DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on 18 September 2024.
Claims 1-24 are pending for 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 .
Priority
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 18 September 2024, 24 October 2025, 3 February 2026, and 15 May 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered and attached by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 6-7 and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 6, line 3 — “precedent” should read as “preceding”;
Regarding Claim 7, line 2 — “5QI” should be spelled out;
Regarding Claim 18, line 3 — “precedent” should read as “preceding”; and
Regarding Claim 19, line 6 — “5QI” should be spelled out.
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)(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 1-3 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2022/0217771, hereinafter Liu).
Regarding Claim 1, Liu discloses a method, comprising:
initiating, by a first user equipment (UE), a channel occupancy time (COT) following a successful listen before talk (LBT) procedure (Fig. 7 and ¶ 121 discloses a sidelink UE performing an LBT procedure and obtaining access to a channel for a COT);
transmitting, by the first UE to a second UE, COT information indicating that the COT is sharable (Id. further discloses the sidelink UE transmitting SCI to a sidelink UE group to enable a group COT associated with a channel to be shared with the other sidelink UEs of the sidelink UE group); and
transmitting, by the first UE, a sidelink (SL) transmission in an unlicensed band within the COT (Fig. 7 and ¶ 122 disclose the sidelink UE and other sidelink UEs communicating based on the SCI enabling the group COT associated with the channel to be shared with the other sidelink UEs in the group of sidelink UEs; and ¶ 81 discloses the sidelink UE performing the LBT procedure when attempting to transmit on a carrier in an unlicensed spectrum).
Regarding Claim 2, Liu discloses the method of claim 1, the transmitting the COT information comprising:
transmitting, by the first UE to the second UE, the COT information in sidelink control information (SCI) (Fig. 7 and ¶ 121 disclose the sidelink UE transmitting SCI to a sidelink UE group to enable a group COT associated with a channel to be shared with the other sidelink UEs of the sidelink UE group).
Regarding Claim 3, Liu discloses the method of claim 1, the COT information further indicating an energy detection threshold (EDT) for sharing the COT (Fig. 7 and ¶ 100 disclose that a threshold must be satisfied in order for the UE to obtain channel access — thereby at least implying that the threshold is indicated in SCI enabling the group COT) and a remaining duration of the COT (¶ 112 discloses the other sidelink UEs detecting shareable time-frequency resource usage of the group based on decoding the SCI including a group ID, enabling the other sidelink UEs to detect shareable time-frequency resource usage in a remaining COT region — thus, the remaining COT duration is at least implied to be indicated in the SCI or effectively indicated by enabling detection of the remaining COT duration).
Regarding Claims 13-15, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 13-15 are substantially similar or identical to those of claims 1-3, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2025/0193964, hereinafter Park).
Regarding Claim 7, Park discloses a method, comprising:
obtaining, by a user equipment (UE), a PC5 5QI (PQI) (¶ 351 discloses applying the disclosed method/rule by configuring parameters differently or independently for each PQI);
converting, by the UE, the PQI to a channel access priority class (CAPC) (¶ 295 discloses a UE selecting a CAPC for a DRB according to 5QI; ¶ 254 discloses applying the disclosed method of transmitting a downlink signal through an unlicensed band to sidelink transmission through an unlicensed band);
performing, by the UE, a listen before talk (LBT) procedure based on the CAPC (¶¶ 267-268 disclose a channel access process (CAP)’s parameters depending on CAPC; ¶ 234 discloses CAP and LBT being used interchangeably throughout the disclosure; Fig. 22 and ¶ 370 disclose generating COT based on a type 1 LBT); and
transmitting, by the UE, a sidelink (SL) transmission in an unlicensed band based on a result of the LBT procedure (Fig. 22 and ¶ 370-371 disclose a UE transmitting first SCI and second SCI according to COT information generated based on the type 1 LBT).
Regarding Claim 8, Park discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising:
converting, by the UE, the PQI to an SL priority (¶ 295 discloses a UE selecting a CAPC for a DRB according to 5QI; ¶ 254 discloses applying the disclosed method of transmitting a downlink signal through an unlicensed band to sidelink transmission through an unlicensed band);
determining, by the UE, candidate SL resources in a selection window based on the SL priority (¶¶ 328-329 disclose determining candidate resources within a shared COT); and
selecting, by the UE, an SL resource from the candidate SL resources for the SL transmission (Id.).
Regarding Claim 9, Park discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising:
receiving, by the UE, a mapping between CAPC values and SL Priority Levels via downlink control information (DCI) or a radio resource control (RRC) configuration (¶¶ 253-254 disclose a mapping between CAPC and 5QI, wherein the mapping may be applied by a UE for SL transmission through an unlicensed band; ¶ 123 discloses the UE receiving configuration information from a base station in DCI or an RRC message).
Regarding Claim 10, Park discloses the method of claim 7, the converting the PQI to the CAPC is based on a mapping table mapping from PQI values to CAPC values (¶¶ 253-254 disclose a mapping between CAPC and 5QI, wherein the mapping may be applied by a UE for SL transmission through an unlicensed band).
Regarding Claims 19-22, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 19-22 are substantially similar or identical to those of claims 7-10, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
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.
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.
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 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Farag et al. (US 2023/0025259, hereinafter Farag).
Regarding Claim 5, Liu discloses the method of claim 1.
Liu may not explicitly disclose the COT information further indicating at least one of:
that the first UE extends transmission at an end of the SL transmission during a guard symbol of an SL slot, or
that the second UE should extend a second transmission of the second UE during a last guard symbol of the SL slot.
However, in analogous art, Farag discloses COT information further indicating at least one of:
that the first UE extends transmission at an end of the SL transmission during a guard symbol of an SL slot (Fig. 20 and ¶ 418 disclose a UE performing a LBT procedure; and ¶ 439 discloses extending a last symbol before a guard symbol), or
that the second UE should extend a second transmission of the second UE during a last guard symbol of the SL slot (while considered, this alternative feature need not be disclosed by the prior art for the claim to be disclosed by the prior art — see MPEP §2117(II)(A), 2nd ¶).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Farag to modify Liu in order to extend a symbol into a guard symbol of the slot of the symbol and guard symbol. One would have been motivated to do this, because such extension enables flexibility of either using a short LBT procedure or a (Farag ¶¶ 439-441).
Regarding Claim 17, though of a different scope, the limitations of claim 17 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 5, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claims 7 and 19 above, and further in view of Han et al. (US 2025/0274952, hereinafter Han).
Regarding Claim 11, Park discloses the method of claim 10.
Park may not explicitly disclose the mapping table including at least one of:
a first mapping from at least one of PQI values of 21, 22, 23, 55, 90, or 91 to a CAPC value of 1, or
a second mapping a PQI value 59 to a CAPC value of 3.
However, in analogous art, Han discloses a mapping table including at least one of:
a first mapping from at least one of PQI values of 21, 22, 23, 55, 90, or 91 to a CAPC value of 1 (¶¶ 73-74 disclose a PCI to CAPC mapping table mapping PQI of 21, 22, 23, 55, 56, 57, 58, 90, and 91 to CAPC of 1), or
a second mapping a PQI value 59 to a CAPC value of 3 (Id. discloses PQI of 59 as mapped to CAPC of 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Han to modify Park in order to applying a PQI to CAPC mapping table for mapping PQI of 21, 22, 23, 55, 56, 57, 58, 90, or 91 to CAPC of 1 and of 59 to CAPC of 3. One would have been motivated to do this, because PQIs with stringent delay requirement may be mapped to the highest priority CAPC; and other POIs may be mapped to other priority CAPCs (Han ¶ 72).
Regarding Claim 23, though of a different scope, the limitations of claim 23 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 11, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claims 7 and 19 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 20200124127, citing Figures from the attached Foreign Patent Document copy of KR 20200124127, and citing description from the attached machine-generated English translation, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 12, Park discloses the method of claim 7.
Park may not explicitly disclose the obtaining, by the UE, the PQI comprising:
obtaining, by the UE, the PQI from an application layer.
However, in analogous art, Lee discloses obtaining, by the UE, the PQI comprising:
obtaining, by the UE, the PQI from an application layer (Figs. 4a, 4dc-4dd and p. 11 last ¶ through p. 12 first ¶ disclose receiving PQI values from an application layer which are mapped to QFI values — similar to CAPC values as disclosed in Park).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Lee to modify Park in order to enable the UE to obtain the PQI through an application layer. One would have been motivated to do this, because by receiving PQI from an application layer, specialized functions for each application or service (Lee p. 6, 2nd full ¶ and p. 11 last ¶ - p. 12 1st full ¶).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 16, 18 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art of record, alone or in reasonable combination, does not appear to teach or suggest sidelink control information indicating an energy detection threshold and remaining COT in SCI format 2.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art of the prior art of record, alone or in reasonable combination, does not appear to teach or suggest a first UE receiving a transmission from a second UE during a guard symbol of a preceding slot.
Regarding Claims 16 and 18, though of varying scope, claims 16 and 18 including features that are substantially similar or identical to the features of claims 4 and 6, and appear to include allowable subject matter for the same reasons as claims 4 and 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al. (US 2023/0319868), Figs. 9-15 and associated description, discloses a Channel Access Process (CAP, A.K.A. Listen-Before-Talk);
Zhao et al. (US 2024/0276544), at Fig. 11 and associated description, discloses a terminal device obtaining COT sharing information, determining target COT sharing information, and performing channel access accordingly;
Park et al (US 2025/0185063), at Figs. 13-14, 16, 18-20 and associated description, discloses channel occupancy processes including obtaining COT sharing information and performing LBT;
Park et al. (US 2025/0254724), at Figs. 13-14, 16, 19-21 and associated description, discloses channel occupancy processes including obtaining COT sharing information and performing LBT;
Cheng et al. (US 2025/0142593), at Figs. 2, 4 and associated description, discloses a UE performing LBT in an unlicensed spectrum and a process wherein the UE sends channel access related information, which may include CPAC, 5QI and PQI;
Van Phan et al. (US 2023/0345529) is the US PGPub of WO 2022/061754 (previously made of record);
Sun et al. (US 2023/0146161) is the US PGPub of WO 2021/208031 (previously made of record);
Xu et al. (US 2023/0066174) is the US PGPub of WO 2021/207957 (previously made of record);
Baek et al. (US 2022/0279581) is the US PGPub of WO 2021/040501 (previously made of record);
Lei et al. (US 2023/0132437) is the US PGPub of WO 2021/212354 (previously made of record);
Zhang et al. (US 2022/0039161) is the US PGPub of WO 2022/026141 (previously made of record); and
Miao et al. (US 2023/0232201) is the US PGPub of WO 2021/227072 (previously made of record).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R CAIRNS whose telephone number is (571)270-0487. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM ET M-F.
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 at (571) 270-1096. 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.
/Thomas R Cairns/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights