CTFR 17/997,689 CTFR 89711 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This action is in response to the communication filed on 02/09/2026. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A. Applicant's argument with respect to claim(s) 1 regarding identifying a set of sensing resources to be used by a first user equipment (UE) for transmission of sensing signals. The Examiner respectfully disagree, Kim teach, “For example, the Sidelink Control information (SCI) may determine a set of subframes and a set of resource blocks which are assigned to the Physical Sidelink Control Channel (PSSCH)” see para. 42; for further clarification Kim teach, “based on the SCI received in operation S500 of FIG. 15, the first user equipment UE1 may detect a PSSCH resource pool or a PSSCH resource configuration corresponding to the received SCI. Accordingly, arrangement of resource blocks including data may be detected from the PSSCH… In operation S640, a PSSCH may be scheduled. For example, the first user equipment UE1 may schedule a PSSCH, which is to be transmitted to another UE”, (See para. 106-107 and Fig. 15). The examiner respectfully disagrees since in the applicant’s claim 1 there is no defined which set of sensing resources , in fact the Applicant defines that set of sensing resources is “a UE may be able to transmit both data transmission signals (e.g., uplink signals, sidelink signals) and sensing signals within a communication band associated with the UE” (see applicant’s specification para. 52). Therefore, giving broadest reasonable interpretation (see MPEP 2111) to the claim language in particular to the applicant’s identifying a set of sensing resources to be used by a first user equipment for transmission of sensing signals , one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would clearly understand Kim to teach this concept. B. Applicant's argument with respect to claim(s) 1 regarding determining interference at the second UE associated with the sensing signals transmitted by the first UE. The Examiner respectfully disagree, Kim teach, “UE may estimate, predict or presume an interference in a PSSCH based on at least one PSCCH received from at least one UE”, see para. 40; for further clarification Kim teach, “The interference in the PSSCHs may depend on a PSSCH resource configuration defined by a PSCCH of the SL12 and a PSSCH resource configuration… Accordingly, UE may estimate the interference in the PSSCHs based on the PSSCH resource configurations”, (See para. 54 and Fig. 5). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would clearly understand Kim to teach determining interference at the second UE associated with the sensing signals transmitted by the first UE . Thus, Kim still meet the scope of the limitations. C. Applicant's argument with respect to claim(s) 1 regarding transmitting, based at least in part on determination of the interference at the second UE, a configuration message to at least one of the first UE or the second UE. The Examiner respectfully disagree, Kim teach, “the first user equipment UE1 may schedule a PSSCH to be transmitted based on the estimated interference, and may transmit a PSCCH including SCI and the PSSCH according to the scheduled PSSCH”, see “para. 44, Fig. 2; for further clarification Kim teach, “based on the interference estimated in operation S644, the first user equipment UE1 may assign the subframes for the PSSCH to be transmitted (i.e., collision subframes)”, see para. 111 and Fig. 17. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would clearly understand Kim to teach transmitting, configuration message to at least one of the first UE or the second UE. Thus, Kim still meet the scope of the limitations. The examiner respectfully disagrees since in the applicant’s claim 1 there is no defined configuration message , in fact the Applicant defines that configuration message is “the configuration message 220- a may indicate a set of time resources and a set of sensing resources” (see applicant’s specification para. 6). Therefore, giving broadest reasonable interpretation (see MPEP 2111) to the claim language in particular to the applicant’s configuration message , one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would clearly understand Kim to teach this concept . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 5, 35, 67, and 74 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. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 31, 38, 61, 63, and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 20190075566) . Regarding claim 1 Kim disclose, a method for wireless communication at a network entity, comprising: identifying a set of sensing resources to be used by a first user equipment (UE) for transmission of sensing signals para. 42, “For example, the Sidelink Control information (SCI) may determine a set of subframes and a set of resource blocks which are assigned to the Physical Sidelink Control Channel (PSSCH)” ; receiving one or more uplink signals from a second UE para. 43, “the first user equipment UE1 receives two pieces of SCI in PSCCHs from the second user equipment UE2” ; determining interference at the second UE associated with the sensing signals transmitted by the first UE based at least in part on the set of sensing resources, the one or more uplink signals received from the second UE, or both para. 40, “UE may estimate, predict or presume an interference in a PSSCH based on at least one PSCCH received from at least one UE” ; and transmitting, based at least in part on determination of the interference at the second UE, a configuration message to at least one of the first UE or the second UE para. 44, Fig. 2, “the first user equipment UE1 may schedule a PSSCH to be transmitted based on the estimated interference, and may transmit a PSCCH including SCI and the PSSCH according to the scheduled PSSCH” the configuration message including an indication of a parameter adjustment pertaining to at least one of transmission of the sensing signals by the first UE or downlink reception by the second UE para. 46, “FIG. 3, the SCI in the PSCCH may have fields, e.g., first to sixth fields F01 to F06, to include control information for a D2D communication therein”, see F01-F06 fields . Claim 31 recites an apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 38 Kim disclose, wherein the instructions to transmit the configuration message to at least one of the first UE or the second UE are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit, to the first UE, a first configuration message comprising an indication to selectively adjust one or more parameters associated with the sensing signals transmitted by the first UE; and transmit, to the second UE, a second configuration message comprising an indication to selectively adjust one or more downlink reception parameters used by the second UE para. 46, “FIG. 3, the SCI in the PSCCH may have fields, e.g., first to sixth fields F01 to F06, to include control information for a D2D communication therein”, see F01-F06 fields . Claim 61 recites an apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 63 recites a computer–program product corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 75 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to the apparatus of claim 38 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 38 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 32, 46, 65, 71,72, and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 20190075566) in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200136780) . Regarding claim 2 Kim does not specifically disclose, further comprising: transmitting, to the second UE, a second configuration message indicating a set of interference measurement resources associated with the sensing signals transmitted by the first UE. However, Chen teach, “the second message indicates channel measurement and interference measurement time domain resources corresponding to CSI 1 and CSI 2, respectively” see para. 163. Chen further disclose, receiving, from the second UE via the one or more uplink signals, a measurement report based at least in part on the set of interference measurement resources, wherein determining the interference at the second UE is based at least in part on receiving the measurement report para. 163, “the terminal device needs to select one of CSI 1 and CSI 2 to feed back” . Kim and Chen are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chen in the system of Kim so the system can accurately determine the level of interference according to the channel conditions reported. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the working quality of the system by reducing the communication interference. Regarding claim 3 Kim does not specifically disclose, further comprising: transmitting, to the second UE via the second configuration message, information indicative that the set of interference measurement resources comprise an entire reception bandwidth associated with the second UE. However, Chen teach, “with respect to CSI 1, the calculation time Z′ required is 10 symbols, the distance between the first symbol following a PDCCH and the first symbol of a PUSCH is 13 symbols, the distance between the first symbol following the PDCCH and the last symbol of channel measurement and interference measurement resources is 2 symbols, the distance between the last symbol of the channel measurement and interference measurement resources and the first symbol of the PUSCH is 11 symbols”, see para. 163. Kim and Chen are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chen in the system of Kim so the system can accurately determine the level of interference of the entire communication bandwidth. The motivation for doing so would have been to have a report of the channel conditions to best allocate the available resources. Regarding claim 6 Kim disclose, wherein the set of interference measurement resources comprises a set of cross-link interference measurement resources for measuring a received signal strength indicator of the sensing signals transmitted by the first UE para. 72, “in operation S 244 b of FIG. 9A, occurrence of an interference in a PSSCH may be determined based on a channel quality of a D2D communication… each of the channel qualities qCHs may be signal power of the PSCCH, and in some exemplary embodiments, each of the channel qualities qCHs may be defined based on a Signal-to-Noise ratio (SNR) of a channel, a Signal to Interference plus Noise Ratio (SINR) of a channel, or a combination thereof” . Regarding claim 7 Kim disclose, wherein the set of interference measurement resources comprises a set of cross-link interference measurement resources for measuring one or more parameters associated with reference signals transmitted by the first UE para. 72, “… each of the channel qualities qCHs may be signal power of the PSCCH, and in some exemplary embodiments, each of the channel qualities qCHs may be defined based on a Signal-to-Noise ratio (SNR) of a channel, a Signal to Interference plus Noise Ratio (SINR) of a channel, or a combination thereof” . Regarding claim 10 Kim does not specifically disclose wherein identifying the set of sensing resources comprises: receiving, from the first UE, an uplink message indicating the set of sensing resources to be used for transmission of the sensing signals. However, Chen teach, “the second message indicates channel measurement and interference measurement time domain resources corresponding to CSI 1 and CSI 2, respectively”, see para. 163. Kim and Chen are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chen in the system of Kim so the system can coordinate the communication parameters and determine the best resources to allocate. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the quality of services according to the available resources. Regarding claim 46 Kim does not specifically disclose, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: include, in the configuration message transmitted to the first UE, a sensing signal adjustment such that less than all symbols configured for the sensing signals are used for transmission of the sensing signals. However, Chen teach, “with respect to CSI 1 , the calculation time Z′ required is 10 symbols, the distance between the first symbol following a PDCCH and the first symbol of a PUSCH is 13 symbols” , see para. 163. Kim and Chen are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chen in the system of Kim so the system can coordinate the communication parameters and determine the best resources to allocate. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the quality of services according to the available resources. Regarding claims 32, 65 and 72 the limitations of claims 32, 65 and 72 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 2. Regarding claims 71 and 78 the limitations of claims 71 and 78 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 46 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4, 34, 66 and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 20190075566) in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200136780); further in view of Hang et al. (WIPO. Pub. WO2020114357) . Regarding claim 4 Kim and Chen does not specifically disclose, further comprising: transmitting, to the second UE via the second configuration message, an indication that the set of interference measurement resources comprises a set of cross-link interference measurement resources for measuring interference associated with the sensing signals transmitted by the first UE However, Hang teach, “the multiple interference measurement resource sets can be configured through one interference measurement resource configuration, and the channel measurement resource configuration and interference measurement resource configuration can be configured with one reporting (and Referred to as "second reporting configuration") association”, see para. 232. Kim, Chen and Hang are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hang in the system of Kim and Chen to be able to dynamically update the initial configuration according to the changes in the channel conditions. The motivation for doing so would have been to maintain the quality of services according to the available resources when detecting interferences. Regarding claims 34, 66 and 73 the limitations of claims 34, 66 and 73 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 4 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 11-12,41, 69 and 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 20190075566) in view of Peng et al. (WIPO. Pub. WO2012019349) . Regarding claim 11 Kim and Chen does not specifically disclose, wherein determining the interference at the second UE comprises: determining a relative position of the second UE with respect to the first UE However, Peng teach, “ such interference characteristic can be roughly estimated according to the location/position of a cellular UE”, see para. 48. Peng further disclose, determining the interference at the second UE based at least in part on the relative position para. 48, “Preferably, in a mixed D2D and cellular modes network environment, such interference characteristic can be roughly estimated according to the location/position of a cellular UE, or it can be determined based on an interference measurement on the cellular UE, or combination of the two”. Kim, Chen and Peng are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Peng in the system of Kim and Chen to take in consideration for the determining of the levels of the interferences the current position of the terminal on knows areas and patterns on the cell area. The motivation for doing so would have been to maintain the quality of services according to the available resources when detecting interferences. Regarding claim 12 Kim and Chen does not specifically disclose, wherein determining the relative position of the second UE with respect to the first UE comprises: determining a pathloss between the first UE and the second UE However, Peng teach, “The cellular UE interferences may be measured in the form of one or more of the following parameters: a received signal power, a noise to signal ratio, a path loss measure, and the like”, see para. 63. Kim, Chen and Peng are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Peng in the system of Kim and Chen to take in consideration for the determining of the levels of the interferences the current position of the terminal on knows areas and patterns on the cell area. The motivation for doing so would have been to maintain the quality of services according to the available resources when detecting interferences. Regarding claims 41, 69 and 76 the limitations of claims 41, 69 and 76 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 4 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 15, 45, 70 and 77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 20190075566) in view of Ellenbeck et al. (U.S. Pub. 20210243713) . Regarding claim 15 Kim does not specifically disclose, further comprising: identifying that a first subcarrier spacing associated with the set of sensing resources is larger than a second subcarrier spacing associated with an active bandwidth part of the second UE. However, Ellenbeck teach, “using a large subcarrier spacing (e.g., separating 180 kHz into N.sub.sc = 12 subcarriers) may yield a larger separation between subcarriers, which can suppress interference between transmissions on adjacent subcarriers (which are generally addressed to different wireless devices per their differing device IDs)”, see para. 361. Kim and Ellenbeck are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ellenbeck in the system of Kim to be able to accurately allocate the available resources according to preestablished priorities. The motivation for doing so would have been to maintain and improve the quality of services on the channel based on the configured priorities. Regarding claims 45, 70 and 77 the limitations of claims 45, 70 and 77 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 15. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270– 5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272 - 8586. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing 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. /RR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2471 /SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/997,689 Page 2 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/997,689 Page 3 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/997,689 Page 4 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/997,689 Page 5 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/997,689 Page 6 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/997,689 Page 8 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/997,689 Page 9 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/997,689 Page 10 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/997,689 Page 11 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/997,689 Page 12 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/997,689 Page 13 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/997,689 Page 14 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/997,689 Page 15 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 17/997,689 Page 16 Art Unit: 2471
Prosecution Insights