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 .
Claims 21-38 are pending.
Claims 1-20 have been cancelled.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 07/08/2026, the objections of claims 30-38 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/08/2026have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 of this title, 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 21-24, 26-33, and 35-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (Pub. No.: US 20220295511 A1), hereinafter Han, in view of Basu Mallick et al. (Pub. No.: US 20240323752 A1), hereinafter Basu Mallick.
With respect to claim 21, Han teaches A wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (figure 16, [0122], an apparatus), comprising:
a processor configured to (figure 16, [0122], processor):
determine that a scheduling request (SR) has been triggered ([0014], determine that a SR has been triggered), wherein,
for an uplink (UL) SR, the SR is prioritized over SL data ([0014, 0048, 0071-0073, 0116-0117], SR is prioritized over SL data) based on at least a priority associated with an UL logical channel (LCH) that triggers the SR (figure 6, [0014, 0048, 0071-0073, 0116-0117], priority of UL LCH is higher than priority of SL LCH), and
for a sidelink (SL) SR, the SR is prioritized over the SL data ([0014, 0048, 0071-0073, 0116-0117], SR is prioritized over SL data) based on at least a priority associated with the SR being higher than a priority associated with a medium access control protocol data unit (MAC PDU) that is associated with the SL data (figures 6, 14, [0014, 0048, 0071-0073, 0116-0117], priority of SR is higher than priority of SL LCH), and send the SR (figure 14, [0116-0117], transmit the SR), wherein the SR is prioritized over the SL data (figure 6, [0014, 0048, 0071-0073, 0116-0117], the SR is prioritized over the SL data).
Han does not explicitly teach an UL prioritization threshold.
However, Basu Mallick teaches an UL prioritization threshold ([0016], a UL priority threshold; also see Provisional application US 62/877,802, [0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Basu Mallick, an UL prioritization threshold, into the teachings of Han, in order to identify a QoS priority of the SL transmission and a QoS priority of the UL transmission, and to prioritize the SL transmission over the UL transmission based on the QoS priority of the SL transmission being less than a SL priority threshold and the QoS priority of the UL transmission not being less than a UL priority threshold (Basu Mallick, [0008]).
With respect to claim 22, the combination of Han and Basu Mallick teaches the WTRU of claim 21. Han teaches wherein, for the SL SR, the processor is further configured to determine the priority associated with the SR based on a highest priority among one or more SL LCHs that trigger the SR ([0095], highest priority of all SL LCHs).
With respect to claim 23, the combination of Han and Basu Mallick teaches the WTRU of claim 21. Lu teaches wherein, for the UL SR, the processor is further configured to determine the priority associated with the SR based on a highest priority among one or more UL LCHs that trigger the SR ([0095], highest priority of all UL LCHs).
With respect to claim 24, the combination of Han and Basu Mallick teaches the WTRU of claim 21. Lu teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine that it is not possible to transmit the SR and the SL data simultaneously (figure 6, [0071-0073], Arrival of data to be transmitted on a sidelink by a V2X UE, triggers a SL BS, a SL SR transmission can be triggered in response to the triggered SL BSR), wherein, for the SL SR, the prioritization of the SR over the SL data is further based on determining that it is not possible to transmit the SR and the SL data simultaneously (figure 6, [0071-0073], SL SR, the prioritization of the SR over the SL data is further based on determining that it is not possible to transmit the SR and the SL data simultaneously).
With respect to claim 26, the combination of Han and Basu Mallick teaches the WTRU of claim 21. Han teaches determine that an SL LCH triggers an SL buffer status reporting (BSR) and the SL SR ([0053], SL LCH / MAC PDU triggers an SL buffer status reporting (BSR) and the SL SR).
With respect to claim 27, the combination of Han and Basu Mallick teaches the WTRU of claim 21. Han teaches determine that the UL LCH that triggers the SR comprises UL data ([0071-0073], the UL LCH that triggers the SR comprises UL data).
With respect to claim 28, the combination of Han and Basu Mallick teaches the WTRU of claim 21. Han teaches receive an UL grant (figure 9, [0093], receive an UL grant); and determine whether to prioritize an SL buffer status reporting (BSR) over an UL BSR based on a size of the UL grant (figure 9, [0093-0095], the SL BSR will be prioritized over the UL BSR).
With respect to claim 29, the combination of Han and Basu Mallick teaches the WTRU of claim 21. Han teaches determine whether to truncate the SL BSR based on the size of the UL grant (figure 12, [0102-0106], to truncate the SL BSR based on the size of the UL grant).
With respect to claim 30, Han teaches A method (figure 6, [0014, 0048, 0071-0073, 0116-0117], a method), comprising:
determining that a scheduling request (SR) has been triggered ([0014], determine that a SR has been triggered), wherein,
for an uplink (UL) SR, the SR is prioritized over SL data (figure 3, [0012, 0033-0035], transmits a first uplink channel including the SR, then performs SL data / BSR packeting) based on at least a priority associated with an UL logical channel (LCH) that triggers the SR (figure 6, [0014, 0048, 0071-0073, 0116-0117], priority of UL LCH is higher than priority of SL LCH), and
for a sidelink (SL) SR, the SR is prioritized over the SL data ([0014, 0048, 0071-0073, 0116-0117], SR is prioritized over SL data) based on at least a priority associated with the SR being higher than a priority associated with a medium access control protocol data unit (MAC PDU) that is associated with the SL data (figures 6, 14, [0014, 0048, 0071-0073, 0116-0117], priority of SR is higher than priority of SL LCH); and sending the SR (figure 14, [0116-0117], transmit the SR), wherein the SR is prioritized over the SL data (figure 6, [0014, 0048, 0071-0073, 0116-0117], the SR is prioritized over the SL data).
Han does not explicitly teach an UL prioritization threshold.
However, Basu Mallick teaches an UL prioritization threshold ([0016], a UL priority threshold; also see Provisional application US 62/877,802, [0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Basu Mallick, an UL prioritization threshold, into the teachings of Han, in order to identify a QoS priority of the SL transmission and a QoS priority of the UL transmission, and to prioritize the SL transmission over the UL transmission based on the QoS priority of the SL transmission being less than a SL priority threshold and the QoS priority of the UL transmission not being less than a UL priority threshold (Basu Mallick, [0008]).
With respect to claim 31, this claim recites the WTRU of claim 22, and it is rejected for at least the same reasons.
With respect to claim 32, this claim recites the WTRU of claim 23, and it is rejected for at least the same reasons.
With respect to claim 33, this claim recites the WTRU of claim 24, and it is rejected for at least the same reasons.
With respect to claim 35, this claim recites the WTRU of claim 26, and it is rejected for at least the same reasons.
With respect to claim 36, this claim recites the WTRU of claim 27, and it is rejected for at least the same reasons.
With respect to claim 37, this claim recites the WTRU of claim 28, and it is rejected for at least the same reasons.
With respect to claim 38, this claim recites the WTRU of claim 29, and it is rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claims 25 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, in view of Basu Mallick, and further in view of Yoshioka et al. (Pub. No.: US 20220078839 A1), hereinafter Yoshioka.
With respect to claim 25, the combination of Han and Basu Mallick teaches the WTRU of claim 21. Han teaches wherein, for the SL SR, the prioritization of the SR over the SL data as set forth above.
The combination of Han and Basu Mallick does not explicitly teach determine a resource associated with the SR and a resource associated with the SL data overlap, is further based on determining that the resource associated with the SR and the resource associated with the SL data overlap.
However, Yoshioka teaches determine a resource associated with the SR and a resource associated with the SL data overlap ([0057], a resource associated with the SR and a resource associated with the SL data overlap)., is further based on determining that the resource associated with the SR and the resource associated with the SL data overlap ([0057], a resource associated with the SR and a resource associated with the SL data overlap).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yoshioka, determine a resource associated with the SR and a resource associated with the SL data overlap, is further based on determining that the resource associated with the SR and the resource associated with the SL data overlap, into the teachings of Han and Basu Mallick, in order to appropriately process a scheduling request for inter-terminal direct communication (Yoshioka, [0010]).
With respect to claim 34, this claim recites the WTRU of claim 25, and it is rejected for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pub. No.: US 20180070368 A1; “QUAN”, ([0016])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIET TANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7193. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, IAN MOORE can be reached on (571) 272-3085. 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.
/KIET TANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
