DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to documents filed on 27 October 2025.
Claims 1-20 remain 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument on pages 1-2 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, the prior art of record do not at least disclose the claimed second configuration parameter, because Li, at ¶ 77, merely discloses a SL grant indicating one or more parameters for semi-persistent scheduling, such as a periodicity of a sidelink transmission, wherein the one or more parameters are supposedly only for Physical SL Shared Channel (PSSCH) transmissions, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See MPEP § 2141.03.
Li, at paragraph 77 is reproduce below for Applicant’s convenience.
PNG
media_image1.png
566
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, as provided above, an example of a parameter for semi-persistent scheduled (SPS) is disclosed as a periodicity of a sidelink transmission, not a periodicity of the upcoming sidelink transmission on a PSSCH, which is described in another example disclosed in the immediately preceding sentence. As cited in the previous rejection, Li, at ¶ 71, discloses PSFCH as used to communicate sidelink feedback. Thus, “a sidelink transmission” encompasses communication of sidelink feedback on PSFCH. For a transmission to be periodic, the transmission must occur more than once. Therefore, Li’s disclosure of a SL grant indicating periodicity of a SL transmission is within the scope of the claimed second configuration parameter.
In response to Applicant’s argument on page 2 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, the prior art of record do not disclose determining a plurality of Physical Sidelink (SL) Feedback Channel (PSFCH) resources based on a second configuration parameter indicating a periodicity of the slot comprising the PSFCH resource, because Li, at ¶ 77, merely discloses periodicity of a sidelink transmission, not a plurality of PSFCH transmission occasions in which a PSFCH transmission may be transmitted, determined based on the periodicity of a transmission, such as a period when each transmission is transmitted, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
The plain ordinary meaning of “periodicity” is “the quality, state, or fact of being regularly recurrent or having periods.” “Periodicity,” Merriam-Webster accessed via Internet Archive Wayback Machine, https://web.archive.org/web/20220907212218/https://www. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/periodicity, archived on 7 September 2022, accessed on 4 November 2025.
Here, the phrase “periodicity of a sidelink transmission” at least implies a plurality of sidelink transmission occasions, because lack of such an implication would mean ignoring the plain meaning of “periodicity.” Thus, Applicant’s argument that a periodicity of a sidelink transmission does not disclose or suggest a plurality of PSFCH transmission occasions appears to claim a distinction without differentiating between the prior art’s disclosure and the feature at issue. Therefore, disclosure of sidelink communication including PSFCH and indicating a periodicity of a sidelink transmission as a parameter for SPS in SCI provided to a UE that uses the SCI to transmit HARQ feedback on PSFCH as disclosed in Li as cited in the Non-Final rejection at Figs. 4, 7, 8, and ¶¶ 71, 77, 103, 131, and 137 appears to be well within the scope of the feature at issue.
In response to Applicant’s argument on page 2 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, Li clearly indicates that determination of transmission occasions is not based on periodicity, because Li discloses determining transmission occasions based on a Quality of Service profile, Listen-Before-Talk information, and channel information, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant quotes Li at ¶ 129 as supposedly disclosing “that ‘[t]he second UE 715 may select or determine the multiple time-frequency occasions in one or more resource pools … based on QoS profile, LBT information and channel information’” (emphasis as quoted in Applicant Remarks). However, the portion of ¶ 129 that Applicant quotes without use of ellipses (…) discloses “[t]he second UE 715 may select or determine the multiple time-frequency occasions in one or more resource pools (for example, configured or activated as described previously, or indicated by the first UE 710 in IUC request, or selected by the second UE 715 based on QoS profile, LBT information and channel information)” (emphasis added). Thus, Li does not disclose limiting determination of time-frequency occasions to only selection by a second UE (UE2) based on QoS profile, LBT information and channel information, but clearly and explicitly discloses such determination as alternatively based on how UE2 was configured or activated as described in previous parts of Li’s disclosure, as indicated by a first UE (UE1), or by UE2’s own selection.
Here, Li’s ¶¶ 129 and 131 describe Fig. 7. As cited in the Non-Final rejection, Li’s ¶ 103, in introducing description of Fig. 7, discloses UE1 and UE2 as communicating “with one another via a sidelink in a similar manner as described above in connection with FIGS. 4, 5, 6A, and 6B” (Li ¶ 103). Thus, “configured or activated as described previously” (Li ¶ 129) appears to refer to description encompassing description associated with Fig. 4, which includes ¶¶ 71 and 77 describing sidelink communication as including use of PSFCH for communicating sidelink feedback, and UE1 transmitting SCI to UE2 including a sidelink grant “that indicates one or more parameters for semi-persistent scheduling (SPS), such as a periodicity of a sidelink transmission” (Li ¶ 77). Therefore, even in view of Li’s ¶ 129, Li appears to disclose UE2 using a periodicity of a sidelink transmission to determine a plurality of PSFCH transmission occasions as cited in the Non-Final rejection.
Further, as evidence that the feature at issue is well-known in the art, Huang et al. (US 2023/0344563) was cited as pertinent but not relied upon in the Non-Final Rejection despite clearly disclosing the feature at issue, because Li cannot be reasonably read as not disclosing the feature at issue as provided above. Huang, at Fig. 5 and ¶ 434, discloses a receiving UE (RX UE) not transmitting PSFCH associated with a PSSCH due to failed LBT and retransmitting PSFCH on a later slot, wherein the number of sidelink slots comprising PSFCH during an interval is determined based upon PSFCH periodicity, because PSFCH periodicity can be used to limit the proportion of sidelink slots that may be used for PSFCH, which may allow PSFCH to be transmitted in unlicensed spectrum — thereby allowing for more efficient use of resources. Thus, the feature of determining a plurality of PSFCH transmission occasions based on PSFCH periodicity is disclosed in multiple sources of prior art, evidencing the likelihood that the feature was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application.
In response to Applicant’s argument on page 2 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, Li-Sarkis do not disclose the feature at issue because Li does not disclose the feature at issue for the reasons previously provided in Applicant Remarks and Sarkis does not disclose the feature at issue, Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided above.
In response to Applicant’s argument on pages 2-3 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, Li-Sarkis do not disclose determining the claimed first configuration parameter, because Li was admitted to not disclose the feature at issue, and Sarkis supposedly only discloses determining a single PSFCH resource, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that Sarkis does not disclose determining a plurality of PSFCH transmission occasions from the disclosed threshold quantity of slots indication, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Here, Applicant has not challenged the Non-Final Rejection’s reliance on Li for disclosing the feature of determining a plurality of PSFCH transmission occasions. Thus, reliance on Li for disclosing that feature is maintained. Further, as quoted by Applicant in Applicant Remarks, Sarkis discloses determining a first PFSCH resource, which would at least imply the existence of a second PSFCH resource. Otherwise, referring to a single PSFCH resource as a first PSFCH would be misleading. Thus, Li-Sarkis appear to disclose the feature at issue.
In response to Applicant’s argument on page 3 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, all claims are allowable for the reasons previously provided in Applicant Remarks, Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided above.
Therefore, Li-Sarkis, at cited in the Non-Final Rejection appear to disclose the claims as they are currently written, and the instant rejection is made Final.
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.
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 1-4, 11-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2023/0319881, previously cited, hereinafter Li) in view of Sarkis et al. (US 2023/0239118, previously cited, hereinafter Sarkis).
Regarding Claim 1, Li discloses a first wireless device comprising:
one or more processors (Fig. 13 and ¶¶ 211 and 216 disclose an apparatus of a first user equipment (UE) including a communication manager including a controller/processor); and
memory storing instructions (¶ 216 disclose the communication manager as also including memory storing software; and ¶ 212 discloses the apparatus performing operations illustrated in Figures 7-9 and 11) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the first wireless device to:
receive, from a second wireless device and via a slot, a first physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) comprising a transport block (TB) (Fig. 7 and ¶ 131 disclose UE 715 (i.e., a first wireless device) receiving a sidelink TB from UE 710 (i.e., a second wireless device); ¶ 103 discloses UE 715 communicating via sidelink in a manner as disclosed in Fig. 4 and associated description; and Fig. 4 and ¶ 71 disclose further details about a sidelink TB as included in PSSCH, wherein the TB includes data);
determine, for transmission of a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) for the TB, a plurality of PSFCH transmission occasions associated with the TB (Fig. 7 and ¶ 131 disclose UE 715 performing a listen-before-talk (LBT) operation for providing sidelink feedback and then providing feedback to UE 710 according to the LBT operation based on a selected resource pool of feedback resources including multiple time-frequency occasions; and Fig. 4 and ¶ 71 disclose wherein sidelink feedback is included in PSFCH), based on:
a second configuration parameter indicating a periodicity of the slot comprising the PSFCH resource (Fig. 4 and ¶ 77 disclose a sidelink grant indicating one or more parameters for semi-persistent scheduling including periodicity of sidelink transmission, which, in context of ¶ 71 and Figs. 7 and 8, appears to encompass the periodicity of PSFCH transmission);
perform a channel access procedure to transmit the PSFCH, via a second PSFCH transmission occasion among the plurality of PSFCH transmission occasions (Fig. 7 and ¶ 131 and Fig. 8 and ¶ 137 disclose UE 715 performing an LBT operation for transmitting the PSFCH including the sidelink feedback information on a PSFCH occasion following an LBT failure on a first PSFCH occasion), wherein:
performing the channel access procedure is in response to not transmitting the PSFCH via one or more first PSFCH transmission occasions among the plurality of PSFCH transmission occasions (Fig. 8 and ¶ 137 disclose UE 715 determining that a first time-frequency occasion of the multiple time-frequency occasions are unavailable based on the LBT procedure, and determining a second time-frequency occasion is available for sidelink feedback transmission); and
the second PSFCH transmission occasion occurs after the one or more first PSFCH transmission occasions (Fig. 8 and ¶ 137 disclose UE 715 attempted to transmit sidelink feedback using one of the multiple time-frequency occasions, and the first time-frequency occasion determined to be unavailable occurs before the second time-frequency occasion determined to be available to transmit the sidelink feed — see the figure provided below with notation
PNG
media_image2.png
515
761
media_image2.png
Greyscale
); and
transmit, via the second PSFCH transmission occasion and based on performing the channel access procedure, the PSFCH (Figs. 4, 7, 11, and ¶¶ 71, 131 and 175 disclose UE 715 transmitting the sidelink feedback via PSFCH on the second time-frequency occasion; and ¶ 134 discloses that time-frequency occasions occur in consecutive slots or mini-slots).
Li may not explicitly disclose:
wherein the determining the plurality of PSFCH transmission occasions is based on:
a first configuration parameter indicating a number of slots between a slot comprising a PSFCH resource and a last slot of reception of the TB.
However, in analogous art, Sarkis discloses:
determine, for transmission of a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) for the TB, a plurality of PSFCH transmission occasions associated with the TB, based on:
a first configuration parameter indicating a number of slots between a slot comprising a PSFCH resource and a last slot of reception of the TB (¶ 118 discloses a minimum time gap parameter indicating a threshold quantity of slots after the last shot of aggregated slots (i.e., a last slot of reception of a TB) for a first PSFCH resource to occur).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sarkis to modify Li in order to require a minimum time gap defined in slots after reception of a sidelink TB for PFSCH to be transmitted. One would have been motivated to do this, because such a threshold quantity of slots provides a sufficient a (Sarkis ¶ 118).
Regarding Claim 2, Li-Sarkis disclose the first wireless device of claim 1.
Li discloses wherein the instructions further cause the first wireless device to drop, based on the channel access procedure indicating that the one or more first PSFCH transmission occasions is busy, transmission of the PSFCH via the one or more first PSFCH transmission occasions (Figs. 7, 8, and ¶¶ 131 and 139-140 disclose details of the LBT process performed by UE 710, which may be applied to UE 715’s LBT process, wherein, due to multiple time-frequency occasions being scheduled, the UE is more likely to transmit PSFCH before the packet delay budget (PDB) is reached — in context with ¶ 6 disclosing transmission being dropped if PDB is reached, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and appreciate that the disclosure of ¶ 140 at least implies that the UE does not attempt to transmit in the unavailable slot (i.e., drops that transmission), but does attempt the transmission in the available slot).
Regarding Claim 3, Li-Sarkis disclose the first wireless device of claim 1.
Li discloses wherein the instructions further cause the first wireless device to determine multiple PSFCH transmission occasion resources based on:
the first configuration parameter (¶¶ 108-110 discloses one or more parameters as used to indicate how multiple time-frequency occasions are selected, indicated, or scheduled, wherein a quantity of the multiple time-frequency occasions for sidelink data transmission (M) or sidelink data retransmissions (M’) is one of the parameters); and
the second configuration parameter (Id. further discloses a time gap between adjacent time-frequency occasions as another parameter, and a frequency offset may also be a parameter — mathematically, knowing the number of occasions and time gap between occasions is effectively the same as knowing the periodicity of occasions).
Regarding Claim 4, Li-Sarkis disclose the first wireless device of claim 3.
Li discloses wherein a PSFCH transmission occasion resource, of the multiple PSFCH transmission occasion resources, comprises:
a PSFCH transmission occasion in time domain (¶ 103 discloses sidelink scheduling using multiple time-frequency occasions); and
a frequency resource in frequency domain (¶ 103 discloses sidelink scheduling using multiple time-frequency occasions).
Regarding Claims 11-12, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 11-12 are substantially similar or identical to those of claims 1-2, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 13, Li-Sarkis disclose the method of claim 12.
Li discloses the method as further comprising determining multiple PSFCH transmission occasion resources based on:
the first configuration parameter (¶¶ 108-110 discloses one or more parameters as used to indicate how multiple time-frequency occasions are selected, indicated, or scheduled, wherein a quantity of the multiple time-frequency occasions for sidelink data transmission (M) or sidelink data retransmissions (M’) is one of the parameters); and
the second configuration parameter (Id. further discloses a time gap between adjacent time-frequency occasions as another parameter, and a frequency offset may also be a parameter — mathematically, knowing the number of occasions and time gap between occasions is effectively the same as knowing the periodicity of occasions).
Regarding Claim 14, though of a different scope, the limitations of claim 14 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 4, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 20, though of a different scope, the limitations of claim 20 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 1, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 5, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li-Sarkis as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (US 2023/0261694, previously cited, hereinafter Guo).
Regarding Claim 5, Li-Sarkis disclose the first wireless device of claim 4.
Li-Sarkis may not explicitly disclose wherein the frequency resource comprises:
one or more resource blocks; and
a plurality of interlaced resource blocks.
However, in analogous art, Guo discloses wherein a frequency resource comprises:
one or more resource blocks (¶ 90 discloses scheduling a UE at a frequency granularity of resource blocks (RBs)); and
a plurality of interlaced resource blocks (Id. discloses scheduling the UE at a frequency granularity of interlaced RBs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Guo to modify Li-Sarkis in order to schedule sidelink resources at a frequency granularity of RBs, including interlaced RBs. One would have been motivated to do this, because such scheduling may enable frequency hopping in a system supporting a Clear Channel Assessment, such as Listen Before Talk (Guo Abstract and ¶ 4).
Regarding Claim 10, Li-Sarkis disclose the first wireless device of claim 1.
Li-Sarkis may not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further cause the first wireless device to transmit the PSFCH via at least one of:
at least one of one or more resource blocks; or
a plurality of interlaced resource blocks.
However, in analogous art, Guo discloses wherein the instructions further cause the first wireless device to transmit the PSFCH via at least one of:
at least one of one or more resource blocks (¶ 90 discloses scheduling a UE at a frequency granularity of resource blocks (RBs)); or
a plurality of interlaced resource blocks (Id. discloses scheduling the UE at a frequency granularity of interlaced RBs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Guo to modify Li-Sarkis in order to schedule sidelink resources, and transmit PSFCH according to the scheduling. One would have been motivated to do this, because such scheduling may enable frequency hopping in a system supporting a Clear Channel Assessment, such as Listen Before Talk (Guo Abstract and ¶ 4).
Regarding Claim 15, though of a different scope, the limitations of claim 15 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 5, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li-Sarkis as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Selvanesan et al. (US 2021/0336728, previously cited, hereinafter Selvanesan).
Regarding Claim 6, Li-Sarkis disclose the first wireless device of claim 1.
Li-Sarkis may not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further cause the first wireless device to determine, based on one or more sidelink control information (SCI) formats and for the TB:
a frequency resource assignment;
a time resource assignment; and
a modulation and coding scheme.
However, in analogous art, Selvanesan discloses wherein instructions further cause the first wireless device to determine, based on one or more sidelink control information (SCI) formats and for the TB (¶ 426 disclose an SCI format for TB including: ):
a frequency resource assignment (¶ 429 — frequency resource allocation);
a time resource assignment (¶ 430 — time domain allocation); and
a modulation and coding scheme (¶ 431 — MCS).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Selvanesan to modify Li-Sarkis in order to use a particular SCI format for a TB indicating a frequency allocation, time allocation and MCS. One would have been motivated to do this, because such a SCI format for a TB may help improve handling of feedback in sidelink, such as by helping to avoid collisions or interference by mapping two code block groups (CBGs) to a data region of a current CBG transmission using the disclosed SCI format (Selvanesan ¶¶ 2, 414 and 426-434).
Regarding Claim 16, though of a different scope, the limitations of claim 16 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 6, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 7-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li-Sarkis as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2023/0389076, hereinafter Wu).
Regarding Claim 7, Li-Sarkis disclose the first wireless device of claim 1.
Li discloses wherein:
the channel access procedure is performed before the PSFCH is transmitted (Fig. 7 and ¶ 131 disclose the receiving UE performing LBT prior to transmitting sidelink feedback).
Li-Sarkis may not explicitly disclose wherein:
the channel access procedure comprises at least one of:
a Type 1 channel access procedure; or
a Type 2 channel access procedure.
However, in analogous art, Wu discloses:
a channel access procedure comprises at least one of:
a Type 1 channel access procedure (Fig. 8, ¶¶ 29, 35, and 75-76 disclose Type 1 channel access); or
a Type 2 channel access procedure (Figs. 6-7, 9, ¶¶ 29, 35, 67 and 82 disclose Type 2 channel access).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Wu to modify Li-Sarkis in order to have a receiving UE use a particular type of channel access procedure before transmitting HARQ feedback a transmitting UE. One would have been motivated to do this, because these types of channel access procedures can be used to improve the success probability of HARQ feedback transmissions (Wu ¶ 24).
Regarding Claim 8, Li-Sarkis-Wu disclose the first wireless device of claim 7.
Li-Sarkis may not explicitly disclose wherein:
the Type 1 channel access procedure comprises a random number of slots for channel sensing in time domain; and
the channel sensing comprises energy detection over a shared spectrum in frequency domain.
However, in analogous art, Wu discloses wherein:
the Type 1 channel access procedure comprises a random number of slots for channel sensing in time domain (Fig. 8, ¶¶ 29, 35, and 75-76 disclose Type 1 channel access using a random number of sensing slots); and
the channel sensing comprises energy detection over a shared spectrum in frequency domain (Id. disclose energy detection; and ¶ 31 discloses HARQ feedback being transmitted on unlicensed spectrum which is disclosed as shared with other radio access technologies).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Wu to modify Li-Sarkis in order to have a receiving UE use a particular type of channel access procedure before transmitting HARQ feedback a transmitting UE. One would have been motivated to do this, because these types of channel access procedures can be used to improve the success probability of HARQ feedback transmissions (Wu ¶ 24).
Regarding Claim 9, Li-Sarkis-Wu disclose the first wireless device of claim 7.
Li-Sarkis may not explicitly disclose wherein the Type 2 channel access procedure is one of:
a Type 2A channel access procedure comprising a single channel sensing interval of 25 micro seconds;
a Type 2B channel access procedure comprising a single channel sensing interval of 16 micro seconds; or
a Type 2C channel access procedure without channel sensing.
However, in analogous art, Wu discloses wherein the Type 2 channel access procedure is one of:
a Type 2A channel access procedure comprising a single channel sensing interval of 25 micro seconds (¶ 29 discloses Type 2A having a sensing duration of 25µs);
a Type 2B channel access procedure comprising a single channel sensing interval of 16 micro seconds (Id. discloses Type 2B having a sensing duration of 16µs); or
a Type 2C channel access procedure without channel sensing (Id. discloses Type 2C having no sensing duration; and Fig. 9 and ¶ 82 disclose PSFCH transmission as LBT-free, using Type 2-C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Wu to modify Li-Sarkis in order to have a receiving UE use a particular type of channel access procedure before transmitting HARQ feedback a transmitting UE. One would have been motivated to do this, because these types of channel access procedures can be used to improve the success probability of HARQ feedback transmissions (Wu ¶ 24).
Regarding Claims 17-19, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 17-19 are substantially similar or identical to those of claims 7-9, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yi et al. (US 2021/0105126), at Figs. 24, 25, ¶¶ 244, 264, 279, 282-284 and other associated description, disclose a wireless device determining a number of PSFCH transmission occasions based on a timing offset following a last slot of receiving PSSCH and slot periodicity for SL HARQ-ACK (PSFCH) transmission as configured by a base station, wherein the wireless device may drop transmission of SL HARQ-ACK feedbacks for a resource;
Hui et al. (US 2021/0127383), at Fig. 34, ¶¶ 284-285, 296 and other associated description, discloses a reception (Rx) wireless device receiving SL control information (SCI) indicating a PSFCH periodicity as a first parameter and a first minimum number of slots separating the sidelink transmission from one or more radio resources, based on which the Rx wireless device determining PFSCH radio resources, the Rx wireless device determining to not transmit PSFCH on an overlapping resource, and determining a different PSFCH resource for transmitting the PSFCH.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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