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 1, 14, 15 have been amended. Claims 16-20 have been canceled.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by EL HAMSS et al. (WO2019160788).
Regarding claims 1, 14, 15, EL HAMSS teaches A first device comprising: at least one transceiver; at least one processor; and at least one memory ([0038] “the WTRU 102 may include a processor 118, a transceiver 120, a transmit/receive element 122, a speaker/microphone 124, a keypad 126, a display/touchpad 128, non-removable memory 130”) connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions, based on being executed by the at least one processor ([0043] “In addition, the processor 118 may access information from, and store data in, any type of suitable memory, such as the non-removable memory 130 and/or the removable memory 132. The non-removable memory 130 may include random-access memory (RAM), ”),
cause the first device to: obtain information related to a first resource pool ([0022] “ A WTRU may be configured with one or more sets of reception/transmission resource pools which define resources available for sidelink communications with other WTRUs”);
perform first channel sensing for a first resource block (RB) set within the first resource pool ([0083] “In Mode 4, a WTRU may use sensing (e.g., signal measurements such as RSRP measurements) before selecting a resource from an RRC configured transmitting pool. In an example, V2X resource pool configuration may be implemented via system information blocks (SIB) and/or dedicated RRC signaling”);
and perform([0115] “a WTRU may be configured to take a measurement, and depending upon the measurement, may autonomously determine to reconfigure the activated/deactivated resource pools. For example, the WTRU may be configured to sense or measure the energy over a set of resource pools {e.g., for a preconfigured duration). The WTRU may activate one or more resource pools (e.g., one or more additional resource pools) if the measured energy is above a threshold. By way of further example, the WTRU may be configured to measure the channel busy ratio (CBR) over one or more resource pools (e.g., a set of resource pools). The WTRU may compare the CBR to a threshold. For example, the WTRU may determine if the CBR is above or below a threshold. If the WTRU determines the CBR is above the threshold, the WTRU may activate a selected resource pool(s) and use the activated resource pool(s) to transmit data”).
Regarding claim 2, EL HAMSS teach wherein the first resource pool is reselected to a second resource pool, based on the resource pool reselection([0005] “ In another example, the WTRU may determine that a transmission latency associated with a sidelink packet is not supported by the activated first sidelink resource pool, and may determine that the transmission latency is supported by the second sidelink pool. In a further example, the WTRU may determine to activate the second sidelink resource pool upon determining energy over the activated first sidelink resource pool satisfies a threshold. The WTRU may also determine to activate a second pool resource upon determining a measured channel busy ratio (CBR) over the activated first sidelink resource pool satisfies a threshold”).
Regarding claim 3, EL HAMSS teaches further comprising: performing a sidelink (SL) transmission based on a resource included within the second resource pool ([0007] “he WTRU may communicate to other devices an indication the mobile device has activated the second sidelink resource pool. The indication may be communicated explicitly or implicitly. For example, an indication that a sidelink resource pool has been activated may be explicitly communicated using an indication in a sidelink control information (SCI) message”).
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) 4, 6-7, 10-11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EL HAMSS in view of Lee et al. (US20220167408).
Regarding claim 4, EL HAMSS does not teach wherein the first channel sensing is a listen before talk (LBT) operation.
Lee teaches wherein the first channel sensing is a listen before talk (LBT) operation ([0133] “ LBT is a mechanism whereby equipment (for example, UEs 101 RAN nodes 111, etc.) senses a medium (for example, a channel or carrier frequency) and transmits when the medium is sensed to be idle (or when a specific channel in the medium is sensed to be unoccupied). The medium sensing operation may include CCA, which utilizes at least ED to determine the presence or absence of other signals on a channel in order to determine if a channel is occupied or clear”).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified EL HAMSS to incorporate the teachings of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase flexibility of the system.
Regarding claim 6, EL HAMSS does not teach further comprising: declaring a consistent LBT failure, based on the result of the first channel sensing being BUSY for the threshold number of times.
Lee teaches further comprising: declaring a consistent LBT failure, based on the result of the first channel sensing being BUSY for the threshold number of times ([0274] “herein consistent and systematic LBT failure (regardless the LBT failure is due to channel is busy”, [0111] “upon expiration of the LBT timer, the method determines whether the LBT failure counter has exceeded a predetermined threshold”).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified EL HAMSS to incorporate the teachings of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase flexibility of the system.
Regarding claim 7, EL HAMSS does not teach further comprising: starting a timer, wherein the consistent LBT failure is declared based on the result of the first channel sensing being BUSY for the threshold number of times within an operation time of the timer.
Lee teaches further comprising: starting a timer ([0108] “the method starts a listen before talk (LBT) timer and initiates a LBT failure counter in response to a first transmission occasion of a plurality of transmission occasions to be performed by the UE”), wherein the consistent LBT failure is declared based on the result of the first channel sensing being BUSY for the threshold number of times within an operation time of the timer ([0274] “herein consistent and systematic LBT failure (regardless the LBT failure is due to channel is busy”, [0111] “upon expiration of the LBT timer, the method determines whether the LBT failure counter has exceeded a predetermined threshold”, [0113] “212, the method characterizes the plurality of LBT procedures as a consistent and systematic LBT failure in response to the number of LBT failures exceeding the predetermined threshold within the predetermined time period”).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified EL HAMSS to incorporate the teachings of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase flexibility of the system.
Regarding claim 10, EL HAMSS does not teach further comprising: transmitting, to a base station, information for the first RB set related to the consistent LBT failure.
Lee teaches further comprising: transmitting, to a base station, information for the first RB set related to the consistent LBT failure ([0103] “In step 1112, the method generates, by the UE, a message to report the consistent and systematic LBT failure to a base station (BS), e.g., a next generation evolved node B (gNB)”).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified EL HAMSS to incorporate the teachings of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase flexibility of the system.
Regarding claim 11, EL HAMSS does not teach further comprising: obtaining information related to the threshold number.
Lee teaches further comprising: obtaining information related to the threshold number ([0324] “further comprising receiving configuration information to indicate a value of the threshold”).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified EL HAMSS to incorporate the teachings of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase flexibility of the system.
Regarding claim 13, EL HAMSS does not teach wherein the result of the first channel sensing being BUSY for the threshold number of times is determined based on a counter.
Lee teaches wherein the result of the first channel sensing being BUSY for the threshold number of times is determined based on a counter ([0100] “ tracks, by the UE, a number of LBT failures that occur during the performance of the plurality of LBT procedures. An LBT failure can occur due to a channel used for the associated LBT procedure being busy or when an LBT backoff is running from a previous LBT failure as described herein. In embodiments, the tracking the number of LBT failures includes incrementing a LBT failure counter in response to incremental ones of the LBT failures. In other words, the counter is incremented for each detected LBT failure. In embodiments, the tracking the number of LBT failures includes incrementing the LBT failure counter only in response to consecutive ones of the LBT failures”).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified EL HAMSS to incorporate the teachings of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase flexibility of the system.
Claim(s) 5, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El HAMSS in view of Lee further in view of Alfarhan et al. (US20240298350).
Regarding claim 5, EL HAMSS, Lee does not teach wherein a consistent LBT failure is not declared based on the resource pool reselection ([0101] “ For example, a WTRU may maintain a CSLF counter according to one or more of the following: per RB set, per L2 ID, per cast ID, per cast type (e.g., unicast, groupcast, or broadcast), per SL BWP, per carrier, and/or per SL channel (e.g., per SL bandwidth). The WTRU may reset the CSLF counter, for example, based on a change (e.g., upon switching to another RB set or another resource pool associated with a different LBT channel, [0109] “In some examples, a WTRU may reset a CSLF counter and/or timer in the case of reporting HARQ feedback (e.g., enhanced HARQ feedback) or the occurrence(s) of one or more failure events in a dedicated UL resource”, (Examiner’s Note: not declared ==reset).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of EL HAMSS, Lee to incorporate the teachings of Alfarhan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the robustness of the system.
Regarding claim 8, EL HAMSS, Lee does not teach wherein the resource pool reselection is performed based on the consistent LBT failure.
Alfarhan teaches wherein the resource pool reselection is performed based on the consistent LBT failure ([0072[ “A WTRU may be configured to detect a CSLF on SL channel. The WTRU may be configured to switch to (e.g., select) a different data resource pool on a different LBT bandwidth (e.g., carrier, BWP, or sub-BWP)”, (Examiner’s Note:CSLF ==consistent sidelink LBT failure).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of EL HAMSS, Lee to incorporate the teachings of Alfarhan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the robustness of the system.
Regarding claim 9, El HAMSS, L does not teach further comprising: starting a timer based on the consistent LBT failure, wherein a transmission based on the first RB set is not performed during an operation time of the timer.
Alfarhan teaches further comprising: starting a timer based on the consistent LBT failure, wherein a transmission based on the first RB set is not performed during an operation time of the timer [0128] “In response to a declaration of a CSLF, the WTRU may start a timer. During a time duration that the timer is running, the WTRU may not use an associated resource pool or an associated SL channel/sub-channel. The WTRU may monitor a channel/sub-channel/resource pool using a first monitoring state, e.g., prior to the declaration of a CSLF. The WTRU may adapt its monitoring to a second monitoring state on a channel/sub-channel/resource pool, for example, after declaring a CSLF, and, in some examples, may start a timer. If the timer expires, the WTRU may assume the channel/sub-channel/resource pool is back to a regular operation”).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of EL HAMSS, Lee to incorporate the teachings of Alfarhan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the robustness of the system.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EL HAMSS in view of Lee further in view of Tsai et al. (US20210144762).
Regarding claim 12, EL HAMSS and Lee does not teach wherein the information related to the threshold number is obtained by a reception from a base station.
Tsai teaches wherein the information related to the threshold number is obtained by a reception from a base station ([0175] “he UE may be configured with LBT-related parameters (via an RRC configuration lbt-FailureRecoveryConfig), such as LBT_COUNTER and lbt-FailureInstanceMaxCount, for the first BWP. If the value of the LBT_COUNTER configured for the first BWP is equal to (or larger than) the lbt-FailureInstanceMaxCount for the first BWP, the UE may consider that the first consistent LBT failure is detected on the first BWP”).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of EL HAMSS, Lee to incorporate the teachings of Tsai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH TRAN-DANH FOLLANSBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3071. The examiner can normally be reached 10am -6 pm M-Th.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/K.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights