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 .
This Final Office Action is in response to the Amendment Request/REMARKS correspondence filed on 12/01/2025.
Claims 29-37 are pending and rejected.
Response to Arguments starts on pg. 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
Claims 29-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeo et al (US20220330261) in view of Zhang et al (CN110225585).
Regarding claim 37 (and method claim 29), Yeo teaches a first terminal (Abstract: user equipment as terminal) device comprising:
a processor (claim 8, processor) configured to determine, based on the parameters, at least one resource for the sidelink transmission with the second terminal ([0217]-[0219], UE performs resource selection using assistance information (coordination information), sensing and SCI provide timing, availability and other parameters; a terminal selects sidelink resources based on configured parameters such as a resource timing window ([n+T1], [n+T2]) and resource type (for periodic or non-periodic traffic)).
But Yeo does not teach a receiver, configured to receive, from a second terminal, a request with parameters, wherein the parameters include: a resource type indicating preferred resources or non-preferred resources and a resource timing range within which preferred resources, for a sidelink transmission for the second terminal, are to be determined.
However, Zhang teaches—
a receiver (Abstract, invention description, fig 1, transceiver/receiver), configured to receive, from a second terminal, a request with parameters, wherein the parameters include: a resource type indicating preferred resources or non-preferred resources and a resource timing range within which preferred resources, for a sidelink transmission for the second terminal, are to be determined (English translation: pg. 6-7 paragraph 12-19 & paragraph 2-14, and pg. 8 paragraphs 1-13 respectively, pg. 10-11 paragraph 3-14 & paragraph 1-12 respectively; peer-to-peer mechanism second terminal sends request to a first terminal: “a request is sent to other terminal device to request the other terminal devices to release at least one wireless resource in use or to reselect the wireless resource.” & “the other terminal device receiving the request may autonomously release or request the network to release..”; Resource Type Indicating Preference as resource type parameter (5) is a positive preference (suggested resource to use), and (6) is negative preference (resource to avoid): “The first request may include…(5) Suggesting information of radio resources selected by a second terminal device so that the second terminal device reselects radio resources” & “(6) And recommending the second terminal equipment to avoid the selected wireless resources information…”; Resource timing range discloses as specific slots (4-1), start time and onward (4-2), and start time with duration N (4-3): “(4) and time information, wherein the time information is used for indicating the effective time of the second terminal equipment for releasing the first wireless resource” & “4-1…”, “4-2…”, “4-3…”);
It would have been obvious for a POSITA to combine Yeo and Zhang. Yeo discloses that a terminal selects sidelink resources based on configured parameters such as a resource timing window ([n+T1], [n+T2]) and resource type (for periodic or non-periodic traffic), but does not explicitly teach receiving a request from another terminal including those parameters. Zhang discloses a method in which a terminal sends a request to another terminal with suggested resource timing information for resource reconfiguration. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate Zhang’s request mechanism into Yeo’s sidelink resource selection framework to enable device-to-device negotiation of resources using explicit timing and type parameters, resulting in the claimed method.
Regarding claim 30, Yeo fails to teach the method wherein the parameters are received after selecting at least one candidate resource and before transmitting a resource reservation signaling indicating the at least one candidate resource.
However, Zhang teaches the method wherein the parameters are received after selecting at least one candidate resource and before transmitting a resource reservation signaling indicating the at least one candidate resource (English translation: pg. 6-7 paragraph 12-19 & paragraph 2-14, and pg. 8 paragraphs 1-13 respectively, pg. 10-11 paragraph 3-14 & paragraph 1-12 respectively: Selecting a candidate resource: “..selects a candidate wireless resource”, sending request with parameters—request includes the parameters (timing and preference) and sent after selection, but before reservation signaling; transmitting resource reservation signaling—this occurs after receiving a response to the request (after the parameter exchange): Relevant text: “the terminal device selects a candidate wireless resource and sends a request message to another terminal device, where the request message comprises parameters including timing information and a priority level (preferred or not). Based on a response, the terminal device performs resource reservation signaling.” & “…the request message includes the start time and duration information…and includes the priority level…the start time and duration indicate a time when the wireless resource is used”).
It would have been obvious for a POSITA to combine Yeo and Zhang. Yeo discloses that a terminal selects sidelink resources based on configured parameters such as a resource timing window ([n+T1], [n+T2]) and resource type (for periodic or non-periodic traffic), but does not explicitly teach receiving a request from another terminal including those parameters. Zhang discloses a method in which a terminal sends a request to another terminal with suggested resource timing information for resource reconfiguration. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate Zhang’s request mechanism into Yeo’s sidelink resource selection framework to enable device-to-device negotiation of resources using explicit timing and type parameters, resulting in the claimed method.
Regarding claim 31, Yeo teaches the method wherein the parameters comprises third information about a fourth set of resources that are not suggested to be selected by the first terminal device for the sidelink transmission ([0223], [0235], Resources may be excluded from selection based on measurements (SL-RSRP, SL-RSSI) which states a kind of “non-suggested” resource logic; discussion excluding resources based on sensing and SCI, which can be interpreted as identifying “a fourth set not suggested”).
Regarding claim 32, Yeo teaches the method wherein selecting a first set of target resources comprises:
identifying an overlap between the at least one candidate resource and the fourth set ([0235], this level of step-wise overlap determination; resource exclusion and selection based on measurements and past allocations implies some intersection logic, filtering mechanism—UE may exclude resources based on sensing and overlap processing);
determining a subset of the fourth set that comprises the overlap ([00235], [0239], fourth set: reference to Mtotal, the number of resource candidates available for resource allocation based on resource pool information in the resource selection window, wherein the Mtotal represents a comprehensive resource set; Subset of the fourth set: resources that are excluded due to sensing results (used by other UEs) are removed, leaving a subset X<= Mtotal and this subset is the set of remaining candidate resources after accounting for constraints; Comprises the overlap; the overlap is evaluated via sensing (SCI, RSRP, RSSI), the remaining subset represents non-conflicting resources and thus, the overlap is evaluated, subset determined by filtering overlaps); and
selecting the first set based on the subset ([0235], this level of step-wise overlap determination; resource exclusion and selection based on measurements and past allocations implies some intersection logic, filtering mechanism—UE may exclude resources based on sensing and overlap processing).
Regarding claim 33, Yeo fails to teach the method wherein the parameters comprises a request for the selection of a first set of target resources.
However, Zhang teaches teach the method wherein the parameters comprises a request for the selection of a first set of target resources (English translation: pg. 6-7 paragraph 12-19 & paragraph 2-14, and pg. 8 paragraphs 1-13, received parameters (from another terminal) include request to select a specific set of target resources: “the first terminal device sends a request to the second terminal device requesting that the second terminal device reselect or release a radio resource. The request may contain one or more parameters related to a re-selection of a resource” & “the first terminal device can…suggest that the second terminal device select wireless resource information corresponding to an unselected wireless resource”; showing the request from the first terminal to the second terminal includes a suggestion to select specific wireless resources; and the phrase “parameters related to a re-selection” means informational content intended to influence the selection—which reasonably maps to a “request for the selection of the first set”.
It would have been obvious for a POSITA to combine Yeo and Zhang. Yeo discloses that a terminal selects sidelink resources based on configured parameters such as a resource timing window ([n+T1], [n+T2]) and resource type (for periodic or non-periodic traffic), but does not explicitly teach receiving a request from another terminal including those parameters. Zhang discloses a method in which a terminal sends a request to another terminal with suggested resource timing information for resource reconfiguration. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate Zhang’s request mechanism into Yeo’s sidelink resource selection framework to enable device-to-device negotiation of resources using explicit timing and type parameters, resulting in the claimed method.
Regarding claim 34, Yeo teaches the method wherein selecting the first set of target resources comprises: in accordance with a determination that a priority of traffic to be transmitted exceeds a threshold priority, selecting the first set of target resources based on the request ([0223], [0235], priority levels and QoS parameters are discussed as factors in selection, threshold logic from the traffic priority-based exclusion mechanism).
Regarding claim 35, Yeo teaches the method wherein selecting the first set of target resources comprises: selecting the first set that comprises at least one target resource different from each of the at least one candidate resource ([0223], [0235], if certain resources are excluded, selection of non-overlapping resources follows naturally (different from each)).
Regarding claim 36, Yeo fails to teach the method wherein receiving the parameters comprises: receiving the parameters on a tenth resource prior to an eleventh resource among at least one candidate resource; and wherein selecting the first set of target resources comprises: selecting a third single resource different from the eleventh resource.
However, Zhang teaches the method wherein receiving the parameters comprises: receiving the parameters on a tenth resource prior to an eleventh resource among at least one candidate resource; and wherein selecting the first set of target resources comprises: selecting a third single resource different from the eleventh resource (English translation: pg. 6-7 paragraph 12-19 & paragraph 2-14, and pg. 8 paragraphs 1-13, parameters are received on radio resource 10 (tenth), before candidate radio resource 11 (eleventh) is used and selection result with the third resource; “the second terminal device transmits an indication of release of a tenth radio resource which is part of the first radio resource)…”, “…resource reselection for the first terminal device is triggered…”; also mentions “a third radio resource that does not include the first set…” & “…selecting a resource other than a radio resource with a reselection request.”; there are discrete radio resources (10, 11, 12) used for resource messaging, and there is a selection outcome involving a difference resource (the “third resource”) from the candidate(s) being discussed).
It would have been obvious for a POSITA to combine Yeo and Zhang. Yeo discloses that a terminal selects sidelink resources based on configured parameters such as a resource timing window ([n+T1], [n+T2]) and resource type (for periodic or non-periodic traffic), but does not explicitly teach receiving a request from another terminal including those parameters. Zhang discloses a method in which a terminal sends a request to another terminal with suggested resource timing information for resource reconfiguration. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate Zhang’s request mechanism into Yeo’s sidelink resource selection framework to enable device-to-device negotiation of resources using explicit timing and type parameters, resulting in the claimed method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it applies an unduly narrow reading of Zhang’s express disclosure regarding the contents/parameters of the first request exchanged between terminals in sidelink Mode 4.
Zhang expressly teaches receiving a request from a second terminal that includes multiple categories of request parameters.
Zhang is not limited to a “terminal may second a request” at a high level; instead Zhang expressly provides a second aspect in which “a second terminal device receives a first request send by a first terminal device,” and the request is “used to request the second terminal device to release a first wireless resource,” after which the second terminal releases that resource “according to the first request.” Thus, Zhang explicitly teaches the “receiving…a request” side of the exchange (i.e. the request is not merely suggested as a possibility, but is expressly received and acted upon the recipient terminal). Further, Zhang explicitly describes that “the first request…includes at least one of the following,” and then enumerates multiple parameter types, including (i) time information indicating an “effective time” for release, and (ii) wireless resource information recommended for the second terminal device to select, (iii) wireless resource information recommended for the second terminal device to avoid selection. These disclosures directly contradict Applicant’s contention that Zhang “does not teach or suggest receiving…a request with claimed parameters.” Zhang expressly describes the request as carrying selectable parameter fields and being received by (and used by) the second terminal.
The “resource type” limitation is met because Zhang’s “recommended-to-select” versus “recommended-to-avoid” resource information corresponds to preferred vs. non-preferred resources
Applicant argues that Zhang does not disclose “resource type indicating preferred resources or non-preferred resources.” However, Zhang’s request explicitly includes both: (a) resources recommended for the second terminal device to select, and (b) resources recommended to avoid selection. As a matter of ordinary meaning, “recommended to select” resources are preferred resources, while “recommended to avoid selection” resources are non-preferred resources. Zhang further explains that including such information helps prevent the second terminal from reselecting resources that would create new fragmentation or collide with resources the first terminal expects to use—i.e. a preference/avoidance classification governing resource selection. Thus, Zhang’s request includes a resource classification that maps directly to the claimed “preferred” versus “non-preferred” resource type information, even if Zhang does not use Applicant’s exact label “resource type.”
The “resource timing range” limitation is taught or, at minimum, rendered obvious by Zhang’s time information modes (4-1/4-2/4-3)
Applicant asserts Zhang only provides a single “effective time of releasing” and therefore cannot meet a “resource timing range within which preferred resources…are to be determined.” This is not consistent with Zhang’s disclosure. Zhang expressly teaches multiple time formats:
Mode 4-1: time information may include multiple times (e.g. time slot 100, 150, 200), identifying more than one effective time;
Mode 4-2: time information may indicate releasing resource from a time onward (i.e. a window starting a time);
Mode 4-3: time information may specify releasing for N consecutive releases starting from an indicated time (a bounded multi-occasion window defined by start time + count N.
These embodiments describe time information that defines a window/range (e.g. from a start time forward or across multiple specified times, or across N consecutive occurrences). Further, Zhang teaches that the request can combine time information with the recommended-to-select/recommended-to-avoid resource information to improve coordination and reduce collisions/fragments. Accordingly, Zhang teaches that the requesting terminal can provide information that controls when the release and subsequent reselection behavior applied, which is the same practical function as a “timing range” within which the second terminal’s resource (including preferred/non-preferred) determination is performed. Even if Applicant characterizes the claim as requiring as explicit “range” field, Zhang’s multi-time and start-plus-N formats at least ender the claimed timing range obvious as an implementation detail (i.e. expressing the disclosed multi-time or start-plus-N window as a “range” is a predictable variation that does not change the underlying coordination behavior taught by Zhang.
Applicant’s “exact-parameter” attack is insufficient where the reference discloses the same information content/function if phrased differently
Applicant’s argument effectively demands verbatim correspondence (“resource type” and “resource timing range” labels), but anticipation/obviousness does not require identical terminology—only that the reference teaches the same limitation as properly construed. Zhang explicitly teaches (i) a request that includes a classification of resources into recommend vs avoid, and (ii) time information defining when release/reselection applies, including multi-time and windowed approaches. These teachings meet (or render obvious) the claimed parameter concepts.
For these reasons, Zhange teaches or suggests the disputed claim features, and Applicant’s argument does not overcome the Examiner’s reliance of Zhang.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL WILLIAM ABBATINE whose telephone number is (571)272-0192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0830-1700 EST.
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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at (571) 270-3125. 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.
/MICHAEL WILLIAM ABBATINE JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419