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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment of 3/16/2026. All changes made to the claims have been entered. Accordingly, Claims 21, 23-24, 26-28, 30-31, 33-34, 37-40 are currently pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the amended subject matter of “ transmit sidelink control information (SCI) scheduling a groupcast sidelink (SL) transmission to UEs, based on the SCI transmit the groupcast sidelink transmission” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 and 28 (dependent claims also being rejected since they are dependent upon rejected claims set forth) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites the subject matter “ transmit sidelink control information (SCI) scheduling a groupcast sidelink (SL) transmission to UEs, based on the SCI transmit the groupcast sidelink transmission”. However such subject matter do not seem to be disclosed in the Specification and/or Drawings. Examiner suggests clarifying such subject matter or specifically pointing out such subject matter.
Claim 28 recites the subject matter “ transmit sidelink control information (SCI) scheduling a groupcast sidelink (SL) transmission to UEs, based on the SCI transmit the groupcast sidelink transmission”. However such subject matter do not seem to be disclosed in the Specification and/or Drawings. Examiner suggests clarifying such subject matter or specifically pointing out such subject matter.
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(s) 21, 23, 26-28, 30, 33-34, 38, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Si et al. (US 2023/0336280), in view of Myung et al. (US 2023/0143581), in view of Yeo et al. (US 2020/0403737).
Regarding claim 21, 28, Si discloses a user equipment (UE) configured to operate in a wireless communication system, the UE comprising:
a communication module; and a processor configured to control the communication module (the UE further includes a transceiver operably coupled to the processor, [0005] and [0044]-[0050] and figure 3), wherein the processor is configured to:
transmit a groupcast sidelink (SL) transmission to UEs; and
adjust a contention window size (CWS) for a SL transmission before performing a channel access procedure (CAP) for the SL transmission, based on reception response results of the UEs for the groupcast SL transmission, when hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) feedback is enabled for the SL transmission (the adjustment and maintenance of the value CW.sub.c can be performed to be associated with a cast type of the sidelink transmission (e.g., broadcast, groupcast, or unicast)…For instance, the adjustment and maintenance of the value CW.sub.c can be performed based on the HARQ-ACK feedback information associated with the cast type c and determine a set of HARQ feedback corresponding to physical sidelink shared channels (PSSCHs) in a reference duration, when the at least one HARQ feedback is determined as available after the last update of the CW (contention window); determine a first condition based on the set of HARQ feedback; determine to: reset the CW to a minimum allowed value (CW.sub.min) from a set of values, when the first condition is satisfied, or increase the CW to a next higher allowed value from the set of values, when the first condition is not satisfied; and perform a sidelink (SL) channel access procedure based on the CW…The transceiver is configured to perform a SL transmission over a channel, after successfully performing the SL channel access procedure and HARQ feedback enabled, [0077] and [0005]-[0006] and page 13 claim 5 and [0098]-[0099] and [0067])
Si fails to clearly disclose wherein in a case where the reception response results of the UEs include at least one negative acknowledgement (NACK) but not all NACK, the CWS is adjusted to a CWS minimum value and wherein in a case where the reception response results of the UEs include all NACK, the CWS is adjusted to a next higher allowable value. Si however discloses if the at least one HARQ-ACK feedback correspond to a groupcast PSSCH (e.g., with HARQ-ACK feedback including ACK or NACK), and the HARQ-ACK feedback corresponding to the groupcast PSSCH are all ACK(s), CW can be reset to the minimum value CW.sub.min ([0098]-[0099] and [0005]-[0006]). In a similar field of endeavor, Myung discloses wherein in a case where the reception response results of the UEs include at least one negative acknowledgement (NACK) but not all NACK, the CWS is adjusted to a CWS minimum value (if there is any ACK among the valid HARQ-ACK information, the UE may reset the CWS to the minimum value (correlating to at least one negative acknowledgement (NACK) but not all NACK), and if all of the valid HARQ-ACK information is NACK, the CWS may be increased to the next available value, [0368] and [0367] and [0380] and [0403]-[0404]) and wherein in a case where the reception response results of the UEs include all NACK, the CWS is adjusted to a next higher allowable value (if there is any ACK among the valid HARQ-ACK information, the UE may reset the CWS to the minimum value, and if all of the valid HARQ-ACK information is NACK, the CWS may be increased to the next available value, [0368] and [0367] and [0380] and [0403]-[0404]). It 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 to incorporate the concept of adjusting the CWS based upon a reception response of at least one NACK but not all NACK or all NACK as disclosed by Myung into the method for contention window adjustment comprising the case when HARQ-ACK feedback corresponding to the groupcast PSSCH are all ACK(s), CW can be reset to the minimum value CW.sub.min as disclosed by Si in order to improve the system and provide different scenarios in adjusting CWS.
Si and Myung fails to disclose transmit sidelink control information (SCI) scheduling a groupcast sidelink (SL) transmission to UEs and based on the SCI transmit the groupcast sidelink transmission. Si however discloses a cast type of the sidelink transmission (e.g., broadcast, groupcast, or unicast)([0077]). In a similar field of endeavor, Yeo discloses transmit sidelink control information (SCI) scheduling a groupcast sidelink (SL) transmission to UEs and based on the SCI transmit the groupcast sidelink transmission (The sidelink scheduling information 1507 may be sidelink control information (SCI), and the SCI may include the following pieces of information…Transmission format/cast type indicator, which is an indicator of identifying a transmission format or distinguishing between unicast/groupcast/broadcast, [0243] and [0259] and [0242]-[0263] and figure 15A). It 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 to incorporate the concept of transmitting a SCI scheduling a groupcast transmission as disclosed by Yeo into the method for contention window adjustment comprising adjustment and maintenance of the value CW.sub.c be performed to be associated with a cast type of the sidelink transmission (e.g., broadcast, groupcast, or unicast) as disclosed by Si and Myung in order to improve the system and flexibly schedule a cast type of the sidelink transmission.
Regarding claim 23, 30, Si discloses wherein at least one of the groupcast SL transmission or the SL transmission is performed through a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) (if the at least one HARQ-ACK feedback correspond to a groupcast PSSCH (e.g., with HARQ-ACK feedback including ACK or NACK), [0098]-[0099] and [0077] and [0005]-[0006] and page 13 claim 5 and [0067]).
Regarding claim 26, 33, Si fails to clearly disclose wherein in the case where the reception response results of the UEs include the at least one NACK, but not all NACK, the CWS is adjusted to the CWS minimum value for every priority class. Myung however discloses wherein in the case where the reception response results of the UEs include the at least one NACK, but not all NACK, the CWS is adjusted to the CWS minimum value for every priority class (if there is any ACK among the valid HARQ-ACK information, the UE may reset the CWS to the minimum value (correlating to at least one negative acknowledgement (NACK) but not all NACK), and if all of the valid HARQ-ACK information is NACK, the CWS may be increased to the next available value and a CWS value for each priority class may be reset to a minimum value, [0368] and [0389] and [0395] and [0367] and [0380] and [0403]-[0404]). It 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 to incorporate the concept of adjusting the CWS based upon a reception response of at least one NACK but not all NACK or all NACK as disclosed by Myung into the method for contention window adjustment comprising the case when HARQ-ACK feedback corresponding to the groupcast PSSCH are all ACK(s), CW can be reset to the minimum value CW.sub.min as disclosed by Si in order to improve the system and provide different scenarios in adjusting CWS.
Regarding claim 27, 34, Si discloses wherein the wireless communication system comprises a 3rd generation partnership project (3GPP)-based wireless communication system, and the CAP comprises a Type 1 CAP (Type 1 dynamic mode channel access procedure, the sensing duration is random subject to a random counter generated between 0 and a contention window size, wherein the size of the contention window can be adjusted based on the HARQ-ACK feedback from previous transmissions and 5G/NR 3rd generation partnership project, [0067] and [0069] and [0003] and [0020]-[0023] and [0029]).
Regarding claim 38, 40, Si discloses wherein when the HARQ-ACK feedback is disabled for the SL transmission, the CWS is adjusted to a latest CWS value (if the sidelink transmission(s) are not associated with HARQ-ACK feedback information, the UE can determine to maintain (correlating adjusted to a latest CWS value) the CW…the sidelink transmission(s) can be PSSCH transmission(s) without HARQ-feedback enabled (correlating to disabled), [0081]-[0083] and [0075] and [0114] and [0117]).
Claim(s) 24, 31, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Si et al., in view of Myung, in view of Yeo et al. , in further view of Igarashi et al. (US 2009/0040991).
Regarding claim 24, 31, Si discloses wherein the processor is configured to perform sensing during the CAP for the SL transmission, based on a counter value randomly selected within the CWS (the sensing duration is random subject to a random counter generated between 0 and a contention window size, wherein the size of the contention window can be adjusted based on the HARQ-ACK feedback from previous transmissions, [0067] and [0071]).
Si, Myung, and Yeo however fails to disclose back-off. However in a similar field of endeavor, Igarashi discloses back-off with respects to sensing (sensing denotes an act of generating a random number within a predetermined CW (Contention Window) after a channel has become idled…, determining a random period based on the random number, and performing a back-off control in the random period, [0005]). It 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 to incorporate the concept of associating back-off with sensing as disclosed by Igarashi into the method for contention window adjustment comprising sensing and a random counter as disclosed by Si, Myung, and Yeo in order to improve the system and correctly perform sensing/back-off such that communication may be accomplished.
Claim(s) 37, 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Si et al., in view of Myung, in view of Yeo et al., in further view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0274649).
Regarding claim 37, 39, Si, Myung, and Yeo fails to disclose wherein whether the HARQ-ACK feedback is enabled/disabled is indicated through sidelink control information (SCI) corresponding to the SL transmission. However in a similar field of endeavor, Lee discloses whether the HARQ-ACK feedback is enabled/disabled is indicated through sidelink control information (SCI) corresponding to the SL transmission (SCI may include information related to the Enable of the SL HARQ feedback or information related to the Disable of the SL HARQ feedback, [0187]). It 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 to incorporate the concept of indicating to enable or disable SL HARQ feedback via SCI as disclosed by Lee into the method for contention window adjustment comprising HARQ feedback as disclosed by Si, Myung, and Yeo in order to improve the system and correctly indicate when feedback is enabled such that CWS may be adjusted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21, 23-24, 26-28, 30-31, 33-34, 37-40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin (US 2021/0153169) disclosing SCI comprises at least one of a cast type, a minimum communication range for groupcast, indication on whether HARQ feedback is enabled or disabled, and an HARQ feedback mode (page 5 claim 10).
Luo et al. (US 2022/0201710) disclosing a cast-type of the PSSCH scheduled by the SCI, that is, whether the PSSCH belongs to unicast or groupcast, or whether the PSSCH belongs to unicast or broadcast, or whether the PSSCH belongs to groupcast or broadcast, or whether the PSSCH belongs to unicast, groupcast, or broadcast ([0156]-[0157]).
Noh et al. (US 2017/0079013) disclosing if HARQ-ACK feedback values for the reference window all are determined as the NACK, the CWS is increased, and if not (that is, if at least one ACK is present), the CWS may be reset to a minimum value ([0142]-[0157]).
Li (US 2022/0029754) disclosing when the data transmission terminal is a terminal and the data reception terminal is another terminal, adjusting the CWS based on the NACK ratio may include: when the NACK ratio is less than 1, setting a value of the CWS to a preset minimum value ([0135] and [0040]).
Ganesan et al. (US 2024/0406982) disclosing the processor 505 sets the contention window size for a priority class to a next higher allowed value or a calculated value min (CW×2+1, CW.sub.max), where CW is the contention window size, in response to at least Z=X % of HARQ-ACK values determined as ‘NACK’ from one or more group member UEs belonging to the same destination ID within the reference duration ([0194])
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN HOANG NGO whose telephone number is (571)272-8398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Kwang Yao can be reached at 571-272-3182. 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.
/NGUYEN H NGO/Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights