DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 27 December 2024.
Claims 1-30 are under examination.
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 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 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1–6, 9–17, 20–30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wirth et al. (US 2022/0240226 A1) in view of Lei et al. (US 2026/0129658 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wirth discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE), comprising: a processor; and memory coupled with the processor, the processor configured to: perform sidelink communication operations (paragraphs [0056]–[0057], [0126]–[0127]; Fig. 8, processor 602 and memories 606, 608). Wirth further discloses first-stage SCI identifying the destination, aggregate resource/frame count, and second-stage SCI locations; second-stage SCI identifying data resources; and transmission over aggregated slots (paragraphs [0055], [0080]–[0088]; Fig. 5A). Wirth does not expressly apply this arrangement to distinct TBs rather than one packet or its redundancy versions (paragraph [0042]).
Lei supplies distinct TBs co-scheduled by one SCI, second-stage SCI on the first or each scheduled PSSCH, and per-TB control fields, including destination information (Fig. 3; two-stage SCI discussion preceding Table 1a; Table 1a). It would have been obvious to extend Wirth’s aggregated transmission to Lei’s distinct TBs to accommodate multiple data blocks while reducing repeated control signaling. Retaining Wirth’s destination and aggregate scheduling information in first-stage SCI would provide common scheduling information for the co-scheduled TBs, while second-stage SCI would supply additional TB-specific information.
Accordingly, the combination teaches transmit, to a second UE, a first-stage sidelink control information message associated with a plurality of transport blocks, the first-stage sidelink control information message indicating a common set of scheduling parameters common to the plurality of transport blocks; transmit, to the second UE, at least one second-stage sidelink control information message that indicates additional scheduling parameters for the plurality of transport blocks; and transmit, to the second UE, the plurality of transport blocks via a plurality of aggregated slots in accordance with the common set of scheduling parameters and the additional scheduling parameters.
Regarding claim 2, wherein, to transmit the at least one second-stage sidelink control information message, the processor is configured to: transmit, via a temporally first slot of the plurality of aggregated slots, a plurality of second-stage sidelink control information messages for the plurality of transport blocks, it would have been obvious to package Lei’s respective TB parameter sets as separate messages at the disclosed first-PSSCH location. Separate messages would permit independent decoding of each TB’s control information while retaining advance delivery before subsequent transmissions (Lei, discussion preceding Table 1a; Table 1a).
Regarding claim 3, wherein, to transmit the first-stage sidelink control information message, the processor is configured to: transmit an indication of a common format for the plurality of second-stage sidelink control information messages, Lei’s first-stage format indicator selects a second-stage format for multiple-TB transmission (discussion of indicator #2). Applying that selected format to the messages of claim 2 would avoid separate format indications for each message.
Regarding claim 4, wherein, to transmit the at least one second-stage sidelink control information message, the processor is configured to: transmit a single second-stage sidelink control information message via a temporally first slot of the plurality of aggregated slots, the single second-stage sidelink control information message including a plurality of sets of additional scheduling parameters for the plurality of transport blocks, Lei’s first-PSSCH message includes per-TB HARQ process numbers, NDIs, and RVs (discussion preceding Table 1a; Table 1a).
Regarding claim 5, wherein, to transmit the at least one second-stage sidelink control information message, the processor is configured to: transmit, via a first transport block of the plurality of transport blocks, a first second-stage sidelink control information message for the first transport block; and transmit, via a second transport block of the plurality of transport blocks, a second second-stage sidelink control information message for the second transport block, Lei multiplexes second-stage SCI on respective PSSCHs carrying different TBs (two-stage SCI discussion; discussion of indicator #2). Each message therefore accompanies its corresponding TB transmission; the claim does not require exclusively TB-specific content.
Regarding claim 6, wherein, to transmit the first-stage sidelink control information message, the processor is configured to: transmit an indication of a common format for the first second-stage sidelink control information message and the second second-stage sidelink control information message, Lei’s selected second-stage format applies to the respective multiplexed messages (discussion of indicator #2 and the SCI format indicator).
Regarding claim 9, wherein, to transmit the at least one second-stage sidelink control information message, the processor is configured to: transmit, via a temporally first slot of the plurality of aggregated slots, a first second-stage sidelink control information message for a temporally first transport block of the plurality of transport blocks, the first second-stage sidelink control information message comprising at least one scheduling parameter common to the plurality of transport blocks; and transmit, via a second transport block of the plurality of transport blocks, a second second-stage sidelink control information message comprising at least one scheduling parameter for the second transport block, the first message includes common destination information, and the second includes its TB’s fields (Lei, two-stage SCI discussion; Table 1a). The claim does not require excluding common information from the second message.
Regarding claim 10, further comprising: an antenna, wherein, to transmit the first-stage sidelink control information message, the processor is configured to: transmit, via the antenna, the first-stage sidelink control information message via a temporally first slot of the plurality of aggregated slots, Wirth places first-stage SCI with the initial transmission in slot t1 (paragraphs [0084]–[0087]; Fig. 5A). Providing an antenna would have been obvious as the conventional physical implementation for radiating that wireless transmission.
Regarding claim 11, wherein the additional scheduling parameters comprise one or more destination identifiers for the plurality of transport blocks, one or more modulation and coding schemes for the plurality of transport blocks, one or more time domain resource allocations for the plurality of transport blocks, or a combination thereof, Lei’s destination fields satisfy the expressly alternative destination-identifier limitation (Table 1a).
Regarding claim 12, an apparatus for wireless communication at a second user equipment (UE), comprising: a processor; and memory coupled with the processor, the processor configured to: receive, from a first UE, a first-stage sidelink control information message associated with a plurality of transport blocks, the first-stage sidelink control information message indicating a common set of scheduling parameters common to the plurality of transport blocks; receive, from the first UE, at least one second-stage sidelink control information message that indicates additional scheduling parameters the plurality of transport blocks; and receive, from the first UE, the plurality of transport blocks via a plurality of aggregated slots in accordance with the common set of scheduling parameters and the additional scheduling parameters, the claim recites the receiving-side counterpart of claim 1. Wirth expressly describes the receiving UE using the first- and second-stage SCI to locate the data transmissions (paragraphs [0080], [0087]), and its processor-and-memory implementation applies to the disclosed operations (paragraphs [0126]–[0127]). Applying the modification stated for claim 1 to both communicating UEs would enable the receiver to interpret the common and additional scheduling information and receive the co-scheduled TBs. The same teachings and reason to combine therefore apply.
Regarding claim 13, wherein, to receive the at least one second-stage sidelink control information message, the processor is configured to: receive, via a temporally first slot of the plurality of aggregated slots, a plurality of second-stage sidelink control information messages for the plurality of transport blocks, this is the receiving-side counterpart of claim 2. The same modification would permit the receiver to decode the respective control messages in the first aggregated slot.
Regarding claim 14, wherein, to receive the first-stage sidelink control information message, the processor is configured to: receive an indication of a common format for the plurality of second-stage sidelink control information messages, this is the receiving-side counterpart of claim 3. The indicated format enables the receiver to interpret the respective second-stage messages using a common format.
Regarding claim 15, wherein, to receive the at least one second-stage sidelink control information message, the processor is configured to: receive a single second-stage sidelink control information message via a temporally first slot of the plurality of aggregated slots, the single second-stage sidelink control information message including a plurality of sets of additional scheduling parameters for the plurality of transport blocks, this is the receiving-side counterpart of claim 4. The same teachings apply.
Regarding claim 16, wherein, to receive the at least one second-stage sidelink control information message, the processor is configured to: receive, via a first transport block of the plurality of transport blocks, a first second-stage sidelink control information message for the first transport block; and receive, via a second transport block of the plurality of transport blocks, a second second-stage sidelink control information message for the second transport block, this is the receiving-side counterpart of claim 5. The same teachings apply.
Regarding claim 17, wherein, to receive the first-stage sidelink control information message, the processor is configured to: receive an indication of a common format for the first second-stage sidelink control information message and the second second-stage sidelink control information message, this is the receiving-side counterpart of claim 6. The same teachings apply.
Regarding claim 20, wherein, to receive the at least one second-stage sidelink control information message, the processor is configured to: receive, via a temporally first slot of the plurality of aggregated slots, a first second-stage sidelink control information message for a temporally first transport block of the plurality of transport blocks, the first second-stage sidelink control information message comprising at least one scheduling parameter common to the plurality of transport blocks; and receive, via a second transport block of the plurality of transport blocks, a second second-stage sidelink control information message comprising at least one scheduling parameter for the second transport block, this is the receiving-side counterpart of claim 9. The same teachings apply.
Regarding claim 21, further comprising: an antenna, wherein, to receive the first-stage sidelink control information message, the processor is configured to: receive, via the antenna, the first-stage sidelink control information message via a temporally first slot of the plurality of aggregated slots, this is the receiving-side counterpart of claim 10. Providing an antenna for receiving the disclosed wireless SCI would have been obvious as the conventional physical implementation of the receiver.
Regarding claim 22, wherein the additional scheduling parameters comprise one or more destination identifiers for the plurality of transport blocks, one or more modulation and coding schemes for the plurality of transport blocks, one or more time domain resource allocations for the plurality of transport blocks, or a combination thereof, this is the receiving-side counterpart of claim 11. The same teachings apply.
Regarding claim 23, Wirth discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE), comprising: a processor; and memory coupled with the processor, the processor configured to: perform the disclosed operations for the reasons stated for claim 1.
Regarding transmit, to a second UE, a first sidelink control information message indicating a reservation of a plurality of slots and indicating reservation information for a slot aggregated packet that is aggregated across one or more slots of the plurality of slots, the slot aggregated packet comprising one or more transport blocks; and transmit, to the second UE, the slot aggregated packet via the plurality of slots based at least in part on the reservation information, Wirth’s first-stage SCI reserves future transmission resources and identifies the associated second-stage SCI, with data sent over the reserved slots (paragraphs [0055], [0090]–[0093]; Fig. 5B). Applying Lei’s expressly identified TBs to that arrangement would provide the claimed one-or-more-TB packet for the reason stated for claim 1.
Regarding claim 24, further comprising: an antenna, wherein, to transmit the first sidelink control information message indicating the reservation of the plurality of slots, the processor is configured to: transmit, via the antenna, an indication of a beginning slot and a quantity of slots, Wirth’s resource-location pointers and frame count identify the beginning and extent of the reserved transmission (paragraphs [0055], [0090]–[0093]; Fig. 5B). An antenna would have been obvious for the reason stated for claim 10.
Regarding claim 25, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive, from the second UE, feedback indicating unsuccessful reception of a transport block of the slot aggregated packet; and transmit, to the second UE and in response to the feedback, a second sidelink control information message indicating a second reservation of a second plurality of slots and second reservation information for a retransmission of the slot aggregated packet, the second reservation corresponding to the reservation and the second reservation information corresponding to the reservation information, Lei provides TB-specific NACK feedback (HARQ-ACK discussion preceding the two-stage SCI discussion). It would have been obvious to respond by reserving another aggregated transmission using Wirth’s reservation procedure. Reapplying the original relative slot pattern and scheduling information to later resources would preserve the packet’s transmission arrangement and simplify rescheduling after failure. This provides corresponding reservations and reservation information without requiring identical absolute transmission times.
Regarding claim 26, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive, from the second UE, feedback indicating unsuccessful reception of a transport block of the slot aggregated packet; transmit, to the second UE and in response to the feedback, a second sidelink control information message indicating a second reservation of a slot for a retransmission of the transport block; and transmit, to the second UE via the slot, second reservation information for the retransmission of the transport block, it would have been obvious to use the TB-specific failure feedback to reschedule the failed TB individually through the same reservation procedure. Retransmitting only that TB would avoid consuming resources for successfully received TBs. The reservation would identify its later slot, with second-stage control accompanying the retransmission as in Wirth’s disclosed arrangement (paragraphs [0090]–[0093]).
Regarding claim 27, wherein the reservation information comprises a respective time domain resource allocation and frequency domain resource allocation for the one or more transport blocks, Wirth identifies data-resource locations in a time-and-frequency resource structure (paragraphs [0083], [0085]; Fig. 5A). Applying those allocations to the corresponding TB transmissions supplies their respective time and frequency resources.
Regarding claim 28, wherein, to transmit the first sidelink control information message indicating the reservation of the plurality of slots, the processor is further configured to: transmit an indication of a beginning slot, and wherein respective second sidelink control information messages transmitted via respective transport blocks of the one or more transport blocks indicate respective reservation information for the respective transport blocks, Wirth identifies the initial scheduled transmission and places second-stage resource information with subsequent data transmissions (paragraphs [0090]–[0093]; Fig. 5B). Applying that arrangement to respective TBs yields the claimed control associated with each TB, for the reasons stated for claims 5 and 23.
Regarding claim 29, wherein the processor is further configured to: select the plurality of slots based at least in part on the plurality of slots satisfying one or more conditions, Lei constrains its sidelink burst by channel-occupancy duration and permitted transmission gaps (Fig. 2 and accompanying description). Selecting aggregated slots that satisfy those constraints would preserve channel access throughout the burst.
Regarding claim 30, an apparatus for wireless communication at a second user equipment (UE), comprising: a processor; and memory coupled with the processor, the processor configured to: receive, from a first UE, a first sidelink control information message indicating a reservation of a plurality of slots and indicating reservation information for a slot aggregated packet that is aggregated across one or more slots of the plurality of slots, the slot aggregated packet comprising one or more transport blocks; and receive, from the first UE, the slot aggregated packet via the plurality of slots based at least in part on the reservation information, this is the receiving-side counterpart of claim 23. Wirth’s receiving UE follows the reserved control and data-resource locations, and applying Lei’s TB-based transmission to the communicating UEs provides reception of the packet over those slots. The same teachings and reason to combine apply.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 18, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed arrangement in which first-stage SCI indicates the format of a first second-stage SCI message and that second-stage SCI message indicates the format of a subsequent second-stage SCI message, as recited in claims 7 and 18, or the further format-indication chain extending to a third second-stage SCI message, as recited in claims 8 and 19. Wirth’s pointers to subsequent control-resource locations do not establish indications of subsequent SCI formats.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Hahn et al. (US 2022/0272682 A1) disclose first-stage SCI allocating resources for multiple second-stage SCI messages on the same or different PSSCHs. Deng et al. (US 2022/0159674 A1) disclose two-stage SCI carrying common and device-specific information and selection of multiple PSCCH resources.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 PM.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. 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.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
