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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ arguments filed on 28 March 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 30 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 30 recites “the second terminal” at line 9, which appears to lack antecedent basis. Claim 34 is similarly rejected. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 30, 33, 34, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al (US Pub. 2020/0260413) in view of Shilov et al. (US 2020/0374861) and further in view of Lee et al. (US 10,785,618).
Regarding claim 30, Hong discloses:
“a first terminal comprising:
Memory storing instructions; and
a processor operatively connected with the memory,”Hong discloses a method performed by a terminal (user equipment) configured for sidelink communication, including transmitting sidelink control information (SCI) and data to another terminal. (para. 72)
“wherein the processor is configured to:
… transmit, to a second terminal, sidelink control information (SCI) comprising information related to the N resources…”Hong discloses transmitting SCI from a first terminal to a second terminal, where the SCI includes information related to sidelink resource usage. (fig. 12, step S1240; para. 10, 72, 94, 98, 102)
Hong does not specifically disclose:
“determining N resources that have time-domain offsets, with respect to a reference resource, below a threshold offset T in a time slot, wherein a value of the threshold offset T is preconfigured;”
However, Shilov from an analogous art discloses:
“determining N resources that have time-domain offsets, with respect to a reference resource…”Shilov discloses selecting multiple sidelink resources within a time-domain resource selection window and applying temporal constraints relative to another resource. For example:
“resources of the set may be excluded within a time interval (THARQ) from a previously selected resource” (¶16)
This teaches determining resources based on temporal distance relative to another resource, thereby establishing a reference-based temporal relationship between resources.
“…below a threshold offset T in a time slot…”Shilov further discloses that the temporal span of selected resources is bounded. Specifically:
“the duration of a scheduling window may be determined by the maximum possible time gap between the first and last … resource indicated by a given SCI transmission” (¶24)
This teaches that the temporal separation between selected resources is limited by a maximum allowable time gap, i.e., a bounded temporal range.
“…wherein a value of the threshold offset T is preconfigured;”Shilov further teaches that such temporal bounds are configurable or predefined:
“Scheduling window duration (TSW) can be either predefined by a specification or configurable” (¶24)
and
“the scheduling window … comprising a predetermined number of slots” (¶13)
This teaches that the temporal constraint governing resource selection is based on preconfigured values.
Additionally, Lee from an analogous art discloses:
“time-domain offsets, with respect to a reference resource…”Lee discloses that SCI includes fields indicating relative temporal relationships between resources, including:
“time gap (TGAP_INIRETX) between transmission start and retransmission” (col. 77:44–47)
and
“frequency resource position (FRA_INRETX) of the transmission start and retransmission” (col. 77:47–50)
This teaches that SCI encodes relative temporal and frequency relationships between resources, including defining a second resource relative to a first resource.
“SCI comprising information related to the N resources.”Lee discloses that SCI includes multiple fields identifying resource-related parameters, including temporal (time gap) and frequency resource positions, thereby teaching that SCI conveys information related to multiple resources and their relationships.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hong to determine sidelink resources using the time-domain selection techniques of Shilov and to signal the selected resources and their temporal relationships as taught by Lee, in order to efficiently schedule multiple sidelink transmissions and avoid resource conflicts.
Further, it would have been obvious to express the temporal constraints taught by Shilov—namely, (i) exclusion based on temporal distance relative to another resource (¶16), and (ii) a bounded maximum time gap between resources (¶24)—in terms of time-domain offsets relative to a reference resource compared to a threshold offset T, since representing temporal constraints using a threshold is a predictable implementation technique that simplifies comparison operations and enables configurable control. Because Shilov teaches that such temporal bounds are predefined or configurable, the threshold offset T would likewise be preconfigured.
Regarding claims 33 and 37, further discloses wherein
a value of the N is preconfigured (para. 98, When there is a small number of transmission UEs which intend to transmit sidelink data/packets in one cell, the transmission UEs can use contiguous frequency resources (e.g., contiguous RBs). In this case, contiguous allocation that can reduce inband emission can be used.; fig. 16 depicting contiguous subchannels being transmitted before a first time x+T; para. 115, 117).
Claim 34 recites a method corresponding to a first terminal of claim 30, and is thus similarly rejected.
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 LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marcus SmithAsad Nawaz can be reached on (571) 270-1096. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468