DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The instant first office action is in response to communication filed on 12/10/2025.
Claims 20-25 are pending of which claims 20 and 22 are the base independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 20-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20, 22 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 11,864,161).
Regarding claim 20 and 22, Lee’161 discloses a method performed by a terminal device(see fig.18, first device 102 as terminal with processor and second device with processor 202), comprising:
determining candidate slot resources(see fig.16, which shows determine selectable candidate slots for sidelink (SL) transmission 1610…SL resources included in selectable candidate slots 1620, see claim 1, see table 7, which discusses total number of candidate single slot resources is denoted by Mtotal) within a time interval(see claim 1, which discusses time interval, see fig.15, 1510-1520), for resource selection triggered by an aperiodic transmission(see claim 3, which discuses for resource selection triggered by aperiodic transmission), wherein the candidate slot resources comprise first candidate slot resources with periodic based partial sensing results(see col.37, lines 14-45, which discusses the UE performs (periodic) resource selection/reservation related to a plurality of SL grants (and/or booking process) (BK_PR) based on partial sensing, see claim 1, which discuses performing partial sensing for the N slots …of the set of Y candidate slots and , see claim 9 & 12, resource selection includes…partial sensing based resource selection, see fig.15, 1530-1540, see fig.16, 1620-1630); and
excluding a resource from the determined candidate slot resources in a case where a condition is met(see table 7, which discusses the UE shall exclude any candidate single-slot resource R.sub.x,y from the set S.sub.A if it meets all the following condition…col.22, lines 35-47).
Regarding claim 24 and 25, Lee’161 discloses wherein the time interval(see claim 1, which discusses time interval) is associated with a slot for triggering the resource selection(see claim 1, which discuses triggering resource selection in a slot, determining, based on the triggering, a time interval from the slot, see claim 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 11,864,161) and in view of Li et al (2021/0219268).
Regarding claim 21, 23, as discussed above, although Lee’161 discloses resource selection triggered by an aperiodic transmission(see claim 3, which discuses for resource selection triggered by aperiodic transmission), Lee’161 does not explicitly show the use of “determining the aperiodic transmission occurs based on a higher layer parameter being equal to 0” as required by present claimed invention. However, including “determining the aperiodic transmission occurs based on a higher layer parameter being equal to 0” would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Li’268.
In particular, in the same field of endeavor, Li’268 teaches the use of determining the aperiodic transmission occurs based on a higher layer parameter being equal to 0(see para.0418, which discusses At step 1, a UE checks if the planned data transmission is periodic or aperiodic, e.g. indicated by the higher layer parameter periodic “1” for periodic and “0” for aperiodic”, if “1” a higher layer parameter period for the time interval of periodicity, see fig.16 along with related text, which shows step. 5 determining by selecting candidate resources based on sensed resulted within the sensing window, 2-2A. triggered by aperiodic transmission, see para.0449, Resources meeting the following conditions may be excluded…).
In view of the above, having the system of Lee’161 and then given the well-established teaching of Li’268, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lee’161 to include “determining the aperiodic transmission occurs based on a higher layer parameter being equal to 0” as taught by Li’268, since Li’268 stated in para.0140+ that such a modification would provide an system that may help to reduce latency and congestions, as well as improving the reliability(e.g., available time resources for repetition).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINNCELAS LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5138. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Michael Thier can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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.
/VINNCELAS LOUIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights