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 12/29/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-12, 22, 24, 26-27 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lei (Pub No 20230379939) in view of Sun (EP 2922341 A1) and newly cited Chao (CN 105493430).
Regarding claim 1,
The applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended limitation.
The examiner relies on newly cited prior art to teach the amended limitation.
All other arguments are fully addressed above.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 22, 24, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (Pub No 20230379939) in view of Sun (EP 2922341 A1) and Chao (CN 105493430)
Regarding claim 1 and 22,
Lei teaches An apparatus for wireless communications, comprising:
memory comprising computer executable cod; and (see para [0014])
one or more processors configured to, individually or collectively, execute the computer executable code to cause the apparatus to:
determine a subset of carriers, in an unlicensed spectrum to use for sidelink communications with one or more sidelink user equipment (UE); and (interpreted as in operation 411, a UE (e.g., UE 310b in FIG. 3) may receive sidelink control information (SCI) scheduling a set of interlaces for data transmission on a carrier, see para [0087])
transmit sidelink communications to the one or more sidelink UEs on the determined subset of carriers (rejected as being an alternative limitation) or continuously monitor the determined subset of carriers for sidelink communication with one or more sidelink UEs white the apparatus is not transmitting. (interpreted as The UE may monitor SCI on a set of interlaces for SCI transmission, and may receive the SCI on an interlace of the set of interlaces for SCI transmission, see para [0087])
However, Lei does not teach based on pre-configured carrier hopping rule, a subset of carriers from a set of configured carriers.
Sun teaches based on pre-configured carrier hopping rule, a subset of carriers from a set of configured carriers (interpreted as the carrier hopping pattern of each node is shown in FIG. 3 and FIG. 4. In this situation, the carrier hopping pattern informed by the first base station to the UE may be a complete set or a subset of the carrier set used in each time unit by the node, see para [0124])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the carriers taught by Lei with the hoping pattern for carriers as taught by Sun with the motivation being to dynamically selecting carriers according to changes in the communication metrics.
However, Lei in view of Sun do not teach wherein the pre-configured carrier hopping rule is associated with a current frame number.
Chao teaches wherein the pre-configured carrier hopping rule is associated with a current frame number. (interpreted as Each embodiment of the invention the following are description of carrier selection scheme when.. the frequency to ARFCN corresponding to the frame number , change rule satisfies the frequency hopping formula, see pg 10 line 45-50)
Regarding claim 3 and 24,
Lei teaches The apparatus of claim 1, however does not teach wherein the carrier hopping rule is common to the apparatus and the one or more sidelink UEs.
Sun teaches herein the carrier hopping rule is common to the apparatus and the one or more sidelink UEs. (interpreted as the carrier hopping pattern of each node is shown in FIG. 3 and FIG. 4. In this situation, the carrier hopping pattern informed by the first base station to the UE may be a complete set or a subset of the carrier set used in each time unit by the node, see para [0124])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the carriers taught by Lei with the hoping pattern for carriers as taught by Sun with the motivation being to dynamically selecting carriers according to changes in the communication metrics.
Regarding claim 8 and 26,
Lei teaches The apparatus of claim 6, however they does not teach wherein to cause the apparatus to determine the subset of carriers, from the set of configured carriers, based on the carrier hopping rule comprises: code executable by the at least one or more processors are configured to, individually or collectively, cause the apparatus to determine one carrier index of one of the configured carriers directly from a mapping of the time parameter to the carrier index.
Sun teaches wherein to cause the apparatus to determine the subset of carriers, from the set of configured carriers, based on the carrier hopping rule comprises: code executable by the at least one or more processors are configured to, individually or collectively, cause the apparatus to determine one carrier index of one of the configured carriers directly from a mapping of the time parameter to the carrier index.(interpreted as The pre-defining may be that the pre-defined carrier hopping pattern is associated with a carrier that serves the UE, where the pre-defined carrier hopping pattern is a permutation and a combination of carriers that serve the UE, and the carrier hopping pattern includes index numbers of the carriers, for example, active carrier 1 and active carrier 2. One or more carriers may also be used in each time unit. For example, a UE is configured with N carriers. When N = 2, the carrier hopping pattern may be 0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1, 000111, 00111101, or the like, where 1 indicates that carrier 1 is used in a time unit for serving the UE, and 0 indicates that carrier 0 is used in a time unit for serving the UE, see para [0108][0109])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the schedule taught by Lei with the carrier index mapping as taught by Sun with the motivation being to determine which carrier to be used at what time which is common the scheduling transmissions.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (Pub No 20230379939) in view of Sun (EP 2922341 A1), Chao (CN 105493430), and Khoshnevisan (Pub No 20210266943)
Regarding claim 4,
Lei teaches The apparatus of claim 1, however does not teach wherein to cause the apparatus to determine the subset of carriers, from the set of configured carriers, in the unlicensed spectrum the at least one or more processors are configured to individually or collectively, cause the apparatus to: determine a first carrier to use for communicating for a first preconfigured duration of activation; and determine a second carrier to use for a second preconfigured activation, after the first preconfigured activation. (interpreted as When the congestion level of carrier #3, which has the highest priority, is greater than the preset threshold, the UE may select all messages as messages to be transmitted, may transmit message #1 having the highest importance level through carrier #3 having the highest priority, may transmit message #2 having the next highest importance level through carrier #1 having the next highest priority, and may transmit message #3 having the lowest importance level through carrier #2 having the lowest priority, see para [0145])
However Lei does not teach duration of activation;
Khoshnevisan teaches duration of activation (interpreted as based at least in part on the received downlink control information message, a beginning slot of the first downlink data channel associated with the first component carrier, an ending slot of the first downlink data channel associated with the first component carrier, or a duration of the first downlink data channel associated with the first component carrier, or a combination thereof, see para [0225]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the carriers taught by Lei in view of Sun with the duration of the carrier transmissions as taught by Khoshnevisan with the motivation being to have a time for when to use the carriers.
Regarding claim 5,
Lei in view of Sun teaches The apparatus of claim 4, however they do not teach wherein the preconfigured duration of activation is associated with a first carrier index and the second preconfigured duration of activation is associated with a second carrier index.
Khoshnevisan teaches wherein the preconfigured duration of activation is associated with a first carrier index and the second preconfigured duration of activation is associated with a second carrier index. (interpreted as the base station may determine that a UE is to use an associated component carrier index including one of a first index associated with the first component carrier or a second index associated with a second component carrier to order the at least one DCI message.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the carriers taught by Lei in view of Sun with the duration as taught by Khoshnevisan with the motivation being to differentiate between the carriers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9-12, 27 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.
Regarding claim 9,
The prior art of record do not teach The apparatus of claim 1, wherein to cause the apparatus to determine the subset of carriers, from the set of configured carriers, based on the carrier hopping rule comprises: code executable by the at least one or more processors are configured to, individually or collectively, cause the apparatus to determine one carrier index of one of the configured carriers based on a function involving a current frame number, a length of the current frame, and a number of carriers in the set of configured carriers.
Regarding claim 10,
The prior art of record do not teach The apparatus of claim 1, wherein to cause the apparatus to determine the subset of carriers, from the set of configured carriers, based on the carrier hopping rule the at least one or more processors are configured to, individually or collectively, cause the apparatus to: generate a pseudo-random number from the time parameter using the time parameter as an input for a pseudo-random number generator; and determine a carrier index of one of the configured carriers from the generated pseudo-random number.
Regarding claim 11,
The prior art of record do not teach The apparatus of claim 10, wherein to cause the apparatus to generate the pseudo-random number from the time parameter comprises: code executable by the at least one or more processors are configured to, individually or collectively, cause the apparatus to generate the pseudo-random number based on a function of the current frame number and a preconfigured duration of activation.
Regarding claim 12,
The prior art of record do not teach The apparatus of claim 10, wherein to cause the apparatus to determine the carrier index of one of the configured carriers from the generated pseudo-random number comprises: code executable by the at least one or more processors are configured to, individually or collectively, cause the apparatus to determine the carrier index based on a function of the current frame number and a number of carriers in the set of configured carriers.
Regarding claim 27,
The prior art of record do not teach The method of claim 22, wherein determining the subset of carriers, from the set of configured carriers, based on the carrier hopping rule comprises: determining one carrier index of one of the configured carriers based on a function involving a current frame number, a length of the current frame, and a number of carriers in the set of configured carriers.
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 BAO G NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10pm - 6:30pm.
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 on 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.
/BAO G NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2461
/HUY D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights