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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Applicant discloses generic transmitters and transceivers which are construed as a means for transmitting, and discloses a special purpose processor executing instructions stored in memory to perform the disclosed functions (see Fig. 8, 830, 840, [0179] disclosing “The processor 840 may be configured to execute computer-readable instructions stored in a memory (e.g., the memory 830) to cause the device 805 to perform various functions (e.g., functions or tasks supporting sidelink power control for multiplexed transmissions). For example, the device 805 or a component of the device 805 may include a processor 840 and memory 830 coupled with the processor 840, the processor 840 and memory 830 configured to perform various functions described herein.”). Examiner finds disclosure of the algorithms for performing the functions at Figs. 2-4, [0086]-[0133] of the original disclosure. Accordingly, applicant has disclosed structures such as transmitters/transceivers and special purpose processors configured to perform the functions with the algorithms for performing the functions in the portions of the disclosure identified above.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7, 9, 11-18, 20, 22-24, 26-30 and 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (US 2021/0185685 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2020/0205166 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ryu discloses a method for wireless communications at a first user equipment (UE), comprising:
transmitting to a network entity an indication that the first UE is capable of transmitting a quantity of sidelink transmissions that at least partially overlap in time and have different respective transmit powers ([0201] disclosing the terminal reporting the capability of the number of simultaneous PSFCHs that can be transmitted; [0206] disclosing the terminal transmitting a selected number of PSFCH simultaneously may configure the power of the PSFCH by the following methods; [0213]-[0215] disclosing the transmission of simultaneous PSFCH can have different transmission powers);
determining a first sidelink pathloss based at least in part on a first sidelink reference signal received from a second UE ([0214] and equation 10 disclosing “PL1”; [0215] disclosing “the first PSFCH…may be transmitted to the SL transmission terminal-1; [0102] disclosing “For SL transmission power control, an SL pathloss estimation value may be required… When the base station configures an SL DMRS or an SL CSI-RS as a signal that has to be used for pathloss estimation, the terminal may configure the SL transmission power based on the SL pathloss estimation value”);
determining a second sidelink pathloss based at least in part on a second sidelink reference signal received from a third UE ([0214] and equation 10 disclosing “PL3”; [0215] disclosing “the third PSFCH may be transmitted to the SL transmission terminal-2; [0102] disclosing “For SL transmission power control, an SL pathloss estimation value may be required… When the base station configures an SL DMRS or an SL CSI-RS as a signal that has to be used for pathloss estimation, the terminal may configure the SL transmission power based on the SL pathloss estimation value”); and
transmitting, based at least in part on transmitting the indication that the first UE is capable of transmitting the quantity of sidelink transmissions that at least partially overlap in time and have different respective transmit powers ([0201] disclosing the terminal reporting the capability of the number of simultaneous PSFCHs that can be transmitted; [0206] disclosing the terminal transmitting a selected number of PSFCH simultaneously may configure the power of the PSFCH by the following methods; [0213]-[0215] disclosing the transmission of simultaneous PSFCH can have different transmission powers), and via a first set of one or more symbols of a resource pool and at a first frequency, a first sidelink transmission to the second UE using a first transmit power that is based at least in part on the first sidelink pathloss and, via a second set of one or more symbols of the resource pool and at a second frequency, a second sidelink transmission to the third UE using a second transmit power that is different from the first transmit power and is based at least in part on the second sidelink pathloss ([0204]-[0205] disclosing a number of PFSCHs available for the reception terminal to simultaneously transmit may be configured for each reference pool which is L and L can be less than or equal to N; See Fig. 7 K3 symbols, [0128] disclosing the PSFCH includes K3 symbols; [0206] disclosing the terminal transmitting a selected number of PSFCH simultaneously may configure the power of the PSFCH by the following methods; [0214]-[0215] disclosing Method 2 transmitting N PSFCH at power PPSFCH-N based on PLN where PPSFCH-N is the transmission power of the Nth PSFCH resource and when N PSFCHs are transmitted to different SL transmission terminals some of the parameters of Equation 10 can be different. “For example, the first PSFCH and the second PSFCH may be transmitted to the SL transmission terminal-1, and the third PSFCH may be transmitted to the SL transmission terminal-2. In this case, the transmission power of each PSFCH may be different.”; Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 illustrating the structure of PSFCH comprising 1, 2 or more than two symbols in the time domain; [0137] disclosing the size of one PSFCH resource is one resource block (RB) in the frequency domain (e.g., 12 REs labelled #0-#11); [0206] disclosing “the number of PSFCHs that have to be transmitted simultaneously”), and the first sidelink transmission and the second sidelink transmission at least partially overlapping in time based at least in part on at least one symbol of the resource pool being included in both the first set of one or more symbols and the second set of one or more symbols ([0216]-[0217] disclosing techniques in which the SL reception terminal has to transmit a number of PSFCHs to one or more transmission terminals simultaneously; Fig. 7 K3 symbols, [0128] disclosing the PSFCH includes K3 symbols; [0204]-[0205] disclosing the number of PSFCH available for the UE to transmit PSFCH is L which can be less than or equal to N; (i.e. simultaneous transmission of N PSFCH in the K3 symbols)).
Ryu does not disclose the following; however, Huang discloses based at least in part on the first UE comprising a first radio frequency transmission chain and a second radio frequency transmission chain ([0333] disclosing the capability to transmit a plurality of PSFCHs on a plurality of carriers simultaneously is based on the number of transmitted (TX) radio frequency (RF) chains for transmitting sidelink transmission by the UE; and the UE may be able to perform simultaneous transmissions of PSFCH on a number of carriers that are less than or equal to the number of TX RF chains; [0337] disclosing the capability to transmit a number of PSFCHs simultaneously on a number of carriers not exceeding the number of TX RF chains; Fig. 10, [0391]-[0392]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Ryu with the techniques of Huang because the teaching lies in Huang that when the capability of the UE is exceeded, applying prioritization to determine which feedback to send ([0337]) can improve efficiency and reduce power consumption by more efficiently handling sidelink feedback collisions ([0439]).
Regarding claim 4, Ryu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a control message that indicates a mapping of the second UE to a first sidelink feedback channel group and of the third UE to a second sidelink feedback channel group, wherein the first UE transmits a first sidelink feedback channel message as the first sidelink transmission using the first transmit power and a second sidelink feedback channel message as the second sidelink transmission using the second transmit power based at least in part on receiving the control message that indicates the mapping ([0083]-[0086] disclosing the base station configures the PSFCH time/frequency resources; [0106] base station sends an SL scheduling grant including resource allocation information of a PSFCH for ACK/NACK feedback (e.g., a sidelink feedback channel group); [0195] disclosing “One SL reception terminal may receive different PSSCHs from a plurality of SL transmission terminals. In this case, the SL reception terminal may have to transmit a plurality of SL feedback channels” (e.g., first and second sidelink feedback channel groups corresponding to two different terminals) which requires determining a transmission power for the plurality of PSFCH transmissions).
Regarding claim 5, Ryu discloses the method of claim 4, wherein receiving the control message comprises:
receiving, from a network entity, a radio resource control message, a medium access control layer control element message, or a downlink control information message that indicates the mapping ([0106] base station sends the resource allocation for the PSFCH resources used for sidelink ACK/NACK feedback (e.g., downlink control information); [0195] disclosing “One SL reception terminal may receive different PSSCHs from a plurality of SL transmission terminals. In this case, the SL reception terminal may have to transmit a plurality of SL feedback channels”).
Regarding claim 7, Ryu discloses the method of claim 4, wherein receiving the control message comprises:
receiving an indication that the first sidelink reference signal is to be used for determining the first sidelink pathloss and the second sidelink reference signal is to be used for determining the second sidelink pathloss ([0102] disclosing the base station configures the SL DMRS or SL CSI-RS such that the terminal estimates pathloss based on these signals).
Regarding claim 9, Ryu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a third sidelink pathloss based at least in part on a third sidelink reference signal received from a fourth UE ([0214] and equation 10 disclosing “PLN”; [0215] disclosing N PSFCH at power PPSFCH-N based on PLN; [0216] disclosing transmitting the N PSFCH to different terminals simultaneously; [0201]); and
transmitting, using the first radio frequency transmission chain that is used to transmit the first sidelink transmission, a third sidelink transmission to the fourth UE using a third transmit power that is based at least in part on the third sidelink pathloss ([0216]-[0219] disclosing manner of setting the transmission power based on equation 10 for each of the PSFCH; Fig. 16, transceiver 1610, [0224] disclosing (e.g., a transmit chain); inherently, the techniques can be performed to transmit sidelink communications at other times and to other user equipment using the same transmit chain that was previously used for the first sidelink transmission).
Regarding claim 11, Ryu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, based at least in part on the second UE and the third UE being configured within a same sidelink feedback channel group ([0206], [0215] terminal to which the PSFCH needs to be transmitted to simultaneously is a group), a control message that indicates a first set of power control parameters to use to determine the first transmit power and a second set of power control parameters to use to determine the second transmit power ([0214]-[0215] disclosing the parameters implicitly received by the device to inform the device performing the method).
Regarding claim 12, Ryu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the first sidelink transmission and the second sidelink transmission comprises:
transmitting a first sidelink feedback channel message using the first transmit power and a second sidelink feedback channel message using the second transmit power ([0206], [0215],[0216] disclosing simultaneously transmitting PSFCH using the same or different transmission powers for each PSFCH).
Regarding claim 13, Ryu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
adjusting a transmit power of a set of transmit powers corresponding to a set of sidelink feedback channel messages associated with a sidelink feedback channel group that includes the second UE and the third UE, the adjusting based at least in part on a transmit power constraint ([0206], [0215] terminal to which the PSFCH needs to be transmitted to simultaneously is a group; [0216]-[0218] disclosing adjusting based on constraints).
Regarding claim 14, Ryu discloses the method of claim 13, wherein adjusting the transmit power comprises:
increasing or decreasing the transmit power based at least in part on a sidelink pathloss reference signal configuration at the first UE, adjusting the transmit power within a range that is defined by a minimum transmit power of the set of transmit powers and a maximum transmit power of the set of transmit powers, or any combination thereof ([0218] scaling down the to match the PSFCH with the lowest transmission power or scaling up to match the PSFCH with the highest transmission power).
Regarding claim 15, Ryu discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising:
adjusting the transmit power based at least in part on a minimum, maximum, or average of each transmit power of the set of transmit powers ([0217]-[0218]).
Regarding claim 16, Ryu discloses the method of claim 13, wherein adjusting the transmit power comprises:
identifying a highest priority sidelink transmission associated with the sidelink feedback channel group; and adjusting the transmit power based at least in part on a third transmit power of the set of transmit powers, the third transmit power for a sidelink feedback channel message of the set of sidelink feedback channel messages that corresponds to the highest priority sidelink transmission ([0217]).
Regarding claim 17, Ryu discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising:
receiving, from a network entity, an indication of a transmit power adjustment rule ([0200]-[0201] disclosing when a terminal can transmit multiple PSFCH simultaneously, the power needs to be adjusted and the base station reflects this capability to the terminal in the resource allocation of the SL feedback channel which is seen as an indication of the transmit power adjustment rule), wherein the transmit power is adjusted in accordance with the transmit power adjustment rule ([0206] disclosing the terminal transmitting a selected number of PSFCH simultaneously may configure the power of the PSFCH by the following methods; [0214]-[0215]).
Regarding claim 18, Ryu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a remaining transmit power based at least in part on the first transmit power, the second transmit power, and a transmit power constraint; and determining whether to transmit one or more additional sidelink transmissions based at least in part on the remaining transmit power ([0219] Z_dB < PCMAX and only the L PSFCHs are transmitted (e.g., determines to not transmit one or more additional PSFHCs).
Regarding claim 20, Ryu discloses the method of claim 18, wherein determining whether to transmit the one or more additional sidelink transmissions comprises:
determining to transmit at least one of the one or more additional sidelink transmissions that are associated with a same priority based at least in part on a resource block index, a subchannel index, a destination identifier, a priority of the destination identifier, or any combination thereof ([0203] PSSCH starting subchannel index; [0205] priority of the PSSCH).
Regarding claim 22, Ryu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the first sidelink transmission and the second sidelink transmission comprises:
transmitting a first sidelink control channel transmission and a second sidelink control channel transmission, a first sidelink shared channel transmission and a second sidelink shared channel transmission, or a first sidelink reference signal transmission and a second sidelink reference signal transmission (Fig. 7 illustrating the transmission time interval comprising PSFCH, [0206] disclosing the terminal transmitting a selected number of PSFCH simultaneously (e.g., each instance representing a sidelink control channel transmission); Figs. 8 and 9 DMRS in subcarrier #1 and #4 (e.g. first and second sidelink reference channel); Further, as indicated above, one PSFCH is transmitted per resource block of 12 subcarriers such that DMRS are transmitted in each resource block for each PSFCH).
Regarding claim 23, Ryu dos not expressly disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining the first transmit power, the second transmit power, or both, based at least in part on a closed-loop power control procedure. However, use of closed-loop power control is notoriously well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art and examiner takes official notice that the tradeoffs and advantages of closed-loop power control are common knowledge in the field of endeavor. Accordingly, it would merely be a matter of obvious engineering design choice to use a closed-loop power control technique. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a closed-loop power control procedure to control the transmission powers of Ryu.
Regarding claims 24, 26 and 28, the claims are directed towards an apparatus for wireless communications, comprising: at least one processor of a first user equipment (UE), a transceiver coupled with the at least one processor, and memory coupled with the at least one processor, the memory and processor configured to cause the apparatus to perform the method of claims 1, 4 and 9. Ryu discloses such implementations (Fig. 16 and Fig. 17, [0222]-[0238]); therefore, claims 24-26 and 28 are rejected on the grounds presented above for claims 1-2, 4 and 9.
Regarding claim 27, Ryu discloses the apparatus of claim 24, the memory and the at least one processor further configured to cause the apparatus to:
transmit, to a fourth UE via the transceiver, a third sidelink feedback channel message using the first transmit power that is based at least in part on the first sidelink pathloss in accordance with the fourth UE being grouped with the second UE for sidelink feedback channel transmission ([0195] One SL reception terminal may receive different PSSCHs from a plurality of SL transmission terminals. In this case, the SL reception terminal may have to transmit a plurality of SL feedback channels.; [0214] and equation 10 disclosing “PLN”; [0215] disclosing N PSFCH at power PPSFCH-N based on PLN; [0216] disclosing transmitting the N PSFCH to different terminals simultaneously; [0201]).
Regarding claim 29, the claim is directed towards a combination of means for performing the method of claim 1, Ryu discloses equivalent means ([0234] disclosing “The methods according to the embodiments of the disclosure described in the claims or specification of the disclosure” may be implemented by hardware or a combination of hardware and software.); accordingly, claim 29 is rejected on the grounds presented above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 30, the claim is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communications at a first user equipment (UE), the code comprising instructions executable by a processor to perform the method of claim 1. Ryu discloses such implementations ([0235]-[0238]); therefore, claim 30 is rejected on the grounds presented above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 32, Ryu does not expressly disclose the following; however, examiner takes official notice that it is notoriously well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that individual transceivers (i.e., transmission chains) comprise a set of radio frequency components comprising a first antenna panel, a first beamforming controller, a first baseband module, a first digital-to-analog converter, a first baseband processing component, or any combination thereof.
Further, Huang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
transmitting the first sidelink transmission comprises transmitting the first sidelink transmission via the first radio frequency transmission chain; and transmitting the second sidelink transmission comprises transmitting the second sidelink transmission via the second radio frequency transmission chain ([0333] disclosing the capability to transmit a plurality of PSFCHs on a plurality of carriers simultaneously is based on the number of transmitted (TX) radio frequency (RF) chains for transmitting sidelink transmission by the UE; and the UE may be able to perform simultaneous transmissions of PSFCH on a number of carriers that are less than or equal to the number of TX RF chains; [0337] disclosing the capability to transmit a number of PSFCHs simultaneously on a number of carriers not exceeding the number of TX RF chains; Fig. 10, [0391]-[0392]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Ryu with the techniques of Huang because the teaching lies in Huang that when the capability of the UE is exceeded, applying prioritization to determine which feedback to send ([0337]) can improve efficiency and reduce power consumption by more efficiently handling sidelink feedback collisions ([0439]).
Regarding claim 33, The combination of Ryu and Huang suggest the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the indication that the first UE is capable of transmitting the quantity of sidelink transmissions that at least partially overlap in time and have different respective transmit powers comprises:
transmitting an indication that the first UE comprises the first radio frequency transmission chain and the second radio frequency transmission chain (Ryu: [0201] disclosing the terminal reporting the capability of the number of simultaneous PSFCHs that can be transmitted; [0206] disclosing the terminal transmitting a selected number of PSFCH simultaneously may configure the power of the PSFCH by the following methods; [0213]-[0215] disclosing the transmission of simultaneous PSFCH can have different transmission powers; Huang: [0333] disclosing the capability to transmit a plurality of PSFCHs on a plurality of carriers simultaneously is based on the number of transmitted (TX) radio frequency (RF) chains for transmitting sidelink transmission by the UE; and the UE may be able to perform simultaneous transmissions of PSFCH on a number of carriers that are less than or equal to the number of TX RF chains; [0337] disclosing the capability to transmit a number of PSFCHs simultaneously on a number of carriers not exceeding the number of TX RF chains; Fig. 10, [0391]-[0392]) such that the UE is capable of transmitting simultaneous transmissions with different transmit powers (The broadest reasonable interpretation of this feature is that it represents the intended use of the claimed method and is not considered limiting to the claimed invention. Further, as can be seen from the cited portions of Ryu, such simultaneous communication capabilities provide for such results).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Ryu with the techniques of Huang because the teaching lies in Huang that when the capability of the UE is exceeded, applying prioritization to determine which feedback to send ([0337]) can improve efficiency and reduce power consumption by more efficiently handling sidelink feedback collisions ([0439]).
Regarding claim 34, Ryu suggests the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the indication that the first UE is capable of transmitting the quantity of sidelink transmissions that at least partially overlap in time and have different respective transmit powers comprises:
transmitting an indication that the first UE supports a quantity of sidelink feedback channel groups, wherein the first sidelink transmission is transmitted to the second UE and the second sidelink transmission is transmitted to the third UE based at least in part on the indication that the first UE supports the quantity of sidelink feedback channel groups ([0204] disclosing capability of simultaneous PSFCHs; [0215] disclosing the first and second PSFCH (i.e., sidelink feedback group) may be transmitted to SL transmission terminal-1, and the third PSFCH (i.e., another sidelink feedback group ) may be transmitted to transmission terminal-3).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (US 2021/0185685 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2020/0205166 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, further in view of Charbit et al. (US 2012/0106517 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ryu discloses the method of claim 4, wherein receiving the control message comprises:
receiving from a network entity a downlink control information message that indicates the mapping ([0106] base station sends the resource allocation for the PSFCH resources used for sidelink ACK/NACK feedback (e.g., downlink control information); [0195] disclosing “One SL reception terminal may receive different PSSCHs from a plurality of SL transmission terminals. In this case, the SL reception terminal may have to transmit a plurality of SL feedback channels”).
Ryu does not disclose the following; however, Charbit discloses receiving, from the second UE, the third UE, or both, a sidelink radio resource control message, a sidelink medium access control layer control element message, or a sidelink control information message that indicates the mapping ([0035] disclosing a base station designates a group of UEs for sidelink (e.g., D2D) communication; [0036] the base station designates a group head responsible for receiving the resource allocation for the group and the group head can then independently allocate the resources granted by the eNB 105 to the other UEs within the group).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the techniques of Ryu as taught by Charbit because the teaching lies therein that such scheduling techniques overcome challenges in view of the many processes that are concurrently performed during direct device-to-device (D2D) communications within a network environment in which said processes lead to reduced efficiency of resource allocation procedures for D2D communication.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (US 2021/0185685 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2020/0205166 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Wu et al. (US 2019/0124490 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Ryu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting, to a fourth UE, a third sidelink feedback channel message using the first transmit power that is based at least in part on the first sidelink pathloss in accordance with the fourth UE being grouped with the second UE for sidelink feedback channel transmission ([0195] One SL reception terminal may receive different PSSCHs from a plurality of SL transmission terminals. In this case, the SL reception terminal may have to transmit a plurality of SL feedback channels.; [0214] and equation 10 disclosing “PLN”; [0215] disclosing N PSFCH at power PPSFCH-N based on PLN; [0216] disclosing transmitting the N PSFCH to different terminals simultaneously[; [0210]).
Ryu does not disclose the following; however, Wu suggests wherein the fourth UE is grouped with the second UE based at least in part on a beam configuration used to communicate with the UE and the second UE (Fig. 4, TX UE 405, RX UE 415, Neighbor UE 425, Beam 3, [0055] disclosing the TX UE 405 determines that a third beam (shown as Beam 3) is to be used to communicate with a third neighbor UE 425 (associated with NV3) and the receiver UE 415.).
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 Ryu with the teaching in Wu because this allows the transmitter UE to simultaneously transmit to multiple receivers in different beams ([0058]) allowing for more efficient scheduling and reduced interference ([0050]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (US 2021/0185685 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2020/0205166 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0159583 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Ryu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining to use the first sidelink reference signal for determining the first sidelink pathloss; and determining to use the second sidelink reference signal for determining the second sidelink pathloss ([0102] disclosing the base station configures the SL DMRS or SL CSI-RS such that the terminal estimates pathloss based on these signals).
Ryu does not disclose the following; however, Wang suggests using respective sidelink reference signals for determining pathloss based at least in part on a first beam used to communicate with the second UE and based at least in part on a second beam used to communicate with the third UE ([0076] disclosing the power control uses the best sidelink beam between UEs; [0080] disclosing the UE determines the pathloss based on sidelink reference signal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective, filing date of the invention to modify Ryu as taught by Wu because this leads to optimized power control including dynamic power control and increased flexibility in power control ([0035], [0038], [0034]. [0074], [0078]).
Claim(s) 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (US 2021/0185685 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2020/0205166 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, further in view of 3GPP TS 38.213 V16.7.0 (2021-09); 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network NR; Physical Layer Procedures for control (Release 16).
Regarding claim 19, Ryu discloses the field of endeavor as New Radio ([0003]) but does not disclose the following; however, TS 38.213 suggests the method of claim 18, wherein determining whether to transmit the one or more additional sidelink transmissions comprises:
determining to not transmit the one or more additional sidelink transmissions based at least in part on the one or more additional sidelink transmissions being associated with a same priority and being associated with transmit powers that are greater than the remaining transmit power (Section 16.2.3, pg. 166 last eight lines and pg. 167 first four lines disclosing transmitting priorities up to K satisfying power ≤ PCMAX; where priority K+1 is not transmitted).
Considering this in-common architecture, coexistence of the cited teachings/components (i.e., use of 3GPP TS 38.213 in the new radio field of endeavor of Ryu) is clearly prima facie obvious. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007) ("To determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the way a patent claims, it will often be necessary to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents ... ") (addressing Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1965)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement Ryu to follow the technical specifications of new radio.
Regarding claim 21, Ryu discloses the field of endeavor as New Radio ([0003]) but does not disclose the following; however, TS 38.213 suggests the method of claim 18, wherein determining whether to transmit the one or more additional sidelink transmissions comprises:
determining to transmit at least one of the one or more additional sidelink transmissions that are associated with a same priority based at least in part on a lowest transmit power associated with the at least one of the one or more additional sidelink transmissions (Section 16.2.3, pg. 166 last eight lines and pg. 167 first four lines; in particular the equation on line two of pg. 167).
Considering this in-common architecture, coexistence of the cited teachings/components (i.e., use of 3GPP TS 38.213 in the new radio field of endeavor of Ryu) is clearly prima facie obvious. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007) ("To determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the way a patent claims, it will often be necessary to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents ... ") (addressing Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1965)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement Ryu to follow the technical specifications of new radio.
Response to Arguments
Official Notice
“Allegations concerning specific “knowledge” of the prior art which might be peculiar to a particular art should be supported and appellant similarly given the opportunity to make a challenge…Where the appellant has failed to challenge a fact judicially noticed and it is clear that he has been amply apprised of such a finding so as to have the opportunity to make such a challenge, the boards finding will be considered conclusive by this court.” Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420.
Examiner has taken official notice with respect to features in claim 23 in the first Office action of the instant application mailed on 23 June 2023 which was not traversed by applicant in responses filed 22 September 2023, 17 January 2024, 25 March 2024, 11 July 2024, 11 March 2025, 27 June 2025 or in the interviews on 20 February 2024 (summary mailed on 26 February 2024) and 03 June 2025 (summary mailed on 05 June 2025). Further, examiner has taken official notice with respect to features in claim 32 in the non-final Office action mailed on 27 March 2026 which was not traversed in responses filed 27 June 2025 and 14 November 2025 or in the interview on 03 June 2025 (summary mailed on 05 June 2025). Accordingly, applicant has been amply apprised of the official notice so as to have the opportunity to traverse the official notice, yet failed to do so. It is noted that examiner clearly indicated in the final Office action mailed on 14 August 2025 that the common knowledge or well-known statement is taken to be admitted art according to patent examination procedure.
“If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice…the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant…failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice… See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420 (MPEP 2144.03 C).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments, hereafter “remarks”, filed 20 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Ryu does not “mention a UE reporting a capability related to supporting different transmission powers.” In response to applicant's assertion, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “reporting a capability related to supporting different transmission powers”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The disputed feature appears to be, “transmitting to a network entity an indication that the first UE is capable of transmitting a quantity of sidelink transmissions that at least partially overlap in time and have different respective transmit powers.” Examiner maintains that Ryu provides a prima facie showing of “an indication” the first UE is capable of transmitting a quantity of sidelink transmissions that at least partially overlap in time and have different respective transmit powers. As evidenced by the portions of Ryu applicant points to in the remarks. Applicant admits that Ryu discloses A UE reports to the base station the capability of the number N of PSFCHs that the UE is capable of transmitting simultaneously and that Ryu discloses that when a UE can transmit N PSFCHs, and that Ryu discloses the transmission power of each PSFCH may be different. Based solely on this admission, it would appear that the capability reported to the base station implicitly indicates the capability to simultaneously transmit PSFCHs at different powers. Applicant’s argument ignores a long held position of the Office, as well as elides an important detail in the disclosure of Ryu at [0215], namely, “When N PSFCHs are transmitted to different SL transmission terminals, at least one of the above-described parameters may be different. For example, the first PSFCH and the second PSFCH may be transmitted to the SL transmission terminal-1, and the third PSFCH may be transmitted to the SL transmission terminal-2. In this case, the transmission power of each PSFCH may be different.” Thus it would appear, in light of these facts, that the capability of the number N of simultaneous PSFCH transmissions inherently indicates the transmission power of each PSFCH may be different when N are transmitted simultaneously. (Ryu: [0201], [0206], [0213]-[0215]).
Applicant asserts this is the basis for asserting Ryu does not disclose, "transmitting to a network entity, based at least in part on the first UE comprising a first radio frequency transmission chain and a second radio frequency transmission chain, an indication that the first UE is capable of transmitting a quantity of sidelink transmissions that at least partially overlap in time and have different respective transmit powers." It is noted that the grounds of rejection makes no such assertion and applicant appears to be arguing against a reference individually in an attempt to rebut and obviousness rejection based on a combination of references.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant points to Ryu [0204] and [0216] and asserts that this, “ explicitly describes that transmissions within a same resource pool must have an identical transmission power.” Applicant’s argument is flawed because this ignores disclosure of Ryu at [0205], “As described above, when L is set in the resource pool (L≤N), the SL reception terminal may have to transmit a smaller number of PSFCHs than N at the time of PSFCH transmission. In another example, due to a shortage of PSFCH resources, the SL reception terminal may have to transmit a smaller number of PSFCHs than N at the time of PSFCH transmission. In this case, an operation of selecting L PSFCH transmission candidates from among N PSFCH transmission candidates may be added. And at [0216], “When the SL reception terminal has to transmit the L PSFCHs among the N PSFCHs to the same transmission terminal or different transmission terminals simultaneously, the transmission power for each PSFCH needs to be configured identical.” Thus, while it is true that L is set for a resource pool, the requirement for identical transmission power is when the number L of simultaneous PSFCH transmissions is less than N. This does not overcome the fact that Ryu discloses L can be equal to N at [0205], “L is set in the resource pool (L ≤ N)”; and at [0215], “[w]hen N PSFCHs are transmitted”; as opposed to, L among N with L being less than N, “the transmission power of each PSFCH may be different.”
Applicant’s argument appears to be flawed in more ways than one. Firstly, Ryu discloses, “terminals having capabilities of N=4, N=3, and N=2 have to transmit PSFCHs, respectively, in one resource pool, L may be equal to 2 in the corresponding resource pool (L=2). Then a terminal with N=4 would need to transmit L among N at identical powers; while on the other hand, a terminal with N=2 operating in the same resource pool would not be so constrained and cold transmit N PSFCHs with different transmit powers. Thus, it appears that applicant is misreading Ryu because this does not appear to limit the transmission power to be identical in the “same resource pool” as asserted by applicant.
Secondly, is L=4 in a resource pool and a plurality of terminals having N=4 are operating in said resource pool, then they can all transmit N simultaneous PSFCHs in the resource pool with different transmission powers because the terminals are not limited to transmitting a smaller number than N in a resource pool with L=N.
Thus, it appears that Ryu teaches exactly the opposite of applicant’s assertion, namely, Ryu does not teach, “transmissions within a same resource pool must have an identical transmission power” as asserted by applicant. Rather, Ryu teaches transmission power can be different in any resource pool, and must be identical only when the capability of the terminal exceeds the configured L in a resource pool. Furthermore, the detailed manner in which the terminals must behave in the invention of Ryu based on how L is configured in comparison to the capability N reported by the terminal, as discussed above, further supports the notion that Ryu discloses, “transmitting to a network entity an indication that the first UE is capable of transmitting a quantity of sidelink transmissions that at least partially overlap in time and have different respective transmit powers”.
Applicant continues the argument (remarks: last paragraph at pg. 15 continued on pg. 16), with the assertion that simply is not supported by Ryu “PSFCH transmissions in the same resource pool must have identical transmission powers”. As indicated above, while it is one possible outcome, Ryu simply does not indicate this is a requirement.
Applicant again admits on the record the express disclosure of in Ryu that cannot be overcome by argument. Namely, “when N PSFCHs are transmitted to different SL transmission terminals, "at least one of the above-described parameters may be different" such that "the transmission power of each PSFCH may be different." (pg. 16, lines 8-10). Applicant’s further statements on pg. 16 ignore the disclosure of Ryu with respect to when the, “terminal may have to transmit a smaller number of PSFCHs than N at the time of PSFCH transmission. In this case, an operation of selecting L PSFCH transmission candidates from among N PSFCH transmission candidates.” ([0205]); and “When the SL reception terminal has to transmit the L PSFCHs among the N PSFCHs to the same transmission terminal or different transmission terminals simultaneously, the transmission power for each PSFCH needs to be configured identical.” ([0216]). While applicant glosses over the L among N aspect in the disclosure at [0216], even though Ryu discloses in the L among N embodiment that the transmission powers have to be identical, this is expressly disclosed as when the terminal has to transmit a smaller number of PSFCHs than N. Applicant’s assertion that the disclosure of Ryu at [0215] “may apply to non-simultaneous transmissions” (remarks, pg. 16, lines 14-16) is not supported by any factual basis and Ryu clearly discloses at [0206] that when a terminal has selected the number of PSFCHs that have to be transmitted simultaneously, the terminal “may configure the transmission power of the PSFCH by using at least one of the following methods.” Method 1 is described starting at [0207], method 2 is disclosed at [0214] –[0215] where the express disclosure in Ryu that applicant has clearly admitted on the record is found. Namely, when the terminal simultaneously transmits N PSFCHs, the transmission power of each PSFCH may be different.
Applicant asserts that Ryu teaches away (remarks beginning at the third paragraph of pg. 16 continued to pg. 17, line 19). The assertion that Ryu teaches away cannot be held as persuasive. As discussed above, method 2 is one manner in which the terminal may set the transmission powers for each PSFCH differently for N simultaneous PSFCH transmissions. The portions of Ryu that applicant cite in support of this assertion are directed to further modification of method 2 (i.e. method 2-A and method 2-B) which apply to the aforementioned L among N embodiment, while method 2 applies to transmission of N simultaneous PSFCHs (i.e., the terminal transmitting the full capability of N simultaneous PSFCHs (method 2); as opposed to being limited to transmission of less than N simultaneous PSFCHs (methods 2-A and 2-B).
Applicant asserts that the grounds of rejection relies on an improper dissection of the features of the claim and an improper evaluation of those features in isolation (remarks, pg. 18, lines 7-17). Applicant does not provide any factual reasoning in support of this assertion and instead segways into the assertion “Ryu and Huang-alone or in any combination-do not teach or suggest at least "an indication that the first UE is capable of transmitting a quantity of sidelink transmissions that at least partially overlap in time and have different respective transmit powers." Examiner has already addressed above how Ryu appears to disclose these features.
Applicant argues that Huang does not disclose certain features in the claims. The reference of record Ryu is relied upon for disclosure of said features and there is no burden on examiner to show features in a secondary reference that are satisfied by the disclosure of Ryu. In response to said arguments, 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).
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wu et al. (US 2021/0058877 A1).
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 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