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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the application filed on 10/29/2024.
Claims 33-52 are pending in this application, with claims 33 and 51-52 being independent.
Attorney Information Request
For efficient and faster prosecution of the current application, please provide direct phone number and email address of an attorney filing a response to this office action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the published the disclosure, All references for Fig.20 are missing
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 33-35,45,49 and 51-52 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 33, line 5, “the LBT failing” should read “the LBT failure”
In claim 33, the claim recites “. . MAC reset . .” which is unclear to relate to the claimed invention as MAC reset is broadly used, in “3GPP” and many references, as an event initiated by the upper level of MAC layer. The published specification of the claimed invention is not providing sufficient information regarding how MAC reset is triggered
In claim 51, line 10, “the LBT failing” should read “the LBT failure”
In claim 51, the claim recites “. . MAC reset . .” which is unclear to relate to the claimed invention as MAC reset is broadly used, in “3GPP” and many references, as an event initiated by the upper level of MAC layer. The published specification of the claimed invention is not providing sufficient information regarding how MAC reset is triggered
In claim 52, line 9, “the LBT failing” should read “the LBT failure”
In claim 52, the claim recites “. . MAC reset . .” which is unclear to relate to the claimed invention as MAC reset is broadly used, in “3GPP” and many references, as an event initiated by the upper level of MAC layer. The published specification of the claimed invention is not providing sufficient information regarding how MAC reset is triggered
In claim 34, line 2, “. . a consistent . .” should read “. . the consistent . .”
In claim 34, it is not clear about purpose of having (i) and (ii) in front of words. Also, the phrase “regarding a destination” is not clear to understand
In claim 35, line 2, “. . a consistent . .” should read “. . the consistent . .”
In claim 35, it is not clear about purpose of having (i) and (ii) in front of words. Also, the phrase “regarding a destination” is not clear to understand
In claim 45, line 4, “. . based a . .” should read “. . based on a . .”
In claim 49, line 4, “. . the failure of the PC5-RRC . .” should read “. . a failure of the PC5-RRC. .”
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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 33-36,44-49 and 51-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by ZHANG et al. (US 2024/0147533 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Zhang”).
Regarding Claims 33 and 51-52, Zhang discloses a method performed by a first device (Zhang Fig.1 Para[0046] A terminal (i.e. a first device, an apparatus)), the method comprising: obtaining information related to a resource set in a shared spectrum (Zhang Fig.8 Para[0047] A resource pool information for sensing); performing a listen-before-talk (LBT) regarding a first resource set in the shared spectrum (Zhang Fig.8 Para[0158] A LBT on a candidate resource set carrier in unlicensed spectrum (i.e. resource)); starting an LBT timer related to an LBT failure, based on the LBT failing (Zhang Fig.3,8 Para[0080-83] A LBT failure detection timer is started by the MAC layer); triggering a consistent LBT failure related to the first resource set, based on a counter related to the LBT failure reaching a threshold before the LBT timer expires (Zhang Fig.3,8 Para[0080-83] A consistent LBT failure is triggered when LBT failure count is equal or greater than LBT detection number threshold); and triggering a medium access control (MAC) reset related to a sidelink connection, based on the consistent LBT failure related to the first resource set being triggered (Zhang Fig.8 Para[0161-162] The MAC layer sends indication (i.e. MAC reset) of consistent LBT failure to the RRC layer. The network reconfigures a carrier set for the destination ID).
Specifically for claims 51 and 52, Zhang discloses the first device and the apparatus that includes a processor (Zhang Fig.11 Para[0238] A processor), a memory (Zhang Fig.11 Para[0238] A memory) and the transceiver (Zhang Fig.11 Para[0238] A transceiver).
Regarding claim 34, Zhang discloses the method, the first device and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 33. Zhang further discloses wherein based on a consistent LBT failure (i) related to the first resource set and (ii) regarding a destination being triggered, the MAC reset related to the sidelink connection is triggered (Zhang Fig.8 Para[0157-162] A LBT failure for SL resource for destination ID).
Regarding claim 35, Zhang discloses the method, the first device and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 33. Zhang further discloses wherein based on a consistent LBT failure (i) related to the first resource set and (ii) regarding a destination being triggered, a MAC reset related to a sidelink connection regarding the destination is triggered (Zhang Fig.8 Para[0157-162] A LBT failure for SL resource for destination ID).
Regarding claim 36, Zhang discloses the method, the first device and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 33. Zhang further discloses wherein based on the consistent LBT failure for all resource set including the first resource set being triggered, the MAC reset related to the sidelink connection is triggered (Zhang Fig.8 Para[0157-162] The LBT failure on all BWPs).
Regarding claim 44, Zhang discloses the method, the first device and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 33. Zhang further discloses wherein the first resource set includes at least one of a first resource block (RB) set or a first channel (Zhang Fig.3,8 Para[0090] The LBT failure on a candidate resource set).
Regarding claim 45, Zhang discloses the method, the first device and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 33. Zhang further discloses wherein the sidelink connection, includes an unicast service, and wherein a medium access control (MAC) reset for all destination ID related to the unicast service is triggered, based a consistent LBT failure related to all resource sets including the first resource set being triggered (Zhang Fig.3,8 Para[0090,0124,0157-0161] The LBT failure on all BWPs and the service can be unicast).
Regarding claim 46, Zhang discloses the method, the first device and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 33. Zhang further discloses transmitting, to a base station, information representing a resource set where the consistent LBT failure is detected, based on a consistent LBT failure related to the first resource set being triggered (Zhang Fig.8 Para[0090] The LBT failure indication is sent to the network device).
Regarding claim 47, Zhang discloses the method, the first device and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 33. Zhang further discloses wherein the LBT timer is started per each resource set, wherein the counter related to the LBT failure is counted per the each resource set, and wherein a consistent LBT failure related to each resource set is triggered, based on the counter per the each resource set reaching the threshold before the LBT timer per each resource set expires (Zhang Fig.8 Para[0066,0079-81] The LBT failure on each BWP is detected).
Regarding claim 48, Zhang discloses the method, the first device and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 33. Zhang further discloses wherein the threshold is configured commonly for each resource set (Zhang Fig.8 Para[0082] The LBT failure count threshold for each BWP).
Regarding claim 49, Zhang discloses the method, the first device and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 33. Zhang further discloses wherein the sidelink connection includes a PC5-radio resource control (RRC) connection for a destination (Zhang Fig.8 Para[0136] A PC5 unicast connection between terminals), and wherein the failure of the PC5-RRC connection for the destination is triggered, based on a consistent LBT failure related to all resource sets including the first resource set being triggered (Zhang Fig.8 Para[0161] The LBT failure on all BWPs for sidelink connection resources set).
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.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of HAN et al. (US 2025/0274223 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Han”).
Regarding claim 37, Zhang discloses the method, the first device and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 33. Zhang does not explicitly disclose triggering a report related to sidelink (SL) inter-UE coordination (IUC) information; and canceling the report related to the SL IUC information, based on the MAC reset related to the sidelink connection being triggered.
However, Han from the same field of invention discloses triggering a report related to sidelink (SL) inter-UE coordination (IUC) information; and canceling the report related to the SL IUC information, based on the MAC reset related to the sidelink connection being triggered (Han Para[0054-59,0112] For resource selection for IUC request, the LBT failure is triggered).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang to have the feature of “triggering a report related to sidelink (SL) inter-UE coordination (IUC) information; and canceling the report related to the SL IUC information, based on the MAC reset related to the sidelink connection being triggered” as taught by Han. The motivation would have been for efficient resource selection in unlicensed spectrums (Han Para[0003]).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Babaei (US 10,980,062 Bl, hereinafter referred to as “Babaei”).
Regarding claim 38, Zhang discloses the method, the first device and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 33. Zhang does not explicitly disclose triggering a report related to sidelink (SL) channel state information (CSI) related to the sidelink connection; and canceling the report related to the SL CSI, based on the MAC reset related to the sidelink connection being triggered.
However, Babaei from the same field of invention discloses triggering a report related to sidelink (SL) channel state information (CSI) related to the sidelink connection; and canceling the report related to the SL CSI, based on the MAC reset related to the sidelink connection being triggered (Babaei Fig.24 Col:55 A dropping (i.e. canceling) the CSI report due to consistent LBT failure) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang to have the feature of “triggering a report related to sidelink (SL) channel state information (CSI) related to the sidelink connection; and canceling the report related to the SL CSI, based on the MAC reset related to the sidelink connection being triggered” as taught by Babaei. The motivation would have been for uplink LBT failure recovery (Babaei Abstract).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of AGIWAL et al. (US 2023/0224997 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Agiwal”).
Regarding claim 39, Zhang discloses the method, the first device and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 33. Zhang does not explicitly disclose triggering a report related to sidelink (SL) buffer status; and canceling the report related to the SL buffer status, based on the MAC reset related to the sidelink connection being triggered.
However, Agiwal from the same field of invention discloses triggering a report related to sidelink (SL) buffer status; and canceling the report related to the SL buffer status, based on the MAC reset related to the sidelink connection being triggered (Agiwal Para[0383-396] Due to MAC reset, the triggered buffer status report is canceled).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang to have the feature of “triggering a report related to sidelink (SL) buffer status; and canceling the report related to the SL buffer status, based on the MAC reset related to the sidelink connection being triggered” as taught by Agiwal. The motivation would have been to improve spectral efficiency (Agiwal Para[0005]).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Interdigital (R2-1914882, hereinafter referred to as “Interdigital”).
Regarding claim 40, Zhang discloses the method, the first device and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 33. Zhang does not explicitly disclose triggering a scheduling request related to at least one resource; and canceling the scheduling request related to the at least one resource, based on the MAC reset related to the sidelink connection being triggered.
However, Interdigital from the same field of invention discloses triggering a scheduling request related to at least one resource; and canceling the scheduling request related to the at least one resource, based on the MAC reset related to the sidelink connection being triggered (Interdigital Section:2.3 The pending SR is cancelled due to LBT failure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang to have the feature of “triggering a scheduling request related to at least one resource; and canceling the scheduling request related to the at least one resource, based on the MAC reset related to the sidelink connection being triggered” as taught by Interdigital. The motivation would have been for handling or UL LBT failures (Interdigital Introduction).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of TSENG et al. (US 1234567, hereinafter referred to as “Tseng”).
Regarding claim 41, Zhang discloses the method, the first device and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 33. Zhang does not explicitly disclose starting a discontinuous reception (DRX) timer related to the sidelink connection; and stopping the DRX timer, based on the MAC reset related to the sidelink connection being triggered.
However, Tseng from the same field of invention discloses starting a discontinuous reception (DRX) timer related to the sidelink connection; and stopping the DRX timer, based on the MAC reset related to the sidelink connection being triggered (Tseng Para[0121] A DRX timer is stopped during MAC reset).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang to have the feature of “starting a discontinuous reception (DRX) timer related to the sidelink connection; and stopping the DRX timer, based on the MAC reset related to the sidelink connection being triggered” as taught by Tseng. The motivation would have been to provide partial sensing in SL-DRX (Tseng Para[0002]).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Wang (US 2023/0009559 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”).
Regarding claim 42, Zhang discloses the method, the first device and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 33. Zhang does not explicitly disclose resetting the counter related to the LBT failure, based on the MAC reset related to the sidelink connection being triggered.
However, Wang from the same field of invention discloses resetting the counter related to the LBT failure, based on the MAC reset related to the sidelink connection being triggered (Wang Para[0086] The counter for LBT failure is reset when failures reach a threshold (i.e. MAC reset)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang to have the feature of “resetting the counter related to the LBT failure, based on the MAC reset related to the sidelink connection being triggered” as taught by Wang. The motivation would have been for efficiently controlling transmission in case of LBT failures (Wang Para[0047]).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Wu (US 2024/0008115 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Wu”).
Regarding claim 43, Zhang discloses the method, the first device and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 33. Zhang does not explicitly disclose initializing a logical channel prioritization (LCP) counter for each logical channel related to the sidelink connection to 0, based on the MAC reset related to the sidelink connection being triggered.
However, Wu from the same field of invention discloses initializing a logical channel prioritization (LCP) counter for each logical channel related to the sidelink connection to 0, based on the MAC reset related to the sidelink connection being triggered (Wu Para[0152] Due to LBT failure (i.e. MAC reset), the logical channel prioritization variable is set to zero).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang to have the feature of “initializing a logical channel prioritization (LCP) counter for each logical channel related to the sidelink connection to 0, based on the MAC reset related to the sidelink connection being triggered” as taught by Wu. The motivation would have been to manage UE connectivity with different nodes (Wu Para[0001]).
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Wang et al. (WO 2023/050148A1, hereinafter referred to as “Wang-148”).
Regarding claim 50, Zhang discloses the method, the first device and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 33. Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein all sidelink connections are released, based on the consistent LBT failure related to all resource sets including the first resource set being triggered.
However, Wang-148 from the same field of invention discloses wherein all sidelink connections are released, based on the consistent LBT failure related to all resource sets including the first resource set being triggered (Wang-148 Fig.2 Para[0038-44] The SL communications are released due to the consistent LBT failure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang to have the feature of “wherein all sidelink connections are released, based on the consistent LBT failure related to all resource sets including the first resource set being triggered” as taught by Wang-148. The motivation would have been to improve communication performance (Wang-148 Para[0001]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
Additional References
The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0025873 to Jia (Fig.3 and associated paragraphs)
2. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0272752 to Zhang (Fig.7 and associated paragraphs)
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/defau1Vfiles/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM 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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights