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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites limitation “convey information indicating a service parameter indicative of a format to be used for a message to a neighboring UE”. However, according to Fig. 9 and its related paragraphs, [0148], the original specification only discloses internal layer-to-layer conveyance within the UE. There is no apparent disclosure of the UE sending service parameter outward to a neighboring UE as distinct signaling step.
Claim 3-16 are dependent claims of Claim 2, thus are rejected for the same deficiency.
Claim 17 recites limitation “convey information indicating one or more parameters indicative of a radio access technology (RAT) to be used for a message to a neighboring UE”. However, according to Fig. 10 and its related paragraphs, [0152], the original specification only discloses internal layer-to-layer conveyance within the UE. There is no apparent disclosure of the UE sending RAT-indicative parameter outward to a neighboring UE as distinct signaling step.
Claim 18-30 are dependent claims of Claim 17, thus are rejected for the same deficiency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites limitation “convey information indicating a service parameters indicative of a format to be used for a message to a neighboring UE”. The above limitation has no corresponding embodiment in the specification, the scope of the limitation is also indefinite, as a reasonable person skill in the art cannot determine what specific act of conveyance is claimed.
Claim 3-16 are dependent claims of Claim 2, thus are rejected for the same deficiency.
Claim 17 recites limitation “convey information indicating one or more parameters indicative of a radio access technology (RAT) to be used for a message to a neighboring UE”. The above limitation has no corresponding embodiment in the specification, the scope of the limitation is also indefinite, as a reasonable person skill in the art cannot determine what specific act of conveyance is claimed.
Claim 18-30 are dependent claims of Claim 17, thus are rejected for the same deficiency.
For the purpose of examination, the claims are interpreted as Examiner’s best understanding.
Claim 29 recites limitation “instantiate a long term evolution (LTE) channel for communications with the neighboring UE by default; and generate a next generation new radio (NR) channel dynamically based at least in part on receipt of a message from the neighboring UE triggering the generation of the NR channel”. Claim 17, a parent claim of claim 29, requires instantiate “a channel” for communications with the neighboring UE according to a single selected RAT. Claim 29, as a dependent claim, purports to further limit claim 17 by requiring two simultaneous channels – an LTE channel instantiated “by default” and a dynamically generated NR channel. A dependent claim may not contradict or expand the scope of its parent claim.
In addition, the term “by default” in claim 29 is used without definition in the specification and without objective criteria establishing when the default condition applies or cease to apply. Specifically, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine: 1) what condition or event initiates the default LTE channel; 2) whether the LTE channel is maintained after the NR channel is generated; 3) whether “by default” means always on regardless of conveyed RAT parameters, or only when parameters are absent; and 4) how the default interacts with claim 17’s requirement to instantiate a channel “according to the RAT” determined form the conveyed parameters.
Claim 14 is internally inconsistent with claim 10 and 12 from which it depends, rendering the claim indefinite. Claim 10 requires receiving message from the neighboring UE and determining therefrom that the neighboring UE supports the second format. Claim 12 requires decoding the header of those same messages to determine second format support. Claim 14 requires those same messages to be “configured according to the first format”. A person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty how messages configured in the first (legacy) format simultaneously serve as the basis for determining that the neighboring UE supports the second (newer) format as required by claims 10 and 12. This internal contradiction renders the scope of claim 14 irresolvable ambiguous.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-4, 8-9, 17-19, 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kedalagudde et al (US 2019/0150082 A1), hereinafter as “Ked”.
Regarding claim 2, Ked teaches an apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory, wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to:
convey information indicating a service parameter indicative of a format to be used for a message internally within the UE (Fig. 11, [0093], “the V2X UE 1102 may be capable of carrier aggregation and may have established a data link with both the 5G RSU 1104 using the 5G RAT and the DSRC RSU 1108 using the DSRC RAT. The V2X UE 1102 may initiate use of a first application (App03). The V2X UE 1102 may determine from the V2X category ID.fwdarw.RAT ID mapping table 1120 that App03 belongs to application category 2, for which use of the 5G RAT is preferred at operation 1326”, also see Fig. 11; it’s noted that different RAT, such as 5G, LTE, and DSRC inherently use different format at physical layer, Mac layer);
generate, based at least in part on the information indicating the service parameter indicative of the format to be used for the message to the neighboring UE, the message in the format; and transmit the message to the neighboring UE (see [0094], “The V2X UE 1102 may then establish a data link for App03 with the 5G RSU 1104 using a first set of 5G subcarriers. Thus, at operation 1328 the V2X UE 1102 may communicate a message (data) via the selected RAT”; also see Fig. 11; it’s noted that the selected RAT would have its corresponding message format).
Regarding claim 3, Ked further teaches the message is associated with a service and wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to: select a service identifier associated with the service ([0113], “the mapping table provides a mapping between provider service identifiers (PSIDs) of the V2X applications to V2X application categories and an association between each V2X, application category and an associated RAT”).
Regarding claim 4, Ked further teaches the association between the service parameter and the service identifier is configured by the UE ([0093], “The V2X UE 1102 may determine from the V2X category ID.fwdarw.RAT ID mapping table 1120 that App03 belongs to application category 2, for which use of the 5G RAT is preferred at operation 1326”).
Regarding claim 8, Ked further teaches the instructions are executable by the processor to: generate the message as a version of multiple different versions of vehicle-to- everything (V2X) messages (Ked, [0090], Fig. 11 disclose a multi-RAT system; it’s noted that V2X UE generates different versions of messages depending on which RAT is selected).
Regarding claim 9, Ked further teaches the instructions are executable by the processor to: communicate a safety message associated with vehicle-based operations (Ked, [0089], V2V messages; it’s noted that Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication is a wireless safety technology allowing vehicles to transmit data (position, speed, braking status) within a ~300-meter range, primarily to prevent crashes”).
Regarding claim 17, Ked et al (US 2019/0150082 A1) teaches an apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and
instructions stored in the memory, wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to:
convey information indicating one or more parameters indicative of a radio access technology (RAT) to be used for a message internally within the UE (Fig. 11, [0093], “the V2X UE 1102 may be capable of carrier aggregation and may have established a data link with both the 5G RSU 1104 using the 5G RAT and the DSRC RSU 1108 using the DSRC RAT. The V2X UE 1102 may initiate use of a first application (App03). The V2X UE 1102 may determine from the V2X category ID.fwdarw.RAT ID mapping table 1120 that App03 belongs to application category 2, for which use of the 5G RAT is preferred at operation 1326”, also see Fig. 11; it’s noted that different RAT, such as 5G, LTE, and DSRC are available for transmission; in addition, RSU can be considered as a type of UE); and
instantiate, based at least in part on the information indicating the one or more parameters indicative of the RAT to be used for the message to the neighboring UE, a channel for communications with the neighboring UE according to the RAT (see [0094], “The V2X UE 1102 may then establish a data link for App03 with the 5G RSU 1104 using a first set of 5G subcarriers. Thus, at operation 1328 the V2X UE 1102 may communicate a message (data) via the selected RAT”; also see Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 18, Ked further teaches the instructions are executable by the processor to: select the one or more parameters indicative of the RAT to be used for the message based at least in part on the UE being configured to transmit the message to the neighboring UE via multiple protocols (Fig. 11, a V2X UE configured to transmit via three distinct protocols - LTE, 5G NR and DSRC; [0091]).
Regarding claim 19, Ked further teaches the instructions are executable by the processor to: identify one or more of a quality of service (QoS) metric, a proximity service (ProSe) per-packet priority (PPPP), a service identifier, or an identifier associated with a layer two identifier (L2ID), associated with the communications with the neighboring UE, wherein the one or more parameters comprise one or more of the QoS metric, the PPPP, the service identifier, or the L2ID ([0135], “the RAT selection is dependent on the V2X UE requesting the RAT or a Quality of Service (QoS) at every packet transmission”).
Regarding claim 26, Ked further teaches the communications with the neighboring UE comprise one or more of a supported broadcast traffic function, a safety message function, a scheduling assignment, a carrier aggregation, a modulation and coding scheme (MCS), or a transmission time interval (Ked, [0027], “V2X communications may contain four types: Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V)”, it’s noted that Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication is a wireless safety technology allowing vehicles to transmit data (position, speed, braking status) within a ~300-meter range, primarily to prevent crashes”).
Regarding claim 27, Ked further teaches that the communications with the neighboring UE comprise a message associated with vehicle-based operations (Ked, [0027], “V2X communications may contain four types: Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V)”, it’s noted that Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication is a wireless safety technology allowing vehicles to transmit data (position, speed, braking status) within a ~300-meter range, primarily to prevent crashes”).
Regarding claim 28, Ked further teaches the instructions are executable by the processor to: access a preconfigured rule, a rule received from a network entity, or combinations thereof, to select the one or more parameters (Ked, [0140], receiving a geographically-limited, operator-independent mapping table from a radio access network (RAN), the mapping table comprising a mapping between groups of V2X applications each associated with a different application category and a different radio access technology (RAT) for the V2X application category, each grouping of the V2X applications based on fulfillment of a key performance indicator (KPI) for the associated V2X application category; it’s noted that said mapping table is preconfigured rule).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5, 16, 20-21, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kedalagudde et al (US 2019/0150082 A1), in view of 3GPP, “3GPP TS 23.285 version 14.2.0”.
Regarding claim 5, Ked teaches all of the limitations except that classifying the message based at least in part on a service identifier. 3GPP teaches the above limitation (page 18, Section 4.4.3.2, V2X messages are classified based on PSID or ITS-AID).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art implementing Ked’s system would necessarily consult and apply 3GPP as the governing standard – prior art in the same field of endeavor is presumptively combinable.
Regarding claim 16, the aforementioned references further teach that the instructions are executable by the processor to: convey the information indicating the service parameter from a first layer of the UE to a second layer of the UE, the first layer being an upper layer with respect to the second layer (3GPP, page 20, 1st paragraph, “The application layer sets the PPPP for each V2X message when passing it to lower layer for transmission. The mapping of application layer V2X message priority to PPPP is configuration on the UE; it’s noted that the application layer (first layer/upper layer) passes PPPP parameters (RAT-indicative parameters ) to the lower access stratum layer (second/lower layer)).
Regarding claim 20, Kedalagudde teaches all of the limitations except that the instructions are executable by the processor to: configure each packet of one or more packets to indicate one or more of the QoS metric, the PPPP, the service identifier, or the L2ID, to a second layer that is a lower layer of the UE. 3GPP teaches the above limitation (page 20, 1st paragraph, “The application layer sets the PPPP for each V2X message when passing it to lower layer for transmission. The mapping of application layer V2X message priority to PPPP is configuration on the UE. The setting of the PPPP value should reflect the latency required in both UE and eNB, i.e. the low PDB is mapped to the high priority PPPP value”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to naturally incorporate the per-packet PPPP lower-layer indication mechanism of 3GPP, as this was the established standard V2X protocol architecture for passing per packet priority and identification parameter from the application layer to the access stratum for V2X sidelink transmission. No creative step beyond routine implementation would have been required.
Regarding claim 21, the aforementioned references further teach the QoS metric is associated with a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) QoS class identifier (VQI) (3GPP, page 20, Section 4.4.5.2, “QOS handling for V2X communication”, QCI 3 and QCI 79 can be used for the unicast delivery of V2X messages; it’s noted that QCI stands for QoS Class Identifiers ).
Regarding claim 30, the aforementioned references further teach the instructions are executable by the processor to: convey the information indicating the one or more parameters from a first layer of the UE to a second layer of the UE, the first layer being an upper layer with respect to the second layer (3GPP, page 20, 1st paragraph, “The application layer sets the PPPP for each V2X message when passing it to lower layer for transmission. The mapping of application layer V2X message priority to PPPP is configuration on the UE; it’s noted that the application layer (first layer/upper layer) passes PPPP parameters (RAT-indicative parameters ) to the lower access stratum layer (second/lower layer)).
Claim 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kedalagudde et al (US 2019/0150082 A1), in view of 3GPP, “3GPP TS 23.285 version 14.2.0”, further in view of Kim et al (US 2019/0230723 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the aforementioned references teach all of the limitations as applied to Claim 2, Ked further teaches: determine that the UE supports communicating using a first format and a second format, the first format being a legacy format with respect to the second format (Ked, Fig. 11, format for LTE transmission could be viewed as legacy format comparing to format for 5G NR transmission).
Ked doesn’t explicitly teach that receive one or more messages from the neighboring UE; determine, based at least in part on the one or more messages, that the neighboring UE supports communications using the second format; and select the second format for communications with the neighboring UE.
Kim teaches that receive one or more messages from the neighboring UE ([0481]-[0482]); determine, based at least in part on the one or more messages, that the neighboring UE supports communications using the second format; and select the second format for communications with the neighboring UE ([0486], “When UE 1 confirms/recognizes the capabilities of the neighboring UEs, UE 1 may select a relay UE that supports the capability desired thereby”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of Kim in the system disclosed by Ked to implement a V2X system requiring format negotiation between neighboring UEs before establish communications.
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kedalagudde et al (US 2019/0150082 A1), in view of 3GPP, “3GPP TS 23.285 version 14.2.0”, further in view of Loehr et al (EP 3,148,285 A1).
Regarding claim 22, the aforementioned references teach all the limitations except that configure a virtual bearer to use for communications with the neighboring UE according to the one or more parameters.
Loehr teaches that configure a virtual bearer to use for communications with the neighboring UE according to the one or more parameters (see abstract, “relays the received protocol data unit to the remote user equipment using a second sidelink bearer that corresponds to the determined priority”; also see [0152], [0153], it’s noted that virtual bearer could be a radio bearer according to the specification).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize teaching of Loehr in the system disclosed by Ked in view of 3GPP for improving transmission efficiency, as both operate in the same ProSe/V2X sidelink domain and address complementary aspects of the same UE-to-UE communication configuration problem.
Regarding claim 23, the aforementioned references further teach the virtual bearer comprises at least one of a logical bearer, or a radio bearer, or a long term evolution (LTE) vehicle-to- everything (V2X) bearer, or a set of next generation new radio (NR) bearers that are generated dynamically by a lower layer of the UE based on the one or more parameters selected by an upper layer, or a combination thereof (Loehr, see abstract “sidelink bearer” correspond to radio bearer; also see [0152], [0153]).
Regarding claim 24, the aforementioned references further teach the virtual bearer is configured based on a message received from the neighboring UE (Loehr, [0153], “The relaying functionality of the relay UE is assisted in that the Remote UE provides the relay UE with an indication of a priority associated with protocol data units that are transmitted by the Remote UE. The priority indication is transmitted within a control packet from the Remote UE to the relay UE”).
Regarding claim 25, the aforementioned references further teach the instructions are executable by the processor to: trigger, based on receipt of the message, an activation of an application associated with the virtual bearer (Loehr, see [0152], [0153]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,659,936. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,659,936 teaches all of the limitations of Claims 2-30 of the instant application with different wordings.
Claims 2-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,457,338. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,457,338 disclose all of the limitations of Claims 2-30 of the instant application with different wordings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMING LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3859. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/SIMING LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411