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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to amendments and remarks received in a request for continued examination filed on 14 May 2026 after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision mailed on 16 March 2026. Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 11, 13, 15-17, 21, 23-25 and 27-32 are pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 11, 13, 15-17, 21, 23-25 and 27-32 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.
The independent claims have been amended to recite, in part, “receiving, by a wireless device, one or more radio resource control (RRC) messages comprising a parameter indicating a plurality of percentages of candidate radio resources.” Examiner has thoroughly reviewed applicant’s disclosure and cannot find any description of said feature. Applicant points to paragraphs [0200], [0206], [0219]-[0226], [0243], [0248] as providing support for the features amended and recited in the claims. Said paragraphs are silent with respect to the above identified features. Further, nowhere in the disclosure is there description of a “a parameter indicating a plurality of percentages of candidate radio resources”, let alone description of receiving , by a wireless device, one or more radio resource control (RRC) messages comprising said “parameter”. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have reached the conclusion that applicant possessed the claimed invention at the effective filing date of the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 11, 15-17, 21, 23-25 and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intel Corporation, “Sidelink Resource Allocation Mode-2 Design for NR V2X Communication”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #97, Reno, USA, May 13th – 17th, 2019, R1-1906796, hereafter D1 in view of Seo (US 2020/0068593 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0107170 A1).
Regarding claim 1, D1 appears to disclose a method comprising:
initializing, for a sidelink transmission, radio resources within a selection window as a first set of candidate radio resources (Fig. 1 resources from n+T3 to n+T4; Section 2.5 and Proposal 5; first sidelink PSCCH transmission is the earliest resource candidate that can be selected based on processing delay of the UE making the selection; the from n+T3 to n+T4 corresponding to the first setoff candidate radio resources);
excluding, from the first set of candidate radio resources, one or more first radio resources based on one or more reference signal received power (RSRP) values of the one or more first radio resources being higher than an RSRP threshold, to produce a second set of remaining candidate radio resources (Section 2.3 Sidelink Measurements disclosing L1 SL-RSRP measurements are used to decide whether resources are excluded from the candidate set, one of ordinary skill in the art would at once understand that the measurements disclosed in Section 2.3 are to find occupied resources which suggests a RSRP measurement higher than a threshold level of RSRP power would indicate these resources are occupied; Section 2.1 disclosing selecting resources if measurements are below a RSRP threshold further implying that when measurements are above a RSRP threshold they will be excluded resulting in a second set of zero or more candidate radio resources that remain after excluding the resources as disclosed).
in response to an amount of the remaining candidate radio resources in the second set not being greater than a percentage of the first set of candidate radio resources initialized within the selection window (Section 2.1 second paragraph below Proposal 1 disclosing determining “if no sufficient amount of resources are found” (e.g. there is not a sufficient percentage of resources out of the total resources to support the resources required for the transmission) for example; Section 2.10 disclosing, “The resource exclusion procedure may be iterative to ensure that M out of Q resources (i.e. certain percentage of resources) in resource selection window are selected as a candidates”):
increasing the RSRP threshold (Section 2.3 disclosing “This mechanism allow to select resources even if those are reserved, if RSRP measurements on these resources are below RSRP threshold, which is adaptively increased if there is no sufficient amount of resources found.”; Section 2.10 disclosing “The SL-RSRP thresholds should be configured to make a decision on whether reserved sidelink resource should be excluded or not from candidate resource set. The resource exclusion procedure may be iterative to ensure that M out of Q resources (i.e. certain percentage of resources)”); and
repeating the excluding using the increased RSRP threshold until the amount of the remaining candidate radio resources in the second set is greater than the percentage (Section 2.3 disclosing “This mechanism allow to select resources even if those are reserved, if RSRP measurements on these resources are below RSRP threshold, which is adaptively increased if there is no sufficient amount of resources found.”; Section 2.10 disclosing “The SL-RSRP thresholds should be configured to make a decision on whether reserved sidelink resource should be excluded or not from candidate resource set. The resource exclusion procedure may be iterative to ensure that M out of Q resources (i.e. certain percentage of resources)”); and
in response to the amount of remaining candidate radio resources in the second set being greater than the percentage, transmitting, via one or more second radio resources of the second set of remaining candidate radio resources, the sidelink transmission (Section 2.6, disclosing selected resources needing 4 sidelink PSCCH/PSSCH transmissions ; Section 2.10, disclosing “to ensure that M out of Q resources (i.e. certain percentage of resources) in the resource selection window are selected as candidates”; Fig. 1 illustrating the transmission in the selected resources).
D1 does not disclose the following; however, Seo discloses, “an amount of a resource necessary for each UE may differ depending on a situation” such that, “a packet of a low priority is transmitted using a very small amount of resource only. On the contrary, a packet of a high priority is allowed to use a more amount of resource” ([0084]). The disclosure in D1 that "QoS attributes have impact on sidelink resource selection" and "UE reselecting resources should take into account its own QoS attributes (e.g. latency, priority, etc.) as well as QoS attributes of other UEs that are indicated in SCI (D1: Section 2.10) teaches or suggests a relation between the feature M and the priority of the sidelink transmission. The disclosure in Seo that an amount of resources should be based on priority suggests different values of M (i.e., different values for M out of Q resources e.g., different certain percentages of resources) for different priority transmissions with a particular percentage determined based on the priority, in other words, determining the percentage from among a plurality of percentages based on a priority level of the sidelink transmission.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of D1 by adjusting the value of M based on priority as taught by Seo because this allows a user equipment to select resources for high priority packets when the communication resources are congested ([0078]-[0079]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the combination of the elements of D1 and Seo uses the elements in the manner of their established functions to achieve predictable results of both setting the percentage based on priority and ensuring M out of Q resources are selected as candidates through an iterative process as evidenced by the level of skill in the prior art.
The features disclosed by D1 (i.e., SL-RSRP thresholds, M out of Q resources etc.) and percentages per priority as suggested by the combination of D1 and Seo are seen as resource pool selection parameters and Chen teaches “in Mode-2, RRC from base station 135 may preconfigure transmission resources, resource pool selection, and link adaptation parameters regarding the NR sidelink” ([0041], [0044]) which suggests receiving, by a wireless device, one or more radio resource control (RRC) messages comprising a parameter indicating a plurality of percentages of candidate radio resources. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to allow the base station to control the configuration of the resources because it provides a flexible system in which a base station can adjust the resource pool selection parameters in order to more efficiently provide service to users.
Regarding claim 3, D1 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising selecting, in response to the amount of the remaining candidate radio resources in the second set being greater than the percentage of the first set of candidate radio resources, the one or more second radio resources from the second set of remaining candidate radio resources (Section 2.1 disclosing techniques to ensure sufficient amount of resources are available for selection; Section 2.8 disclosing selecting R candidate resources; Section 2.10 disclosing, “The resource exclusion procedure may be iterative to ensure that M out of Q resources (i.e. certain percentage of resources) in resource selection window are selected as a candidates.”).
Regarding claim 6, D1 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more first radio resources are reserved by a second wireless device (Section 2.2 and 2.8 disclosing decoding sidelink control information to determine resources reserved by other devices and excluding (reselecting) if the resources indicated by SCI collide with selected resources).
Regarding claim 7, D1 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising determining the selection window for radio resource selection (Fig. 1 resources from n+T3 to n+T4; Section 2.5 and Proposal 5; first sidelink PSCCH transmission is the earliest resource candidate that can be selected based on processing delay of the UE making the selection).
Regarding claim 8, D1 discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the candidate radio resources are all of the radio resources within the selection window (Fig. 1 resources from n+T3 to n+T4; Section 2.5 and Proposal 5; first sidelink PSCCH transmission is the earliest resource candidate that can be selected based on processing delay of the UE making the selection).
Regarding claim 27, D1 does not disclose the following; however, Seo discloses, “an amount of a resource necessary for each UE may differ depending on a situation” such that, “a packet of a low priority is transmitted using a very small amount of resource only. On the contrary, a packet of a high priority is allowed to use a more amount of resource” ([0084]). The disclosure in D1 that "QoS attributes have impact on sidelink resource selection" and "UE reselecting resources should take into account its own QoS attributes (e.g. latency, priority, etc.) as well as QoS attributes of other UEs that are indicated in SCI (D1: Section 2.10) teaches or suggests a relation between the feature M and the priority of the sidelink transmission. The disclosure in Seo that an amount of resources should be based on priority suggests different values of M (i.e., different values for M out of Q resources e.g., a certain percentage of resources) for different priority transmissions with a particular percentage determined based on the priority (e.g., wherein each percentage of the plurality of percentages is associated with a respective priority level of a plurality of priority levels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of D1 by adjusting the value of M based on priority as taught by Seo because this allows a user equipment to select resources for high priority packets when the communication resources are congested ([0078]-[0079]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the combination of the elements of D1 and Seo uses the elements in the manner of their established functions to achieve predictable results of both setting the percentage based on priority and ensuring M out of Q resources are selected as candidates through an iterative process as evidenced by the level of skill in the prior art.
Regarding claims 11, 13, 15-17 and 28, the claims are directed towards a wireless device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to perform the method of claims 1, 3, 6-8 and 27. D1 does not expressly disclose a special purpose processor; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to embody a wireless device in the manner claimed in order to provide a device which can be efficiently configured and reconfigured in order to have a wireless device flexible enough to operate under evolving technical specifications; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the techniques of D1 with a special purpose processor in the manner claimed. As such, claims 11, 13, 15-17 and 28 are rejected as obvious over D1 based on this rationale and the grounds of rejection presented above with respect to claims 1, 3, 6-8 and 27.
Regarding claim 21, 23-25 and 29, the claims are directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a wireless device, cause the wireless device to perform the method of claims 1, 3, 6-7 and 27. D1 does not expressly disclose such article of manufacture; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to embody the techniques as claimed in order to provide for a manner of efficiently programming a wireless device and reprogramming a wireless device in order to provide flexibility to operate under evolving technical specifications; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the techniques of D1 in an article of manufacture in the manner claimed. As such, claims 21, 23-25 and 29 are rejected as obvious over D1 based on this rationale and the grounds of rejection presented above with respect to claims 1, 3, 6-7 and 27.
Claim(s) 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intel Corporation, “Sidelink Resource Allocation Mode-2 Design for NR V2X Communication”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #97, Reno, USA, May 13th – 17th, 2019, R1-1906796, hereafter D1 in view of Seo (US 2020/0068593 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0107170 A1), further in view of Fraunhofer HHI, Fraunhofer IIS, “Resource Allocation for Mode 2 NR V2X”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98bis, Chongqing, China, October 14th-20th, 2019, R101910556, hereafter D2.
Regarding claim 30, D1 does not disclose the following; however, D2 suggest the method of claim 1, wherein:
the percentage is a first value based on the second set of remaining candidate radio resources being for a preemption sidelink resource selection procedure; and the percentage is a second value based on the second set of remaining candidate radio resources being for a non-preemption sidelink resource selection procedure (Section 2.2 disclosing “It is possible, however, for the TX UE carrying out the pre-emptive reservation of resources to reserve more than one resource at the same intended time slot, but in different sub-channels, where it is required to transmit.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date if the invention to modify the techniques of D1 with the teaching in D2 because D2 indicates this can overcome conflicts; such as, a UE intending to use a scheduled resource within a future time slot in an SPS manner to transmit high priority transmissions, clashes with another UE that has pre-emptively reserved the same resource for a high priority transmission as well, or more than one UE reserves the same resources within the same future time slot for high priority transmissions (Section 2.2).
Regarding claim 31, the claim is directed towards the wireless device which performs the method of claim 30; accordingly, claim 31 is rejected on the grounds presented above for claim 30.
Regarding claim 32, the claim is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions for performing the method of claim 30; accordingly, claim 32 is rejected on the grounds presented above for claim 30.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant arguments with respect to the features "receiving, by a wireless device, one or more radio resource control (RRC) messages comprising a parameter indicating a plurality of percentages of candidate radio resources," (emphasis original) are moot based on the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 14 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts the combination of D1 and Seo does not disclose or suggest "determining a percentage from among the plurality of percentages based on a priority level of the sidelink transmission," and "in response to an amount of the remaining candidate radio resources in the second set not being greater than the percentage of the first set of candidate radio resources initialized within the selection window: increasing the RSRP threshold; and repeating the excluding using the increased RSRP threshold until the amount of the remaining candidate radio resources in the second set is greater than the percentage," in combination with the other features recited in claim 1 (emphasis original). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the features, "determining a percentage from among the plurality of percentages based on a priority level of the sidelink transmission,", examiner refers applicant to the Board decision mailed on 16 March 2026 and the rejections set forth above. This feature appears to be no different from the disputed feature that was the grounds of the appeal. As discussed above, Seo discloses, “an amount of a resource necessary for each UE may differ depending on a situation” such that, “a packet of a low priority is transmitted using a very small amount of resource only. On the contrary, a packet of a high priority is allowed to use a more amount of resource” ([0084]). The disclosure in D1 that "QoS attributes have impact on sidelink resource selection" and "UE reselecting resources should take into account its own QoS attributes (e.g. latency, priority, etc.) as well as QoS attributes of other UEs that are indicated in SCI (D1: Section 2.10) teaches or suggests a relation between the feature M and the priority of the sidelink transmission. The disclosure in Seo that an amount of resources should be based on priority suggests different values of M (i.e., different values for M out of Q resources e.g., different certain percentages of resources) for different priority transmissions with a particular percentage determined based on the priority, in other words, determining the percentage from among a plurality of percentages based on a priority level of the sidelink transmission.
With respect to the features, "in response to an amount of the remaining candidate radio resources in the second set not being greater than the percentage of the first set of candidate radio resources initialized within the selection window: increasing the RSRP threshold; and repeating the excluding using the increased RSRP threshold until the amount of the remaining candidate radio resources in the second set is greater than the percentage," it appears that D1 discloses these features as well (Section 2.3 Sidelink Measurements disclosing L1 SL-RSRP measurements are used to decide whether resources are excluded from the candidate set, one of ordinary skill in the art would at once understand that the measurements disclosed in Section 2.3 are to find occupied resources which suggests a RSRP measurement higher than a threshold level of RSRP power would indicate these resources are occupied; Section 2.1 disclosing selecting resources if measurements are below a RSRP threshold further implying that when measurements are above a RSRP threshold they will be excluded resulting in a second set of zero or more candidate radio resources that remain after excluding the resources as disclosed; Section 2.6, disclosing selected resources needing 4 sidelink PSCCH/PSSCH transmissions ; Section 2.10, disclosing “to ensure that M out of Q resources (i.e. certain percentage of resources) in the resource selection window are selected as candidates”; Fig. 1 illustrating the transmission in the selected resources; Section 2.3 disclosing “This mechanism allow to select resources even if those are reserved, if RSRP measurements on these resources are below RSRP threshold, which is adaptively increased if there is no sufficient amount of resources found.”; Section 2.10 disclosing “The SL-RSRP thresholds should be configured to make a decision on whether reserved sidelink resource should be excluded or not from candidate resource set. The resource exclusion procedure may be iterative to ensure that M out of Q resources (i.e. certain percentage of resources)”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would find the combination of the elements of D1 and Seo uses the elements in the manner of their established functions to achieve predictable results of both setting the percentage based on priority and ensuring M out of Q resources are selected as candidates through an iterative process as evidenced by the level of skill in the prior art. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph A Bednash whose telephone number is (571)270-7500. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/JOSEPH A BEDNASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights