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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on04/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 USC 102/103
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the claimed invention with the added limitation that the wireless communication system is configured to not allow a transmission of messages on the sidelink when one or more specific conditions are fulfilled, wherein the specific conditions include a minimum required communication range that represents a communication distance between the UEs required to meet or fulfill a certain QoS.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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. Applicant has amended the claim to recite not allowing a transmission of messages on the sidelink when one or more specific conditions are fulfilled, wherein the specific conditions include a minimum required communication range that represents a communication distance between the UEs required to meet or fulfill a certain QoS. An updated search was conducted and a new reference is applied.
Examiner notes that the amendment raises an issue of indefiniteness. The claim recites not allowing sidelink transmission when a specific condition is fulfilled, including “minimum required communication range” wherein the “minimum required communication range represents a communication distance between the UEs required to meet or fulfill a certain Qos.” It is unclear if this means that if the minimum range is, for example, 20 meters, communication at a distance less than 20 meters over sidelink is not allowed. Or, any communication outside of a range is not allowed over sidelink, which corresponds more with Applicant’s specification, page 12, “the minimum needed communication range representing a communication range or a distance between the UEs needed to meet or fulfill a certain QoS” and page 20, “Within the minimum needed communication range a defined reliability and/or latency is expected to be achieved.” This last cited portion of the specification appears to indicate that within the minimum range i.e. within the example of 20 meters, the communication would be allowed over sidelink. See rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-14, 16-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The recitation of a “minimum required communication range” is not clear and renders the claim indefinite. A minimum range is considered a shortest distance. IT is not clearly recited in the claimed invention or specification that anything closer than a minimum distance would prohibit sidelink communication. The specification in regards to “minimum needed communication range” defines it as though it is the distance required for the communication, and at a farther distance, the QoS would not be achieved. “Within the minimum needed communication range a defined reliability and/or latency is expected to be achieved.” Examiner notes the confusion as a “minimum required communication range” implies there is no smaller distance where the QoS would be achieved, but the specification says “within the minimum needed communication range.” Examiner interprets this to mean there exists a range that must be satisfied, and any range beyond the threshold minimum range will not allow sidelink, whereas within the range, QoS is achieved.
Claim 16 rejected for the same reason as claim 1. Claims 2-14, 17-21 rejected by virtue of their dependence on the rejected base claim.
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.
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) 1-2, 10-11, 16-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Guo et al. (“Guo”) (US 20200029318 A1, effective filing date of 62/750, 982 filed Oct. 26, 2018) in view of Venkatraman et al. (“Venkatraman”) (US 20180324548 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Guo teaches:
A wireless communication system, comprising
a plurality of user devices (UEs) [Figure 5 ¶0112-113 UEs in sidelink with corresponding components Figure 2-3 thus first and second, and ¶0405 shows UE-A and UE-B],
wherein at least some of the UEs are configured for a sidelink communication [Figure 5, ¶0112-115], wherein the wireless communication system is arranged to provide resources for the sidelink communication among the UEs [¶0177-182 use SL-BWPs each comprising resources for sidelink with other devices Figure 5], wherein the resources comprise a plurality of resource pools, RPs [¶0182 ,multiple sidelink bandwidth parts configured collectively considered resource pools pertaining to each SL-BWP], wherein the plurality of RPs comprises at least a first RP and a second RP [¶0182 one or more SL-BWPs, each SL-BWP considered to include a plurality of RPs i.e. plurality of groups of resources, thus a first and second plurality of RPs], wherein first RP is used for transmission over the sidelink of first messages, wherein the first messages have a first Quality-of-Service (QoS) class [¶0187 SL-BWP to use is based on “the QoS level of traffic associated with this SL-BWP is provide, for example, one SL-BWP can be dedicated for low-latency sidelink traffic and one SL-BWP can be dedicated for non-latency-sensitive traffic” thus a first SL-BWP has a first QoS class, see “dedicated” considered reserved see also ¶0218, different QoS classes considered to mean one QoS class with different higher/lower value than another], wherein the second RP is used for transmission over the sidelink of second messages, wherein the second messages have a second QoS class, wherein the first QoS class and the second QoS class are different than each other [¶0187 “the QoS level of traffic associated with this SL-BWP is provide, for example, one SL-BWP can be dedicated for low-latency sidelink traffic and one SL-BWP can be dedicated for non-latency-sensitive traffic” thus a second SL-BWP comprising RPs has a second QoS class, see “dedicated” considered reserved see also ¶0218].
Guo teaches sidelink resources but does not teach based on a range.
Venkatraman teaches wherein the wireless communication system is arranged to not allow a transmission of messages on the sidelink when one or more specific conditions are fulfilled, wherein the specific conditions include a minimum required communication range, wherein the minimum required communication range represents a communication distance between the UEs required to meet or fulfill a certain QoS [¶0051, when distance exceeds a threshold (specific condition) and devices handover to network mode and away from D2D (not allow sidelink) when distance exceeds threshold (minimum required distance). ¶0030 indicates the distance is for reliable communication, reliability being certain QoS].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the range requirement for sidelink communication. Guo teaches QoS assigned to resources, and it would have been obvious to specify a range requirement as in Venkatraman who teaches ¶0030 this allows for ensuring reliability in D2D communication, which is a known QoS that may be satisfied.
Regarding claim 2, Guo- Venkatraman teaches:
The wireless communication system of claim 1,wherein the wireless communication system is configured to use the respective RPs for transmissions on the sidelink of messages having a certain QoS class in case ate least first one first condition of a plurality of first conditions is fulfilled [Guo ¶0187, ¶0183 indicates transmitting in SL-BWP, SL-BWP selected based on condition including QoS level conditions for latency requirement], or not allow a transmission on the sidelink of messages having the certain QoS class in case at least one second condition of a plurality of second conditions is fulfilled.
Regarding claim 10, Guo- Venkatraman teaches:
The wireless communication system of claim 1, wherein the wireless communication system is configured to run at least one applications, wherein each application is configured to provide a service with a predefined or requested QoS, class [Guo ¶0187, ¶0218, at least one application e.g. delay-sensitive providing a service with latency requirement considered QoS class].
Regarding claim 11, Guo- Venkatraman teaches:
The wireless communication system of claim 1, wherein the wireless communication system is configured to map a QoS class to one or more of the RPs such that messages or packets with the first QoS class use at least one predefined RPs from the plurality of the RPs, wherein the first QoS class is higher than the second QoS class [Guo ¶00187, packets with QoS level mapped to RPs of a first SL-BWP and lower QoS level mapped to another SL-BWP as these indicate different QoS levels thus one will be a higher QoS level than the other for e.g. non-delay sensitive traffic, thus using at least one RP within the RPs of a SL-BWP].
Regarding claim 16, see similar rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Guo- Venkatraman teaches:
The wireless communication system of claim 1, further comprising one of: a mobile terminal, or stationary terminal, an Internet-of-Things (loT) device, a ground based vehicle, an aerial vehicle, a drone, a moving base station, a road side unit, or a building [Guo Figure 5 ¶0112-113 UEs in sidelink with corresponding components Figure 2-3].
Regarding claim 18, Guo- Venkatraman teaches:
The wireless communication system of claim 1, comprising a base station [Guo ¶0073 gNB for configuring ¶0182, ¶0189].
Regarding claim 20, Guo- Venkatraman teaches:
The method of claim 16, wherein the wireless communication system is configured to use respective RPs for transmissions on the sidelink of messages having a certain QoS class in case at least one first conditions are fulfilled, or to not allow a transmission on the sidelink of messages having the certain QoS class in case at least one second conditions are fulfilled [Guo ¶0187, ¶0183 indicates transmitting in SL-BWP, SL-BWP selected based on condition including QoS level conditions].
Claim(s) 3, 7-9, 13, 19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (“Guo”) (US 20200029318 A1, effective filing date of 62/750, 982 filed Oct. 26, 2018) in view of Venkatraman et al. (“Venkatraman”) (US 20180324548 A1) and Cheng et al. (“Cheng”) (US 20210298044 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Guo-Venkatraman teaches:
The wireless communication system of claim 2.
Guo teaches a condition for determining resources but does not specify the listed conditions however Cheng teaches wherein at least one of the first conditions and one of the second conditions comprises at least one of : a current or predicted QoS traffic of a certain class exceeds a configured or pre- configured threshold, at least one current or predicted network conditions for the sidelink exceed a configured or pre-configured threshold, at least one external or environmental conditions exist [¶0193-194, when using resource pool, check if communication from another terminal exists considered external conditions, energy compared to threshold to determine busy or not ¶0125 considered environmental conditions].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the conditions include external conditions such as energy on the resources as in Cheng. Guo teaches determining resources and it would have been obvious to specify external conditions existing as in Cheng in order to determine that the resources are free to use and not busy before transmitting on them ¶0193-194.
Regarding claim 7, Guo-Venkatraman-Cheng teaches:
The wireless communication system of claim 3, wherein a value for the threshold is pre-configured or is arranged by a network operator [Examiner notes this relies on an option that is not required to have support from claim 3 as claim 3 recites alternative options for the specific conditions, and the supported option of the external or environment conditions does not involve a threshold thus this is a contingent limitation without patentable weight ].
Regarding claim 8, Guo- Venkatraman teaches:
The wireless communication system of claim 1.
Guo teaches resource pools for QoS levels but not based on distribution however Cheng teaches wherein the wireless communication system is configured to associate resources to the respective RPs dependent on a traffic distribution per QoS class or on a percentage of the QoS classes in the traffic [¶0154 associate pools with QoS traffic based on amount of traffic on these QoS levels, use different pools for better resource utilization].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the conditions include distribution for determining resource pools as in Cheng. Guo teaches determining resources and it would have been obvious to specify determining based on a distribution as in ¶0154 of Cheng who teaches this allows for preventing deterioration of resource utilization efficiency by choosing a different resource pool pertaining to a QoS class.
Regarding claim 9, Guo- Venkatraman teaches:
The wireless communication system of claim 1.
Guo teaches a condition for determining resources but does not specify the listed conditions however Cheng teaches wherein the wireless communication system is configured to monitor the current or predicted QoS traffic of the certain class prior to preparing a transmission of a message comprising the certain QoS class, and to allow the transmission in case the current or predicted QoS traffic of the certain class does not exceed the threshold [¶0193-194, when using resource pool, check if communication from another terminal exists considered external conditions, energy compared to threshold to determine busy or not ¶0125, transmit on resources based on resources being idle, monitoring on e.g. resources k for specific QoS traffic thus monitoring current QoS traffic before using resources ¶0161-165 also teaches threshold detection].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the conditions include external conditions such as monitoring current traffic as in Cheng. Guo teaches determining resources and it would have been obvious to specify determining traffic of a current class using the resources prior to transmitting as in Cheng in order to determine that the resources are free to use and not busy before transmitting on them ¶0193-194.
Regarding claim 13, Guo- Venkatraman teaches:
The wireless communication system of claim 1.
Guo teaches a condition for determining resources but does not specify the listed conditions however Cheng teaches wherein, to map the QoS classes to the RPs, the wireless communication system is configured to consider at least one of the following factors in assigning RPs to QoS classes: a current QoS class load, usage, distribution, traffic conditions and/or congestion, - external and/or environmental conditions [¶0193-194, when using resource pool, check if communication from another terminal exists considered external conditions, energy compared to threshold to determine busy or not ¶0125], a minimum needed communication range, wherein the minimum needed communication range represents a communication range between the plurality of devices needed to fulfill a certain QoS.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the conditions include external conditions such as energy on the resources as in Cheng. Guo teaches determining resources and it would have been obvious to specify external conditions existing as in Cheng in order to determine that the resources are free to use and not busy before transmitting on them ¶0193-194.
Regarding claim 19, Guo- Venkatraman teaches:
The wireless communication system of claim 2.
Guo teaches determining resources but does not specify the listed conditions however Cheng teaches wherein one of the first and second conditions comprises a current or predicted QoS traffic of the certain QoS class exceeding a specified threshold or not exceeding the specified threshold [¶0165 traffic resources in resource pool k-1 sensed to be above threshold and using this condition to determine using resources, wherein data on resource pool k or k-1 part of QoS class e.g. ¶0160-161].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the conditions include external conditions such as energy on the resources as in Cheng. Guo teaches determining resources and it would have been obvious to specify external conditions existing as in Cheng in order to determine that the resources are free to use and not busy before transmitting on them ¶0193-194.
Regarding claim 21, Guo- Venkatraman teaches:
The method of claim 20.
Guo teaches determining resources but does not specify the listed conditions however Cheng teaches wherein one of the first and second conditions comprises a current or predicted QoS traffic of the certain QoS class exceeding a specified threshold or not exceeding the specified threshold [¶0165 traffic resources in resource pool k-1 sensed to be above threshold and using this condition to determine using resources, wherein data on resource pool k or k-1 part of QoS class e.g. ¶0160-161].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the conditions include external conditions such as energy on the resources as in Cheng. Guo teaches determining resources and it would have been obvious to specify external conditions existing as in Cheng in order to determine that the resources are free to use and not busy before transmitting on them ¶0193-194.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (“Guo”) (US 20200029318 A1, effective filing date of 62/750, 982 filed Oct. 26, 2018) in view of Venkatraman et al. (“Venkatraman”) (US 20180324548 A1), Cheng et al. (“Cheng”) (US 20210298044 A1) and Feng et al. (“Feng”) (US 20190182840 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Guo et al. teaches:
The wireless communication system of claim 3.
Cheng teaches selecting resources based on quality but not based on current load however Feng teaches wherein the at least one current or predicted network conditions comprise at least one of a current or predicted sidelink traffic load and a congestion of the sidelink resources, and wherein the one or more specific or predefined conditions comprise that the traffic load and/or the congestion exceeds one or more configured thresholds or one or more pre-configured thresholds specific conditions comprise that at least one of the traffic load and the congestion exceeds at least one configured thresholds [¶0262, conditions for resource allocation on sidelink channel based on congestion level including CBR and compared to a threshold].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo to measure current load as in Feng. Guo-Cheng teaches checking if the resources to be used are busy and it would have been obvious to specify network conditions for using resources for sidelink including load information as in Feng who teaches this is intended to protect the sidelink carrier ¶0262.
Regarding claim 5, Guo et al. teaches:
The wireless communication system of claim 4, wherein the traffic load is derived from at least one of a Channel Busy Ratio, CBR, and a the Channel Occupancy Ratio, CR [Feng ¶0262, conditions for resource allocation on sidelink channel based on congestion level including CBR and compared to a threshold, see rationale for combination claim 4].
Regarding claim 6, Guo et al. teaches:
The wireless communication system of claim 4.
Cheng teaches prioritizing traffic but does not teach excluding during congestion however Feng teaches wherein, in case of a congestion situation, traffic belonging to a QoS class that has a lower priority than a specific QoS class is excluded from a transmission on the sidelink [Feng ¶0262].
IT would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo to measure current load and exclude low priority traffic as in Feng. Guo-Cheng teaches checking if the resources to be used are busy and it would have been obvious to specify network conditions including load for deciding to exclude lower priority traffic as in Feng who teaches this is intended to protect the sidelink carrier ¶0262.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (“Guo”) (US 20200029318 A1, effective filing date of 62/750, 982 filed Oct. 26, 2018) in view of Venkatraman et al. (“Venkatraman”) (US 20180324548 A1) and (Seo US 20200068593 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Guo et al. teaches:
The wireless communication system of claim 1, wherein the wireless communication system is configured to map a QoS class to one of the plurality of the RPs [¶0183, ¶0218 SL-BWP applied to QoS level].
Guo teaches prioritizing resource pools but does not teach assigning more resources for higher priority however Seo teaches such that the higher the QoS of an entity , the more RPs are allocated to it, so that a delay for accessing an RP may be minimized for a high QoS entity due to a high number of accessible RPs [Seo ¶0067-68, “Here, a more resource amount can be allocated to a sidelink process of a high priority in consideration of a priority that each sidelink process has”, and ¶0084-85 “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” within 1 second so that delay minimized in case of congestion].
IT would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo to allocate more resources for higher priority as in Seo. Guo teaches prioritizing traffic and it would have been obvious to modify the allocation such that more resources are allocated for higher priority traffic as in Seo who teaches ¶0084 “it may be advantageous that an amount of a resource usable per priority is differently adjusted depending on a situation.”
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (“Guo”) (US 20200029318 A1, effective filing date of 62/750, 982 filed Oct. 26, 2018) and Venkatraman et al. (“Venkatraman”) (US 20180324548 A1) and Jung et al. (“Jung”) (US 20180288685 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Guo-Venkatraman teaches:
The wireless communication system of claim 1.
Guo teaches QoS classes but not corresponding ranges however Jung teaches wherein dependent on the minimum needed communication range, the wireless communication system is configured to adjust a transmit power for at least one of the plurality of devices [¶0235 adjusting transmit power based on chosen resources].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo to specify a range and adjust power values as in Jung. Guo teaches prioritizing traffic and it would have been obvious to modify the transmit power based on set ranges as in Jung who teaches this overcomes the presented issue of when there is no optimum D2D resource pool determined based on the importance/usage of the message related to the D2D operation, how to transmit the message related to the D2D in ¶0008.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L. VOGEL whose telephone number is (303)297-4322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30 PM MT.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached on 571-272-3905. 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.
/JAY L VOGEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
