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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the arguments, Given that the Office Action has only relied upon Freda as disclosing the features "including location information," as recited in claims 1 and 19, and "the information comprises location information" and "is received from a second UE," as allegedly recited in claims 11 and 25, and based on the above discussion, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1, 11, 19, and 15
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of independent claims 1, 11, 19, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be withdrawn. In a like manner, it is respectfully requested that 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of dependent claims 2, 12, 20, and 26 also be withdrawn in view of their dependency on their respective allowable independent claim and for further reciting additional distinguishing features.
Examiner disagrees, looking to Barbieri in ¶ 0065:
[0065] In another aspect, a base station may provide a list of unlicensed channels (instead of a single unlicensed channel) that may be used by a group of UEs for P2P communication. The number of unlicensed channels to include in the list may be dependent on various factors such as the number of P2P links currently supported by the base station, the number of unlicensed channels with sufficient quality that do not interfere with primary users or other P2P links, the data requirements and/or priority of the UEs, etc. The UEs may initially use one unlicensed channel in the list for P2P communication. If the employed unlicensed channel becomes unavailable for whatever reason, then the UEs may automatically switch to another unlicensed channel in the list, without having to report an error event to the base station and wait for another unlicensed channel to be assigned by the base station. The assignment of the list of unlicensed channels may thus reduce outage periods because the UEs can quickly switch to another unlicensed channel.
Also, in ¶ 0067:
[0067] In one design, the list of unlicensed channels may be sorted in an order of preference, e.g., starting with the most preferred unlicensed channel and ending with the least preferred unlicensed channel. In this design, the most preferred (e.g., the first or next) unlicensed channel in the list may be selected for use when the currently employed unlicensed channel becomes unavailable. In another design, the list may be un-assorted, and the unlicensed channels in the list may be evaluated to determine the best unlicensed channel that is open for use from among those in the list.
Examiner submits that Barbieri teaches that the base station can simply hand the UE’s a list, and they will coordinate amongst themselves using that list to choose a channel for themselves. This renders obvious the claimed limitations of claims 1, 9, 19 and 25.
Additionally, Examiner thanks Applicant for bringing the transcription error for claims 9 and 25. The claims were rejected under similar rationales to claims 1 and 19, with the exception of the additional limitation that did not appear in Claims 1 and 19. This has been corrected with the current office action.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11, 12, 19, 20, 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbieri et al. (U.S. 2011/0228666), hereinafter Barbieri, in view of Freda et al. (U.S. 12,262,276), hereinafter Freda.
With respect to Claim 1, Barbieri teaches a method for wireless communications by a first user equipment (UE), comprising:
selecting, by the first UE, at least a first channel within an unlicensed band for communications with at least a second UE (¶ 0084, “In one design of block 312, the first UE may send a request for P2P communication (e.g., a P2P connection request) to the WAN. The first UE may thereafter receive at least one frequency channel in the first frequency band to use for P2P communication. In one design, the first UE may sense one or more frequency channels in the first frequency band to detect usage of the one or more frequency channels by licensed and/or unlicensed users of the first frequency band. The one or more frequency channels to sense by the first UE may be received from the WAN (e.g., as shown in FIG. 2) or may be determined by the first UE. The first UE may send sensing results to the WAN. The at least one frequency channel assigned to the first UE for P2P communication may be selected based on the sensing results.” ¶ 0065, In another aspect, a base station may provide a list of unlicensed channels (instead of a single unlicensed channel) that may be used by a group of UEs for P2P communication.) and ¶ 0067, “In another design, the list may be un-assorted, and the unlicensed channels in the list may be evaluated to determine the best unlicensed channel that is open for use from among those in the list.”); and
transmitting, by the first UE, on a licensed band, an indication of the first channel for the selection ( ¶ 0084, “In one design of block 312, the first UE may send a request for P2P communication (e.g., a P2P connection request) to the WAN. The first UE may thereafter receive at least one frequency channel in the first frequency band to use for P2P communication. In one design, the first UE may sense one or more frequency channels in the first frequency band to detect usage of the one or more frequency channels by licensed and/or unlicensed users of the first frequency band. The one or more frequency channels to sense by the first UE may be received from the WAN (e.g., as shown in FIG. 2) or may be determined by the first UE. The first UE may send sensing results to the WAN. The at least one frequency channel assigned to the first UE for P2P communication may be selected based on the sensing results.”)
Barbieri fails to teach including location information.
Freda teaches including location information (column 20, line 30-50, “In some cases, a WTRU may determine location information based on one or more PSFCH resources. Further, the WTRU's location information such as Zone ID and sub-zone ID may be associated with a PSFCH resource (e.g., including time domain, frequency domain, and code domain). In this case, the location information may not be explicitly transmitted in a PHY feedback channel, rather it may be conveyed in an implicit manner. For example, the time-frequency resource 1 may be for a subset of Zone IDs or sub-zone IDs, while the time-frequency resource 2 may be for another subset of Zone IDs or sub-zone IDs. By detecting which PSFCH resources the PHY feedback occupies, a RX WTRU may know the location information of the TX WTRU which makes the PSFCH transmissions.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Barberi with the invention of Freda to indicate the zone that the UE is in as the UE may be better at knowing it’s location than the base station or another UE is at determining it.
With respect to Claim 2, Barbieri in view of Freda teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting comprises periodically transmitting the indication of the first channel and location information in a secondary carrier information field (SCIF) (¶ 0063, “the UE may periodically interrupt P2P communication, tune its transceiver to the licensed channel, communicate with its serving base station for necessary functions (e.g., to report sensing results, error events, etc.).”)
With respect to Claim 11, Barbieri teaches a method for wireless communications by a first user equipment (UE), comprising:
receiving, from on a licensed band, an indication of a first channel within an unlicensed band for communications with the second UE (¶ 0084, “In one design of block 312, the first UE may send a request for P2P communication (e.g., a P2P connection request) to the WAN. The first UE may thereafter receive at least one frequency channel in the first frequency band to use for P2P communication. In one design, the first UE may sense one or more frequency channels in the first frequency band to detect usage of the one or more frequency channels by licensed and/or unlicensed users of the first frequency band. The one or more frequency channels to sense by the first UE may be received from the WAN (e.g., as shown in FIG. 2) or may be determined by the first UE. The first UE may send sensing results to the WAN. The at least one frequency channel assigned to the first UE for P2P communication may be selected based on the sensing results.” ¶ 0065, In another aspect, a base station may provide a list of unlicensed channels (instead of a single unlicensed channel) that may be used by a group of UEs for P2P communication.) and ¶ 0067, “In another design, the list may be un-assorted, and the unlicensed channels in the list may be evaluated to determine the best unlicensed channel that is open for use from among those in the list.”);
and transmitting, on the licensed band, an indication of a preferred channel for the preferred channel, wherein the preferred channel comprises the first channel or a second channel (¶ 0084, “In one design of block 312, the first UE may send a request for P2P communication (e.g., a P2P connection request) to the WAN. The first UE may thereafter receive at least one frequency channel in the first frequency band to use for P2P communication. In one design, the first UE may sense one or more frequency channels in the first frequency band to detect usage of the one or more frequency channels by licensed and/or unlicensed users of the first frequency band. The one or more frequency channels to sense by the first UE may be received from the WAN (e.g., as shown in FIG. 2) or may be determined by the first UE. The first UE may send sensing results to the WAN. The at least one frequency channel assigned to the first UE for P2P communication may be selected based on the sensing results.” ¶ 0065, In another aspect, a base station may provide a list of unlicensed channels (instead of a single unlicensed channel) that may be used by a group of UEs for P2P communication.) and ¶ 0067, “In another design, the list may be un-assorted, and the unlicensed channels in the list may be evaluated to determine the best unlicensed channel that is open for use from among those in the list.”);.
Barberi fails to explicitly teach the information comprises location information and is received from a second UE.
Freda teaches the information comprises location information and is received from a second UE (column 20, line 30-50, “In some cases, a WTRU may determine location information based on one or more PSFCH resources. Further, the WTRU's location information such as Zone ID and sub-zone ID may be associated with a PSFCH resource (e.g., including time domain, frequency domain, and code domain). In this case, the location information may not be explicitly transmitted in a PHY feedback channel, rather it may be conveyed in an implicit manner. For example, the time-frequency resource 1 may be for a subset of Zone IDs or sub-zone IDs, while the time-frequency resource 2 may be for another subset of Zone IDs or sub-zone IDs. By detecting which PSFCH resources the PHY feedback occupies, a RX WTRU may know the location information of the TX WTRU which makes the PSFCH transmissions.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Barberi with the invention of Freda to indicate the zone that the UE is in as the UE may be better at knowing it’s location than the base station or another UE is at determining it.
With respect to Claim 12, Barberi in view of Freda teaches the method of claim 11, Barberi teaches wherein the receiving comprises periodically receiving the indication of the first channel and location information from the second UE in a secondary carrier information field (SCIF) (¶ 0063, “the UE may periodically interrupt P2P communication, tune its transceiver to the licensed channel, communicate with its serving base station for necessary functions (e.g., to report sensing results, error events, etc.).”)
With respect to claims 19 and 20, the claim is the apparatus that corresponds to the method of claim 1 and 2, and is rejected accordingly.
With respect to claims 25 and 26, the claim is the apparatus that corresponds to the method of claim 11 and 12, and is rejected accordingly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-10, 13-18, 21-24 and 27-29 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.
Conclusion
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 ANGELA NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5PM.
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, William Trost can be reached at 571-272-7872. 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.
/ANGELA NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2442
Prosecution Insights