DETAILED ACTION
In response to communications filed 04/28/2026.
Claims 46 and 47 are canceled.
Claims 29-35, 41-43, 45 and 48 are pending for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33-35 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Examiner has been unable to locate prior art that reasonably, either singularly or in combination with cited references, would result a proper rejection that would have anticipated or made obvious the subject matter claimed in claims 33-35 and any intervening claim with proper motivation at or before the time it was effectively filed.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 29-35, 41-43, 45 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2020/0260496 A1) in view of Fodor (US 2019/0261413 A1) hereinafter “Jin” and “Fodor” respectively.
Regarding Claim 29, Jin teaches A method of operating a first communication node in a communication system supporting sidelink communication (Jin: paragraphs 0068, 0083 & Fig. 6, (first) UE supporting Vehicle-to-Vehicle communication), the method comprising:
performing sidelink communication with a second communication node (Jin: paragraphs 0068, 0071 & Fig. 6, sidelink communication between UEs and the (first) UE);
transmitting, to a base station (Jin: paragraphs 0068, 0084 & Fig. 6, eNB), user equipment (UE) assistance information including information on semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) configuration (Jin: paragraphs 0089-0091 & Fig. 6, configured sidelink SPS configuration) that is related to the sidelink communication (Jin: paragraphs 0071, 0089-0090 & Fig. 6, UE transmits (updated) UE assistance information message including traffic-related information to the base station for sidelink activation); and
receiving a message for the SPS configuration from the base station (Jin: paragraph 0090, eNB transmits a sidelink SPS signal to the UE on the basis of the information received from the UE),
wherein the UE assistance information including information on the SPS configuration is transmitted upon a change of traffic patterns (Jin paragraph 0089, when information on specific SPS traffic is changed, detects the change and reflects the changed traffic information in the UE assistance information).
Jin fails to explicitly teach selecting at least one carrier of a plurality of carriers based on a result of the CBR measurement performed on the plurality of carriers for a carrier aggregation (CA) operation, wherein the UE assistance information includes information on a carrier. However, Fodor from an analogous art similarly teaches performing sidelink-assisted Clear Channel Assessment (CCA) procedure assisted by information received by a wireless device to determine to transmit on an unlicensed channel as a result of the SLA-CCA procedure (Fodor: paragraphs 0066-0067, 0076 & Fig. 5). Fodor additionally teaches said assistance information comprises information about the status of unlicensed channels in an unlicensed spectrum (Fodor: paragraph 0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jin to include the selection of channels or carriers based on CBR for sidelink transmission as taught by Fodor so as to reduce congestion or interference in sidelink communications between devices.
Regarding Claim 30, Jin-Fodor teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further suggests determining one or more candidate carriers usable for the sidelink communication with the second communication node (Fodor: paragraph 0066-0067 & Fig. 5, determine unlicensed channels to transmit on) when the CBR in a first carrier is greater than or equal to a preconfigured threshold (Fodor: paragraph 0069, preconfigured threshold to determine whether to transmit on channels));
wherein the method further comprises:
receiving a message including new SPS configuration applied to the first carrier and the one or more candidate carriers from the base station (Fodor: paragraph 0066 & Fig. 5, receive a message to perform LBT procedure on the unlicensed channel(s) and decides that the channel is clear);
wherein the one or more candidate carriers are carriers having CBR less than the preconfigured threshold among carriers aggregated with the first carrier (Fodor: paragraph 0069, impact less than threshold). Examiner recites same reasoning to combine as presented in rejected claim 29.
Regarding Claim 31, Jin-Fodor teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further suggests wherein UE assistance information further includes information on the one or more candidate carriers and an indicator requesting distributed processing of data through the one or more candidate carriers (Fodor: paragraphs 0068-0069, requesting that the other UE decrease its transmit power on the unlicensed channel). Examiner recites same reasoning to combine as presented in rejected claim 29.
Regarding Claim 32, Jin-Fodor teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further suggests wherein the message including the new SPS configuration is a radio resource control (RRC) connection reconfiguration message (Jin: paragraph 0084 & Fig. 6, RRC connection reconfiguration message).
Regarding Claim 41, Jin-Fodor teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further suggests receiving a message for the SPS configuration from the base station (Jin: paragraph 0084 & Fig. 6, UE receives SPS-related configuration information from the eNB through RRC message).
Regarding Claim 42, Jin-Fodor teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further suggests receiving a radio resource control (RRC) message including the SPS configuration from the base station (Jin: paragraph 0084 & Fig. 6, UE receives SPS-related configuration information from the eNB through RRC message).
Regarding Claim 43, Jin teaches A first communication node in a communication system supporting sidelink communication (Jin: paragraph 0068 & Fig. 6, (first) UE supporting Vehicle-to-Vehicle communication), the first node comprising:
a transceiver (Jin: paragraph 0172 & Fig. 21, RF processing unit); and
a processor coupled to the transceiver (Jin: paragraph 0172 & Fig. 21, controller) and configured to:
perform sidelink communication with a second communication node (Jin: paragraphs 0068, 0071 & Fig. 6, sidelink communication between UEs and the (first) UE); and
transmit, to a base station (Jin: paragraphs 0068, 0070-0071 & Fig. 6, eNB), user equipment (UE) assistant information on semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) configuration (Jin: paragraphs 0089-0091 & Fig. 6, configured sidelink SPS configuration) that is related to the sidelink communication (Jin: paragraphs 0071, 0089-0090 & Fig. 6, UE transmits (updated) UE assistance information message including traffic-related information to the base station for sidelink activation); and
receive a message for the SPS configuration from the base station (Jin: paragraph 0090, eNB transmits a sidelink SPS signal to the UE on the basis of the information received from the UE),
wherein the UE assistance information including information on the SPS configuration is transmitted upon a change of traffic patterns (Jin paragraph 0089, when information on specific SPS traffic is changed, detects the change and reflects the changed traffic information in the UE assistance information).
Jin fails to explicitly teach select at least one carrier of a plurality of carriers based on a result of the CBR measurement performed on the plurality of carriers for a carrier aggregation (CA) operation, wherein the UE assistance information includes information on a carrier. However, Fodor from an analogous art similarly teaches performing sidelink-assisted Clear Channel Assessment (CCA) procedure assisted by information received by a wireless device to determine to transmit on an unlicensed channel as a result of the SLA-CCA procedure (Fodor: paragraphs 0066-0067, 0076 & Fig. 5). Fodor additionally teaches said assistance information comprises information about the status of unlicensed channels in an unlicensed spectrum (Fodor: paragraph 0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jin to include the selection of channels or carriers based on CBR for sidelink transmission as taught by Fodor so as to reduce congestion or interference in sidelink communications between devices.
Regarding Claim 45, Jin-Fodor teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further suggests wherein the message for SPS configuration is a radio resource control (RRC) message (Jin: paragraph 0084 & Fig. 6, UE receives SPS-related configuration information from the eNB through RRC message).
Regarding Claim 48, Jin-Fodor teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further suggests wherein the UE assistance information determined to be used for the at least one carrier (Jin: paragraphs 0088-0089 & 0097, SPS index indicating carriers).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NAJEEB ANSARI whose telephone number is (571)270-5446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am to 2pm.
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, ASAD NAWAZ can be reached at (571) 272-3988. 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.
/NAJEEB ANSARI/Examiner, Art Unit 2463
/ASAD M NAWAZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights