DETAILED ACTION
The action is responsive to claims filed on 09/30/2025. Claims 1-13, 15, 16, and 20-23 are pending for evaluation.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 09/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-13, 15, 16, and 20-23 remain pending for evaluation; Applicant has cancelled Claim 19 and amended Claims 1, 13, and 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument on pgs. 9-10 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, Park fails to teach or suggest at least “in response to receiving the triggering information, change from a UE to UE communication protocol to a UE to network communication protocol” in the amended Claim 20 because sidelink modes of operation cannot be interpreted as a communication protocol, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). See MPEP §2111.
See also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1643 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Regarding Claim 20, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Park’s sidelink modes are not merely operating states, but define how the UE communicates, including the signaling procedures, control mechanisms, and entities involved in communication. Park discloses that the UE receives triggering information (i.e., the activation indication in Fig. 30, step 3018 and Para. [0279, 0291, 0292]), and in response, selects between different modes that govern whether communication is performed via UE-to-UE sidelink procedures or under network control (i.e., Fig. 30, step 3020 and Para. [0279, 0280, 0283]). In particular, Mode 1 involves communication controlled by the base station, including network-directed resource allocation and signaling, and thus reasonably corresponds to UE-to-network communication, while Mode 2 involves direct sidelink communication between UEs. These modes therefore represent different ways in which communication is conducted, consistent with the claimed change from a UE-to-UE communication protocol to a UE-to-network communication protocol. The claim does not require the protocol to be limited to a specific named or layer-specific protocol, and Park’s disclosure of switching between sidelink-based and network-controlled communication in response to triggering information satisfies the recited limitation of amended Claim 20.
In conclusion, Park does disclose the feature “in response to receiving the triggering information, change from a UE to UE communication protocol to a UE to network communication protocol” in the amended Claim 20 because sidelink modes of operation can be reasonably interpreted as a communication protocol under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
In response to Applicant’s argument on pg. 10 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, none of the cited references teach or suggest "receiving, at the first UE, information directly from a second UE indicating second resources used by the second UE for a second transmission to a third UE," "determining, at the first UE, whether the second resources used by the second UE for the second transmission to the third UE overlap with first resources used by the first UE for a first transmission to the third UE," and "in response to determining that the second resources overlap with the first resources, determining, at the first UE, whether to avoid the first transmission on the first resources based on a destination UE" as recited in the amended independent Claims 1 and 13, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because they evaluate Sarkis in isolation rather than considering how the cited references operate together as a system. In the combined teachings, Gulati establishes a communication environment in which UEs directly exchange information identifying radio resources reserved for upcoming transmissions, including reservations associated with transmissions to a particular receiving UE. This exchanged reservation information provides the first UE with knowledge of resources that another UE intends to use. Sarkis then operates on that received reservation information by teaching how a UE compares multiple resource reservations associated with different transmitting UEs to determine whether those reservations overlap in time and/or frequency for transmissions directed to the same destination UE, as illustrated in Fig. 4 (e.g., steps 405, 410, 415, and 425). Sarkis further teaches that, once such overlap is detected, the UE determines whether a transmission should proceed or be avoided on the conflicting resources. Lee2 complements this process by teaching that resource selection and transmission decisions are made based on a destination UE, such that the determination of whether to transmit or avoid transmission is conditioned on the intended recipient of the transmission. When read together, the references describe a system in which UEs share reservation information, evaluate whether those reservations conflict with their own planned transmission to a common destination UE, and make destination-aware decisions.
In conclusion, the system of Sarkis/Lee2/Gulati teaches the amended Claims 1 and 13, and Applicant’s arguments, which attack Sarkis alone, do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2021/0105787, previously cited), Park hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 20, Park teaches a user equipment, comprising (Fig. 15A, element 1502; Paras. [0194-0203]):
at least one memory (Fig. 15A, element 1524; Para. [200]; See also Fig. 15B, Para. [0203]; Para. [0329-0334, 0339-0340]);
and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to (Fig. 15A, elements 1518 and 1524; Paras. [0196-0197, 0200-0202]):
receive triggering information that triggers a change in communication protocol (Fig. 30, step 3018; Para. [0279] - At step 3018, the base station 3004 may send/transmit, to the first wireless device 3012, a message comprising an activation indication for mode 1 operation and mode 2 operation for the bearer and/or the first wireless device 3012 (e.g., based upon the one or more conditions being met); See also Fig. 25, elements 2520 and 2540; Fig. 30, step 3026; Fig. 32, step 3218; Paras. [0246, 0300]; Figs. 26-29);
and in response to receiving the triggering information, change from a UE to UE communication protocol to a UE to network communication protocol (Fig. 30, step 3020; Para. [0280] - At step 3020, the first wireless device 3012 may determine/select a mode of operation between mode 1 operation and mode 2 operation. The first wireless device 3012 may determine/select the mode of operation, for example, based on the one or more conditions (e.g., decision policy/policies, threshold(s), etc.). The first wireless device 3012 may determine whether a radio resource status of at least one resource pool (e.g., associated with the mode 1 operation or the mode 2 operation) satisfied the one or more conditions; See also Fig. 30, step 3028; Para. [0281]; Fig. 32, step 3226; Paras. [0279, 0280, 0300]; Fig. 25, element 2530; Fig. 32, step 3220; Paras. [0246,0300]; Figs. 26-29).
Regarding Claim 16, Park teaches Claim 20.
Park also teaches
wherein the triggering information comprises receiving a channel busy ratio measurement report (Para. [0251] - A sidelink configuration request may indicate that a CBR of a resource pool for a mode (e.g., the first resource allocation mode and/or the second resource allocation mode) is equal to or larger than a value. The sidelink configuration request may indicate that a CR of the first wireless device (e.g., channel occupancy ratio of traffic of the first wireless device) for a resource pool configured for a mode (e.g., the first resource allocation mode and/or the second resource allocation mode) is equal to or larger than a value. The sidelink configuration request may indicate that a CR of the sidelink bearer (e.g., channel occupancy ratio of traffic of the sidelink bearer) for a resource pool configured for a mode (e.g., the first resource allocation mode and/or the second resource allocation mode) is equal to or larger than a value. The sidelink configuration request may indicate that an RSSI of sidelink radio resources (e.g., radio resources configured by the first base station; and/or the resource pool for the first resource allocation mode and/or the second resource allocation mode) is equal to or larger than a value.; See also Paras. [0252, 0264, 0268]):
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.
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0124678, previously cited), Lee hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 15, Park teaches Claim 20.
Yet, Park does not explicitly teach wherein the triggering information comprises receiving two consecutive negative acknowledgements.
However, Lee teaches
wherein the triggering information comprises receiving two consecutive negative acknowledgements (Para. [0193] - In some implementations of the present disclosure, the UE2 may measure sidelink channel quality based on sidelink transmissions from the UE1. If the sidelink channel quality becomes below a threshold indicated by the network or UE1, or sidelink connection failure with the UE1 is detected, e.g., due to N consecutive negative-acknowledgements (NACKs) to sidelink (re-)transmissions, the UE2 may deactivate all UE2's SPS configured grant(s) (i.e., SPS configuration 2a and 2b) and switch to sidelink mode 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Park’s invention of a “wireless device which can select, based on one or more conditions, from at least two resource allocation modes of operation for a sidelink” (Park §Abstract) with Lee’s invention of “a method and apparatus for deactivation of a configured grant and initiation of connection request upon detection of sidelink failure in a wireless communication system” (Lee §Abstract) because Lee’s invention provides more efficient sidelink/V2X communication and handling of configured grants for sidelink/V2X (Lee Paras. [0010-0013]).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 11, 13, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkis et al. (US 2021/0360671, previously cited), Sarkis hereinafter, in view of Lee and Seo (US 2023/0292342), Lee2 hereinafter, and in further in view of Gulati et al. (US 2020/0229170, previously cited), Gulati hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1, Sarkis teaches a method performed by a first user equipment (UE), the method comprising (Figs. 4, 8, and 9; Paras. [0082-0101, 0117-0136, 0137-0154]):
determining, at the first UE, whether the second resources used by the second UE for the second transmission to the third UE overlap with first resources used by the first UE for a first transmission to the third UE (Fig. 4, step 425; Para. [0087] - As shown by reference number 415, the third UE may determine that a conflict exists between the first reservation and the second reservation. In some aspects, the third UE may determine that the second resource reservation indicates a reservation for at least one resource that is reserved (e.g., by the first UE or another UE). In some aspects, at least one resource of the second reservation is in conflict with the first reservation based at least in part on the at least one resource of the second reservation having an overlap with a resource associated with the first reservation. In some aspects, the overlap can be an overlap in time, an overlap in frequency, or both. In some aspects, the third UE may determine that the second resource reservation is not permitted to preempt the first resource reservation based at least in part on, for example, the second resource reservation having a same or lower priority than the first resource reservation. In some aspects, such as when the second UE transmits the second resource reservation after or simultaneously with the first UE transmitting the first resource reservation, the third UE may determine that the second reservation is to be canceled (e.g., based at least in part on the first resource reservation being permitted to preempt the second resource reservation); See also Fig. 4, step 425, Para. [0097]);
and in response to determining that the second resources overlap with the first resources, determining, at the first UE, whether to avoid the first transmission on the first resources (Para. [0087] - As shown by reference number 415, the third UE may determine that a conflict exists between the first reservation and the second reservation. In some aspects, the third UE may determine that the second resource reservation indicates a reservation for at least one resource that is reserved (e.g., by the first UE or another UE). In some aspects, at least one resource of the second reservation is in conflict with the first reservation based at least in part on the at least one resource of the second reservation having an overlap with a resource associated with the first reservation. In some aspects, the overlap can be an overlap in time, an overlap in frequency, or both. In some aspects, the third UE may determine that the second resource reservation is not permitted to preempt the first resource reservation based at least in part on, for example, the second resource reservation having a same or lower priority than the first resource reservation. In some aspects, such as when the second UE transmits the second resource reservation after or simultaneously with the first UE transmitting the first resource reservation, the third UE may determine that the second reservation is to be canceled (e.g., based at least in part on the first resource reservation being permitted to preempt the second resource reservation; Para. [0100] - Based at least in part on the first UE and/or the third UE transmitting the indication, the second UE may use one or more of the identifications to cancel a transmission in the reserved resource instead of causing a conflict for the third UE and/or one or more additional UEs that may attempt to receive a transmission from the first UE or the transmission from the second UE. Additionally, or alternatively, by having the first UE or the third UE transmit the indication including an identification of the second UE, the second UE may determine that it is the second UE, and not the first UE, that is to cancel a transmission in the conflicting resource. By transmitting the indication including an identification of the at least one resource and/or an identification of the second resource reservation, the second UE may cancel the transmission in the conflicting resource, while still transmitting in another resource identified in the second resource reservation; See also Fig. 4, steps 420 and 430, and Paras. [0089-0099]).
Yet, Sarkis does not expressly teach based on a destination UE.
However, Lee2 teaches
based on a destination UE (Para. [0180] - And/or, for example, a parameter (e.g., a threshold) may be configured or determined differently or limitedly for a chain-based resource reservation operation, a block-based resource reservation operation, a blind retransmission operation, a SL HARQ feedback-based retransmission operation, a configured grant-based resource selection/reservation/determination operation, and/or a dynamic grant-based resource selection/reservation/determination operation. And/or, for example, a parameter (e.g., a threshold) may be configured or determined differently or limitedly based on a resource pool, a service type, a service priority, a cast type, a destination UE, a (L1 or L2) destination (or source) ID, a (service) QoS parameter (e.g., reliability, latency), a (resource pool) congestion level, and/or SL mode (e.g., mode 1, mode 2)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sarkis’ invention of “techniques and apparatuses for techniques for providing an indication of a reservation conflict” (Sarkis Para. [0002]) with Lee2’s invention of “a method for communication between devices (or UEs) based on V2X communication, and device(s) (or UE(s)) performing the method” (Lee2 Para. [0014]) and “a method for reselecting sidelink resource(s) in NR V2X, and device(s) (or UE(s)) performing the method” (Lee2 Para. [0015]) because Lee2’s invention provides means to “to control the frequency of occurrence of preemption resources for each priority of a transmitting UE, and through this, not only relatively high-priority packet transmission can be protected, but also transmission resource collision probability between different UEs can be maintained at an appropriate level” (Lee2 Para. [0023]).
Yet, Sarkis nor Lee 2 expressly teach receiving, at the first UE, information directly from a second UE indicating second resources used by the second UE for a second transmission to a third UE.
However, Gulati teaches
receiving, at the first UE, information directly from a second UE indicating second resources used by the second UE for a second transmission to a third UE (Fig. 5, step 510; Para. [0068] - As shown in FIG. 5, in some aspects, process 500 may include receiving, from a first UE, a message associated with indicating that a particular resource is reserved for a particular transmission by a second UE (block 510). For example, the UE (e.g., using antenna 252, DEMOD 254, MIMO detector 256, receive processor 258, controller/processor 280, and/or the like) may receive, from a first UE, a message associated with indicating that a particular resource is reserved for a particular transmission by a second UE, as described in more detail above);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide receiving, at the first UE, information directly from a second UE indicating second resources used by the second UE for a second transmission to a third UE as taught by Gulati, in the combined system of Sarkis/Lee2, so that it “enables receiver-side protection against interference when using a REQ-RESP based resource selection procedure (i.e., reservation mechanism)” and “request to send/clear to send (RTS/CTS) behavior with resource reservation” (Gulati Para. [0047]).
Regarding Claim 13, Sarkis teaches a first user equipment (UE), comprising (Fig. 2, design 120; Paras. [0069-0072]):
at least one memory (Fig. 2, elements 282; Para. [0071, 0118-0119, 0138-0139]);
and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the first UE to (Fig. 2, elements 280, 258, 264; Para. [0071]):
determine, at the first UE, whether the second resources used by the second UE for the second transmission to the third UE overlap with first resources used by the first UE for a first transmission to the third UE; and (Fig. 4, step 425; Para. [0087]; Fig. 4, step 425, Para. [0097]);
and in response to determining that the second resources overlap with the first resources, determine, at the first UE, whether to avoid the first transmission on the first resources (Para. [0087]; Para. [0100]; See also Fig. 4, steps 420 and 430, and Paras. [0089-0099]).
Yet, Sarkis does not expressly teach based on a destination UE.
However, Lee2 teaches
based on a destination UE (Para. [0180]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sarkis’ invention of “techniques and apparatuses for techniques for providing an indication of a reservation conflict” (Sarkis Para. [0002]) with Lee2’s invention of “a method for communication between devices (or UEs) based on V2X communication, and device(s) (or UE(s)) performing the method” (Lee2 Para. [0014]) and “a method for reselecting sidelink resource(s) in NR V2X, and device(s) (or UE(s)) performing the method” (Lee2 Para. [0015]) because Lee2’s invention provides means to “to control the frequency of occurrence of preemption resources for each priority of a transmitting UE, and through this, not only relatively high-priority packet transmission can be protected, but also transmission resource collision probability between different UEs can be maintained at an appropriate level” (Lee2 Para. [0023]).
Yet, Sarkis nor Lee2 expressly teach receive, at the first UE, information directly from a second UE indicating second resources used by the second UE for a second transmission to a third UE.
However, Gulati teaches
receive, at the first UE, information directly from a second UE indicating second resources used by the second UE for a second transmission to a third UE (Fig. 5, step 510; Para. [0068]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide receive, at the first UE, information directly from a second UE indicating second resources used by the second UE for a second transmission to a third UE as taught by Gulati, in the combined system of Sarkis/Lee2, so that it “enables receiver-side protection against interference when using a REQ-RESP based resource selection procedure (i.e., reservation mechanism)” and “request to send/clear to send (RTS/CTS) behavior with resource reservation” (Gulati Para. [0047]).
Regarding Claims 2 and 21, Sarkis in view of Lee2 and Gulati teach Claims 1 and 13.
Sarkis also teaches
wherein the information from the second UE comprises [[the]] one or more of a destination UE identifier, a reserved resource, or a conflicted resource (Fig. 4, step 410; Para. [0085] - As shown by reference number 410, the second UE may transmit a second resource reservation. In some aspects, the second resource reservation may indicate a reservation for a resource that is not reserved by the first UE, the second UE, and/or an additional UE that is in coverage of the second UE. In some aspects, the second UE may transmit the second resource reservation after, before, or simultaneous with the first resource reservation; See also Fig. 4, steps 420 and 430; Paras. [0089, 0099]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 23, Sarkis in view of Lee2 and Gulati teach Claims 1 and 13.
Sarkis also teaches
determining/determine to avoid the first transmission on the first resources in response to a first priority of the first transmission being less than a second priority of the second transmission (Para. [0087] - As shown by reference number 415, the third UE may determine that a conflict exists between the first reservation and the second reservation. In some aspects, the third UE may determine that the second resource reservation indicates a reservation for at least one resource that is reserved (e.g., by the first UE or another UE). In some aspects, at least one resource of the second reservation is in conflict with the first reservation based at least in part on the at least one resource of the second reservation having an overlap with a resource associated with the first reservation. In some aspects, the overlap can be an overlap in time, an overlap in frequency, or both. In some aspects, the third UE may determine that the second resource reservation is not permitted to preempt the first resource reservation based at least in part on, for example, the second resource reservation having a same or lower priority than the first resource reservation. In some aspects, such as when the second UE transmits the second resource reservation after or simultaneously with the first UE transmitting the first resource reservation, the third UE may determine that the second reservation is to be canceled (e.g., based at least in part on the first resource reservation being permitted to preempt the second resource reservation).
Regarding Claim 5, Sarkis in view of Lee2 and Gulati teach Claim 1.
Sarkis also teaches
further comprising determining whether to avoid the first transmission on the first resources based on a priority of the first transmission, a priority of the second transmission, a logical channel, or a priority of the logical channel, or a combination thereof (Para. [0087] - As shown by reference number 415, the third UE may determine that a conflict exists between the first reservation and the second reservation. In some aspects, the third UE may determine that the second resource reservation indicates a reservation for at least one resource that is reserved (e.g., by the first UE or another UE). In some aspects, at least one resource of the second reservation is in conflict with the first reservation based at least in part on the at least one resource of the second reservation having an overlap with a resource associated with the first reservation. In some aspects, the overlap can be an overlap in time, an overlap in frequency, or both. In some aspects, the third UE may determine that the second resource reservation is not permitted to preempt the first resource reservation based at least in part on, for example, the second resource reservation having a same or lower priority than the first resource reservation. In some aspects, such as when the second UE transmits the second resource reservation after or simultaneously with the first UE transmitting the first resource reservation, the third UE may determine that the second reservation is to be canceled (e.g., based at least in part on the first resource reservation being permitted to preempt the second resource reservation).
Regarding Claim 6, Sarkis in view of Lee2 and Gulati teach Claim 1.
Sarkis also teaches
determining whether to avoid the first transmission on the first resources based on a logical channel prioritization procedure comprises by determining whether the first resources were reserved before the second resources (Para. [0087] - As shown by reference number 415, the third UE may determine that a conflict exists between the first reservation and the second reservation. In some aspects, the third UE may determine that the second resource reservation indicates a reservation for at least one resource that is reserved (e.g., by the first UE or another UE). In some aspects, at least one resource of the second reservation is in conflict with the first reservation based at least in part on the at least one resource of the second reservation having an overlap with a resource associated with the first reservation. In some aspects, the overlap can be an overlap in time, an overlap in frequency, or both. In some aspects, the third UE may determine that the second resource reservation is not permitted to preempt the first resource reservation based at least in part on, for example, the second resource reservation having a same or lower priority than the first resource reservation. In some aspects, such as when the second UE transmits the second resource reservation after or simultaneously with the first UE transmitting the first resource reservation, the third UE may determine that the second reservation is to be canceled (e.g., based at least in part on the first resource reservation being permitted to preempt the second resource reservation).
Regarding Claim 7, Sarkis in view of Lee2 and Gulati teach Claim 1.
Sarkis also teaches
wherein the overlap is a result of a time conflict, or a frequency conflict, or a combination thereof (Para. [0087] - As shown by reference number 415, the third UE may determine that a conflict exists between the first reservation and the second reservation. In some aspects, the third UE may determine that the second resource reservation indicates a reservation for at least one resource that is reserved (e.g., by the first UE or another UE). In some aspects, at least one resource of the second reservation is in conflict with the first reservation based at least in part on the at least one resource of the second reservation having an overlap with a resource associated with the first reservation. In some aspects, the overlap can be an overlap in time, an overlap in frequency, or both; See also Paras. [0097, 0105, 0153, 0172]).
Regarding Claim 10, Sarkis in view of Lee2 and Gulati teach Claim 1.
Yet, Sarkis nor Lee2 expressly teach performing resource reselection of third resources for transmission to the third UE in response to determining that the second resources overlap with the first resources.
However, Gulati teaches
performing resource reselection of third resources for transmission to the third UE in response to determining that the second resources overlap with the first resources (Fig. 3B, step 325; Para. [0056] - In some aspects, third UE 120-3 may determine a third resource for a third transmission using controller/processor 280. For example, third UE 120-3 may exclude resources reserved by, for example, first UE 120-1 (e.g., the second resource) based at least in part on receiving the message from second UE 120-2. In some aspects, third UE 120-3 may not forgo transmission using the second resource. For example, when third UE 120-3 is to transmit a higher priority transmission than is indicated for first UE 120-1 in the message, third UE 120-3 may transmit the higher priority transmission using the second resource. In this case, third UE 120-3 may transmit (e.g., using controller/processor 280, transmit processor 264, TX MIMO processor 266, MOD 254, antenna 252, and/or the like) reservation information indicating the higher priority transmission, and, for example, second UE 120-2 may transmit a message (e.g., the feedback message) to first UE 120-1 indicating the higher priority transmission to cause first UE 120-1 to yield to third UE 120-3. In some aspects, third UE 120-3 may yield to first UE 120-1 based at least in part on a partial resource reservation conflict. For example, based at least in part on determining a conflict of one or more subcarriers, a time domain, and/or the like, third UE 120-3 may forgo transmission or reduce a transmit power to avoid causing interference).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide performing resource reselection of third resources for transmission to the third UE in response to determining that the second resources overlap with the first resources as taught by Gulati, in the combined system of Sarkis/Lee2, so that it “enables receiver-side protection against interference when using a REQ-RESP based resource selection procedure (i.e., reservation mechanism)” and “request to send/clear to send (RTS/CTS) behavior with resource reservation” (Gulati Para. [0047]).
Regarding Claim 11, Sarkis in view of Lee2 and Gulati teach Claim 1.
Yet, Sarkis does not expressly teach transmitting information indicating the first resources used by the first UE for the first transmission to the third UE.
However, Gulati teaches
transmitting information indicating the first resources used by the first UE for the first transmission to the third UE (Fig. 5, step 510; Para. [0068] - As shown in FIG. 5, in some aspects, process 500 may include receiving, from a first UE, a message associated with indicating that a particular resource is reserved for a particular transmission by a second UE (block 510). For example, the UE (e.g., using antenna 252, DEMOD 254, MIMO detector 256, receive processor 258, controller/processor 280, and/or the like) may receive, from a first UE, a message associated with indicating that a particular resource is reserved for a particular transmission by a second UE, as described in more detail above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide transmitting information indicating the first resources used by the first UE for the first transmission to the third UE as taught by Gulati, in the combined system of Sarkis/Lee2, so that it “enables receiver-side protection against interference when using a REQ-RESP based resource selection procedure (i.e., reservation mechanism)” and “request to send/clear to send (RTS/CTS) behavior with resource reservation” (Gulati Para. [0047]).
Claim(s) 3 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkis in view of Lee2 and Gulati as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Sarkis et al. (US 2021/0266923, previously cited), Sarkis2 hereinafter.
Regarding Claims 3 and 22, Sarkis in view of Lee2 and Gulati teach Claims 1 and 13.
Yet, Sarkis, Lee2, nor Gulati expressly teach determining/determine to avoid the first transmission on the first resources in response to the destination UE indicating the third UE.
However, Sarkis2 teaches
determining/determine to avoid the first transmission on the first resources in response to the destination UE indicating the third UE (Paras. [0027-0028] - [0027] Various embodiments enable improved performance of sidelink communications by a first wireless device providing to a second wireless device information regarding available sidelink communication resources observed by the first wireless device. As used herein, the term “resource allocation coordination information” includes information that the first wireless device provides to the second wireless device about the available sidelink communication resources that are useful for the second wireless device to communicate with the first wireless device via sidelink communications. For example, resource allocation coordination information may include a signal strength measurement associated with a resource reservation, a source identifier associated with a resource reservation, a destination identifier associated with a resource reservation, a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) identifier associated with a resource reservation, a priority associated with a resource reservation, a location of a transmitter reserving a resource, a reservation time period, and/or a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) pattern of a transmission associated with a resource reservation. [0028] In various embodiments, a first wireless device may generate a message including a variety of such information, which is referred to herein as “resource allocation coordination information,” and transmit the configured message including the resource allocation coordination information to the second wireless device. In some embodiments, the message may be a control message. In some embodiments, the included resource allocation coordination information may, for example, enable a second wireless device to avoid a sidelink communication resource collision. For example, using the resource allocation coordination information, the wireless device may determine that a signal is present in a communication resource, may determine a signal strength, may receive reservation information, or may determine a priority associated with reservation information from one or more other wireless devices, as well as a variety of other information. In some embodiments, the included resource allocation coordination information may enable or improve half-duplex sidelink communication. In some embodiments, use of the included resource allocation coordination information may enable the second wireless device to save power by, for example, reducing sensing operations to determine available sidelink communication resources. The first wireless device may encode some or all of such resource allocation coordination information in a message, which may be a control message, and transmit the message to a second wireless device. The second wireless device may use the resource allocation coordination information thus provided to select an available sidelink communication resource).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to combine Sarkis2 into the system of Sarkis/Lee2/Gulati because Sarkis2 provides “improved performance of sidelink communications by a first wireless device providing to a second wireless device information regarding available sidelink communication resources observed by the first wireless device” (Sarkis2 Para. [0027]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkis in view of Lee2 and Gulati as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0280977, previously cited), Chen hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 9, Sarkis in view of Lee2 and Gulati teach Claim 1.
Yet, Sarkis, Lee2, nor Gulati expressly teach further comprising, in response to receiving the information from the second UE indicating the second resources used by the second UE for the second transmission to the third UE prior to a time threshold, determining to avoid the first transmission on the first resources. However, Chen teaches
further comprising, in response to receiving the information from the second UE indicating the second resources used by the second UE for the second transmission to the third UE prior to a time threshold, determining to avoid the first transmission on the first resources (Para. [0147] - When the D2D resource configuration information contains D2D transmission resource configuration setup and/or modification information corresponding to the first resource allocation mode, for D2D discovery, the UE in a connected state acquires D2D resources for D2D transmission in a contention-based way according to D2D transmission resource pool information corresponding to the first resource allocation mode; when receiving D2D transmission resource pool information corresponding to the first resource allocation mode or when entering an idle state, the UE starts a validity timer for D2D transmission resource configuration corresponding to the first resource allocation mode, before the timer expires, the UE continues acquiring, for D2D discovery, D2D resources for D2D transmission in the contention-based way according to the D2D transmission resource pool corresponding to the first resource allocation mode, and after the timer expires, the UE releases D2D transmission resource configuration corresponding to the first resource allocation mode; See also Paras. [0152, 0195, 0200]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chen into the system of Sarkis/Lee2/Gulati because Chen provides enhanced methods and solutions for device-to-device resource configuration or allocation (Chen Para. [0011]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkis in view of Lee2 and Gulati as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He et al. (US 2020/0037343, previously cited), He hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 12, Sarkis in view of Lee2 and Gulati teach Claim 1.
Yet, Sarkis nor Gulati expressly teach determining whether more than one consecutive time resource used by the second UE for the second transmission to the third UE overlaps with more than one consecutive time resource used by the first UE for the first transmission to the third UE.
However, He teaches
determining whether more than one consecutive time resource used by the second UE for the second transmission to the third UE overlaps with more than one consecutive time resource used by the first UE for the first transmission to the third UE (Fig. 8; Para. [0150-0151] - FIG. 8 shows the scheduled six consecutive slot/mini-slot resources for a UE to transmit a bursty packet. [0151] When there is a conflict in the indicated consecutive slot/mini-slot resources for the UE with resources reserved by other UEs, the gNB may signal to the UE whether the overlapped resources reserved by other UEs are preempted or skipped).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine He into the system of Sarkis/Lee2/Gulati because He provides a method that reduces control signaling between a gNB and user equipment for transmission of aperiodic packets over sidelink transmissions (He Para. [0146]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkis in view of Lee2 and Gulati as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cao and Maaref (US 2021/0144750, previously cited), Cao hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 8, Sarkis in view of Lee2 and Gulati teach Claim 5.
Yet, Sarkis, Lee2, nor Gulati expressly teach determining to avoid the first transmission on the first resources to the destination UE in response to the second resources being reserved before the first resources for the destination UE.
However, Cao teaches
determining to avoid the first transmission on the first resources to the destination UE in response to the second resources being reserved before the first resources for the destination UE (Para. [0184] - In a first embodiment, prior to reserving the set of resources with the SCI in the initial transmission, the UE monitors sidelink resources reserved by other UEs, and avoids reserving these in the SCI. For this reason, it is unnecessary to consider SCI transmissions of other UEs that occur prior to the initial transmission by more than the processing delay in performing sensing and resource selection for the initial transmission and the associated SCI and the preemption windows are defined accordingly. If the initial transmission occurs at time n1, and there is a reservation for a subsequent SL transmission to occur at time ni, then a respective preemption window for the subsequent SL transmission is defined as a time range that includes times later than n1−T0, and times earlier than ni-T1, where T0 is the processing delay in performing resource selection and processing for the initial transmission, and where T1 is the processing delay to perform preemption sensing and reselection processing for the subsequent transmission. In this embodiment, the preemption windows have different durations for the various reserved resources).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cao into the system of Sarkis/Lee2/Gulati because Cao provides an approach where both the UE performing the SL retransmission and the network are aware of a potentially retransmitted transport block without the need for specific signaling to indicate the retransmission (Cao Para. [0009]).
Conclusion
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 RAENITA ANN FENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0880. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:30 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 Smith 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 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.
/R.A.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/Thomas R Cairns/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468