled with improved efficiency…”)
wherein the DCI includes information on allocation of retransmission resources for different TBs in the multi-TB transmission. (paragraph [0069], “a network node may transmit, and UE may receive, DCI that includes an uplink grant indicating information relating to multiple transport blocks for an uplink transmission. In some aspects, the information may indicate which of the multiple transport blocks are to be transmitted. For example, the information may include respective sets of fields for the multiple transport blocks that facilitate scheduling separate transmission parameters for the multiple transport blocks. Additionally, or alternatively, the information may include an indication, applicable to the multiple transport blocks, indicating which of the transport blocks are active (e.g., are to be transmitted) or inactive (e.g., are not to be transmitted). In this way, initial transmissions and retransmissions in connection with multiple transport blocks may be scheduled with improved efficiency…”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Vivo’s retransmission of a TB on sidelink configured grant with Huang’s dci multi-tb retransmission. One would have been motivated to do this to improve “efficiency, thereby conserving computing, power, network, and/or communication resources that may have otherwise been consumed by inefficient scheduling (e.g., by using separate uplink grants in separate DCI).” (Huang [0069]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAM P CAO whose telephone number is (571)270-0614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Jae Y Lee can be reached at 5712703936. 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.
/NAM P. CAO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2479 /JAE Y LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights