DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Regarding Independent Claims 1, 17, 28 and 29, Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues “For example, Moshavi's description of the scheduling
strategy being "based on the assumption that UE1 is able to successfully cancel or suppress interference," (Id. ¶ [0063]) does not teach or suggest resource allocation "based on the reported IC capability" as recited in amended independent claim 1. That is, Moshavi relies on an assumption that any other signals are canceled or suppressed but does not consider an overlap between sidelink resources, and therefore does not teach or suggest "receive, from the network entity, an indication of resources allocated for the sidelink communication based at least in part on the reported IC capability, wherein whether the resources overlap with second resources for a second sidelink communication is based on the reported IC capability," as recited in amended independent claim 1. Amended independent claim 28 is allowable for at least similar reasons. ” See page 13 of applicant’s remarks. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Moshavi teaches possible interference of sidelink/D2D transmissions in Cell 1/sidelink communication and Cell 2/second sidelink communication. See paragraphs [0009] and [0075]-[0076]. Moshavi further teaches the processor (e.g., processor 40 of BS2) receiving interference cancellation capabilities of BS1 in a neighbor CELL1, at a capabilities reception operation 130 (in other words, reported IC capability)…At a capability analysis operation 134, the processor analyses the BS1 capabilities received at operation 130 and checks whether or not BS1 is capable of cancelling interference caused by UE2 uplink transmissions in CELL2. When BS1 supports interference cancellation, BS1 can successfully mitigate interference caused by UE2, and the processor proceeds to a reusing operation 138 (i.e., BS1 is able to determine “whether” the resources overlap as suggested by the BS1 being able to mitigate interference which further suggests resources overlapping), in which the processor allocates to the uplink transmissions of UE2 time/frequency resources independently of or without having to take into consideration the time/frequency resources allocated to the uplink transmissions of UE1 in CELL1 (in other words, second resources for a second sidelink communication are reallocated based on “whether” the resources overlap based on the reported IC capability). See paragraphs [0071]-[0072].
Moshavi teaches the added amendment of “wherein whether the resources overlap with second resources for a second sidelink communication is based on the reported IC capability”. The “whether” statement does not require the resources to actually overlap but rather suggests that a determination of “whether” the resources overlap is made based on the reported IC capability. In other words, “whether” gives the possibility however, does not necessarily have to be the case/scenario/situation just merely suggests as an option.
Regarding Independent Claims 23 and 30, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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 § 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) 23, 26-27 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (Liao), U.S. Publication No. 2020/0304159 in view of Moshavi et al. (Moshavi), U.S. Publication No. 2016/0198486.
Regarding Claims 23 and 30, Liao discloses a user equipment (UE) (i.e., user
equipment UE 201; see figure 2) for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (i.e.,
memory 211 stores program instructions and data 214 to control the operations of UE 201; see figure 2); and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually
or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to (i.e., program instructions and data 214, when executed by processor 212; see figure 2):
transmit an indication of interference cancellation (IC) capability to another UE
from which a sidelink communication is to be received (steps 611 and 631 of figure 6; see paragraphs [0039]-[0040]); and
receive the sidelink communication from the other UE using resources allocated to the other UE based on the indication of IC capability (step 651 of figure 6; see paragraphs [0039]-[0040]).
Liao fails to disclose wherein whether the resources overlap with second resources for a second sidelink communication is based on the reported IC capability.
Moshavi discloses wherein whether the resources overlap with second resources for a second sidelink communication (i.e., BS1 can successfully mitigate interference caused by UE2, and the processor proceeds to a reusing operation 138 (i.e., BS1 is able to determine “whether” the resources overlap as suggested by the BS1 being able to mitigate interference which further suggests resources overlapping; see paragraphs [0071]-[0072]) is based on the reported IC capability (i.e., the processor (e.g., processor 40 of BS2) receiving interference cancellation capabilities of BS1 in a neighbor CELL1, at a capabilities reception operation 130 (in other words, reported IC capability); see paragraphs [0071]-[0072]). Also, see examiner’s response above.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Moshavi’s invention of determining “whether” resources overlap based on interference cancellation with Liao’s invention of sending interference cancellation for the purposes of preventing interference and maintaining good quality connections/communications.
Regarding Claim 26, Liao and Moshavi disclose the UE as described above. Liao further discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive, from the other UE, an indication of a demodulation reference signals (DMRS) index assigned to the sidelink communication and an indication of a DMRS index assigned to the second sidelink communication (i.e., cases on intra-cell interference; see figure 1) to which overlapping resources have been allocated (see paragraphs [0044]-[0045]).
Regarding Claim 27, Liao and Moshavi disclose the UE as described above. Liao further discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to, further comprising: selectively performing interference cancellation on the received sidelink communication based on the indication of the DMRS indices (see paragraphs [0044]-[0045]).
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao and Moshavi in view of Kowalski et al. (Kowalski), U.S. Publication No. 2018/0019794.
Regarding Claim 24, Liao and Moshavi disclose the UE as described above.
Liao and Moshavi fail to disclose wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive, from the other UE, an indication of an IC assumption for the allocated resources. Kowalski discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive, from the other UE, an indication of an IC assumption for the allocated resources (see paragraphs [0087] and [0110]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Kowalski’s invention with Liao’s and Moshavi’s invention for improving communication flexibility and/or efficiency as described throughout Kowalski.
Regarding Claim 25, Liao and Moshavi disclose the UE as described above.
Liao and Moshavi fail to disclose wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: selectively perform interference cancellation on the received sidelink communication based on the indication of the IC assumption. Kowalski discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: selectively perform interference cancellation on the received sidelink communication based on the indication of the IC assumption (see paragraphs [0087] and [0110]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Kowalski’s invention with Liao’s and Moshavi’s invention for improving communication flexibility and/or efficiency as described throughout Kowalski.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 17, 19 and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moshavi.
Regarding Claims 1 and 28, Moshavi discloses a user equipment (UE) (i.e.,
mobile terminals 32; see figure 1) for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (as required for the
mobile terminals to perform the steps discussed in Moshavi); and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and
individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE (as required for the mobile terminals to perform the steps discussed in Moshavi) to:
determine an interference cancellation (IC) capability for a communication (i.e.,
UEs such as UE1 report their capabilities to their respective serving BSs, including interference cancellation capabilities therefore, an interference cancellation capability is determined; see paragraph [0048]);
report the determined IC capability for the communication to a network
entity (i.e., the processor (e.g., processor 40 of BS2) receiving information regarding the interference cancellation capabilities of the receiver part of UE1; see paragraph [0056]);
receive, from the network entity, an indication of resources allocated for the
communication based on the reported IC capability (in other words, BS2 allocates time/frequency resources to its downlink transmissions without having to take into consideration the time/frequency resources allocated to the BS1 downlink transmissions destined to UE1. This scheduling strategy is based on the assumption that UE1 is able to successfully cancel or suppress interference caused, for example, by BS2 downlink transmissions.; see paragraph [0063]).
Moshavi fails to disclose sidelink communications as specified in the claims above, wherein the sidelink communication is to be transmitted to one or more other UEs; and transmit the communication to the one or more other UEs using the allocated resources. However, Moshavi does teach sidelink transmissions of a user terminal in the second cell that communicates peer-to-peer with another user terminal based at least in part on the interference cancellation capabilities of the user terminal in the first cell described in paragraphs [0009] and [0075]-[0076]. According to Moshavi, the sidelink transmissions/D2D communications utilize scheduling and resources determined based on interference cancellation capabilities. These resources allow for sidelink communications as mentioned in the claims. As such, Moshavi teaches
wherein the sidelink communication is to be transmitted to one or more other UEs and transmit the communication to the one or more other UEs using the allocated resources. It would have been obvious to consider the above paragraphs in Moshavi as it pertains to the rest of the Moshavi invention for preventing interference when scheduling all communications in the network whether uplink, downlink on sidelink communications.
However, Moshavi does teach the processor (e.g., processor 40 of BS2) receiving interference cancellation capabilities of BS1 in a neighbor CELL1, at a capabilities reception operation 130 (in other words, reported IC capability)…At a capability analysis operation 134, the processor analyses the BS1 capabilities received at operation 130 and checks whether or not BS1 is capable of cancelling interference caused by UE2 uplink transmissions in CELL2. When BS1 supports interference cancellation, BS1 can successfully mitigate interference caused by UE2, and the processor proceeds to a reusing operation 138 (i.e., BS1 is able to determine “whether” the resources overlap as suggested by the BS1 being able to mitigate interference which further suggests resources overlapping), in which the processor allocates to the uplink transmissions of UE2 time/frequency resources independently of or without having to take into consideration the time/frequency resources allocated to the uplink transmissions of UE1 in CELL1 (in other words, second resources for a second sidelink communication are reallocated based on “whether” the resources overlap based on the reported IC capability). See paragraphs [0071]-[0072]. Also, see examiner’s response above. As such, Moshavi teaches wherein whether the resources overlap with second resources for a second sidelink communication is based on the reported IC capability. It would have been obvious to consider the above paragraphs in Moshavi as it pertains to the rest of the Moshavi invention for preventing interference when scheduling all communications in the network whether uplink, downlink on sidelink communications.
Regarding Claims 17 and 29, Moshavi discloses a network entity (i.e., BS 28;
see figure 1) for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (as required for the
base stations to perform the steps discussed in Moshavi); and
one or more processors (i.e., processor 40; see figure 1) coupled with the one
or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to:
receive, from a user equipment (UE) a report of interference cancellation (IC)
capability for a communication (i.e., the processor (e.g., processor 40 of BS2) receiving information regarding the interference cancellation capabilities of the receiver part of UE1; see paragraph [0056]);
allocate resources for the communication based on the reported IC capability (in other words, BS2 allocates time/frequency resources to its downlink transmissions without having to take into consideration the time/frequency resources allocated to the BS1 downlink transmissions destined to UE1. This scheduling strategy is based on the assumption that UE1 is able to successfully cancel or suppress interference caused, for example, by BS2 downlink transmissions.; see paragraph [0063]); and
transmit, to the UE, an indication of the resources allocated for the communication (in other words, BS2 allocates time/frequency resources to its downlink transmissions …This scheduling strategy is based on the assumption that UE1 is able to successfully cancel or suppress interference caused, for example, by BS2 downlink transmissions therefore, considered as a downlink transmission sent to the UE1 indicating resources utilized and scheduled as required for communication; see paragraphs [0038] and [0063]).
Moshavi fails to disclose sidelink communications as specified in the claims
above and a sidelink communication to be transmitted by the UE. However, Moshavi does teach sidelink transmissions of a user terminal in the second cell that communicates peer-to-peer with another user terminal based at least in part on the interference cancellation capabilities of the user terminal in the first cell described in paragraphs [0009] and [0075]-[0076]. According to Moshavi, the sidelink transmissions/D2D communications utilize scheduling and resources determined based on interference cancellation capabilities. Paragraph [0038] of Moshavi further state: a communication channel established between a UE and its serving BS requires dedicated time and frequency resources... In the context of the present disclosure and in the claims, the term “scheduling” refers to scheduling any resources required for communication such as time/frequency resources. These resources allow for sidelink communications as mentioned in the claims. As such, Moshavi teach sidelink communications as specified in the claims above and a sidelink communication to be transmitted by the UE. It would have been obvious to consider the above paragraphs in Moshavi as it pertains to the rest of the Moshavi invention for preventing interference when scheduling all communications in the network whether uplink, downlink on sidelink communications.
However, Moshavi does teach the processor (e.g., processor 40 of BS2) receiving interference cancellation capabilities of BS1 in a neighbor CELL1, at a capabilities reception operation 130 (in other words, reported IC capability)…At a capability analysis operation 134, the processor analyses the BS1 capabilities received at operation 130 and checks whether or not BS1 is capable of cancelling interference caused by UE2 uplink transmissions in CELL2. When BS1 supports interference cancellation, BS1 can successfully mitigate interference caused by UE2, and the processor proceeds to a reusing operation 138 (i.e., BS1 is able to determine “whether” the resources overlap as suggested by the BS1 being able to mitigate interference which further suggests resources overlapping), in which the processor allocates to the uplink transmissions of UE2 time/frequency resources independently of or without having to take into consideration the time/frequency resources allocated to the uplink transmissions of UE1 in CELL1 (in other words, second resources for a second sidelink communication are reallocated based on “whether” the resources overlap based on the reported IC capability). See paragraphs [0071]-[0072]. Also, see examiner’s response above. As such, Moshavi teaches wherein whether the resources overlap with second resources for a second sidelink communication is based on the reported IC capability. It would have been obvious to consider the above paragraphs in Moshavi as it pertains to the rest of the Moshavi invention for preventing interference when scheduling all communications in the network whether uplink, downlink on sidelink communications.
Regarding Claim 2, Moshavi discloses the UE and sidelink communications as it
pertains to the claims as described above. In addition, Moshavi further discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive one or more indications of IC capability from the one or more other UEs to which the sidelink communication is to be transmitted, wherein the IC capability for the sidelink communication is based on the one or more received indications (see paragraphs [0009] and [0020]). Moshavi teach sidelink communications in paragraphs [0009] and [0075]-[0076]. It would have been obvious to consider the paragraphs in Moshavi as it pertains to the rest of the Moshavi invention for preventing interference when scheduling all communications in the network whether uplink, downlink on sidelink communications.
Regarding Claim 3, Moshavi discloses the UE and sidelink communications as it
pertains to the claims as described above. In addition, Moshavi further discloses wherein the one or more indications of IC capability received from the one or more other UEs indicates whether a respective UE of the one or more other UEs is capable of performing interference cancellation on received sidelink communications (see paragraph [0009]). Moshavi teach sidelink communications in paragraphs [0009] and [0075]-[0076]. It would have been obvious to consider the paragraphs in Moshavi as it pertains to the rest of the Moshavi invention for preventing interference when scheduling all communications in the network whether uplink, downlink on sidelink communications.
Regarding Claim 4, Moshavi discloses the UE and sidelink communications as it
pertains to the claims as described above. In addition, Moshavi further discloses wherein, to determine the IC capability for the sidelink communication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: determine that IC capability is present when all of the one or more other UEs are capable of performing IC on received sidelink communications (see paragraph [0009]). Moshavi teach sidelink communications in paragraphs [0009] and [0075]-[0076]. It would have been obvious to consider the paragraphs in Moshavi as it pertains to the rest of the Moshavi invention for preventing interference when scheduling all communications in the network whether uplink, downlink on sidelink communications.
Regarding Claim 5, Moshavi discloses the UE and sidelink communications as it
pertains to the claims as described above. In addition, Moshavi further discloses wherein the one or more indications of IC capability received from the one or more other UEs indicates a respective level of IC capability of each UE of the one or more other UEs (i.e., higher category; see paragraphs [0059] and [0060]).
Regarding Claim 8, Moshavi discloses the UE and sidelink communications as it
pertains to the claims as described above. In addition, Moshavi further discloses wherein: the sidelink communication is a unicast sidelink communication to be transmitted to one other UE; a respective indication of the one or more indications of IC capability is received from the one other UE to which the unicast sidelink communication is to be transmitted; and the determined IC capability for the unicast sidelink communication is determined based on the respective indication of IC capability received from the one other UE (see paragraphs [0009] and [0075]-[0076]).
Regarding Claim 19, Moshavi discloses the network entity and sidelink
communications as it pertains to the claims as described above. In addition, Moshavi further discloses wherein, to allocate the resources for the sidelink communication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: allocate resources that overlap with the second resources allocated to the second sidelink communication when the reported IC capability indicates that IC capability is present for the sidelink communication (see paragraphs [0047] and [0055]). Moshavi teach sidelink communications in paragraphs [0009] and [0075]-[0076]. It would have been obvious to consider the paragraphs in Moshavi as it pertains to the rest of the Moshavi invention for preventing interference when scheduling all communications in the network whether uplink, downlink on sidelink communications.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moshavi in view of Muruganathan et al. (Muruganathan), U.S. Publication No. 2019/0013911.
Regarding Claim 6, Moshavi discloses the UE and sidelink communications as
it pertains to the claims as described above. Moshavi fails to disclose wherein the respective level of IC capability is a symbol level interference cancellation (SLIC) capability, or a codeword level IC capability. Muruganathan discloses wherein the respective level of IC capability is a symbol level interference cancellation (SLIC) capability, or a codeword level IC capability (see paragraphs [0005]-[0006]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Muruganathan’s invention with Moshavi’s invention for reducing uplink feedback providing for more, successful transmission as described throughout Muruganathan.
Regarding Claim 7, Moshavi discloses the UE and sidelink communications as
it pertains to the claims as described above. Moshavi fails to disclose wherein, to determine the IC capability for the sidelink communication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: determine a level of IC capability for the sidelink communication based on the respective level of IC capability of each of the one or more other UEs. Muruganathan discloses wherein, to determine the IC capability for the sidelink communication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: determine a level of IC capability for the sidelink communication based on the respective level of IC capability of each of the one or more other UEs (see paragraphs [0005]-[0006]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Muruganathan’s invention with Moshavi’s invention for reducing uplink feedback providing for more, successful transmission as described throughout Muruganathan.
Claim(s) 9-11, 15-16 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moshavi in view of Liao.
Regarding Claim 9, Moshavi discloses the UE and sidelink communications as
it pertains to the claims as described above. In addition, Moshavi further discloses a respective indication of the one or more indications of IC capability is received from each of the plurality of other UEs to which the sidelink communication is to be transmitted; and the determined IC capability for the sidelink communication is determined based on the respective indications of IC capability received from the plurality of other UEs (see paragraphs [0009] and [0075]-[0076]). Moshavi fails to disclose groupcast sidelink communication and the sidelink communication is a groupcast sidelink communication to be transmitted to a plurality of other UEs. Liao discloses groupcast sidelink communication and the sidelink communication is a groupcast sidelink communication to be transmitted to a plurality of other UEs (see paragraph [0035]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Liao’s invention with Moshavi’s invention to improve communication range or user throughput over the link (see paragraph [0005] of Liao).
Regarding Claim 10, Moshavi discloses the UE and sidelink communications as
it pertains to the claims as described above. Moshavi fails to disclose wherein: the sidelink communication is a broadcast sidelink communication to be transmitted to a plurality of other UEs; and to determine the IC capability for the sidelink communication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to determine that IC capability is absent for the broadcast sidelink communication. Liao discloses wherein: the sidelink communication is a broadcast sidelink communication to be transmitted to a plurality of other UEs; and to determine the IC capability for the sidelink communication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to determine that IC capability is absent for the broadcast sidelink communication (see paragraphs [0034] and [0046]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Liao’s invention with Moshavi’s invention to improve communication range or user throughput over the link (see paragraph [0005] of Liao).
Regarding Claim 11, Moshavi discloses the UE and sidelink communications as
it pertains to the claims as described above. Moshavi fails to disclose wherein: the sidelink communication is a broadcast sidelink communication to be transmitted to a plurality of other UEs; and to determine the IC capability for the sidelink communication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to determine a IC capability for the broadcast sidelink communication based on a sidelink application associated with the broadcast sidelink communication. Liao discloses wherein: the sidelink communication is a broadcast sidelink communication to be transmitted to a plurality of other UEs; and to determine the IC capability for the sidelink communication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to determine a IC capability for the broadcast sidelink communication based on a sidelink application associated with the broadcast sidelink communication (see paragraphs [0034] and [0046]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Liao’s invention with Moshavi’s invention to improve communication range or user throughput over the link (see paragraph [0005] of Liao).
Regarding Claim 15, Moshavi discloses the UE and sidelink communications as
it pertains to the claims as described above. Moshavi fails to disclose wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive, from the network entity, an indication of a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) index assigned to the sidelink communication and an indication of a DMRS index assigned to the second sidelink communication to which overlapping resources have been allocated. Liao discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive, from the network entity, an indication of a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) index assigned to the sidelink communication and an indication of a DMRS index assigned to the second sidelink communication to which overlapping resources have been allocated (see paragraphs [0044]-[0045]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Liao’s invention with Moshavi’s invention to improve communication range or user throughput over the link (see paragraph [0005] of Liao).
Regarding Claim 16, Moshavi discloses the UE and sidelink communications as
it pertains to the claims as described above. Moshavi fails to disclose wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit, to the one or more other UEs, the indication of the DMRS index assigned to the sidelink communication and the indication of the DMRS index assigned to the second sidelink communication to which overlapping resources have been allocated. Liao discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit, to the one or more other UEs, the indication of the DMRS index assigned to the sidelink communication and the indication of the DMRS index assigned to the second sidelink communication to which overlapping resources have been allocated (see paragraphs [0044]-[0045]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Liao’s invention with Moshavi’s invention to improve communication range or user throughput over the link (see paragraph [0005] of Liao).
Regarding Claim 21, Moshavi discloses the network entity and sidelink
communications as it pertains to the claims as described above. Moshavi fails to disclose wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: assign orthogonal demodulation reference signals (DMRS) to the sidelink communication and to the second sidelink communication to which overlapping resources are allocated. Liao discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: assign orthogonal demodulation reference signals (DMRS) to the sidelink communication and to the second sidelink communication to which overlapping resources are allocated (see paragraphs [0044]-[0045]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Liao’s invention with Moshavi’s invention to improve communication range or user throughput over the link (see paragraph [0005] of Liao).
Regarding Claim 22, Moshavi discloses the network entity and sidelink
communications as it pertains to the claims as described above. Moshavi fails to disclose wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: transmit, to the UE, an indication of the assigned DMRS index for the sidelink communication and an indication of the DMRS index assigned to the other sidelink communication. Liao discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: transmit, to the UE, an indication of the assigned DMRS index for the sidelink communication and an indication of the DMRS index assigned to the other sidelink communication (see paragraphs [0044]-[0045]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Liao’s invention with Moshavi’s invention to improve communication range or user throughput over the link (see paragraph [0005] of Liao).
Claim(s) 12-14, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moshavi in view of Kowalski et al. (Kowalski), U.S. Publication No. 2018/0019794.
Regarding Claim 12, Moshavi discloses the UE and sidelink communications as
it pertains to the claims as described above. Moshavi fails to disclose wherein:
the indication of allocated resources received from the network entity includes an indication of an IC assumption for the allocated resources. Kowalski discloses wherein:
the indication of allocated resources received from the network entity includes an indication of an IC assumption for the allocated resources (see paragraphs [0087] and [0110]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Kowalski’s invention with Moshavi’s invention for improving communication flexibility and/or efficiency as described throughout Kowalski.
Regarding Claim 13, Moshavi discloses the UE and sidelink communications as
it pertains to the claims as described above. Moshavi fails to disclose wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: determine a modulation coding scheme (MCS) for the sidelink communication based on the IC assumption for the allocated resources; and transmit the sidelink communication to the one or more other UEs using the determined MCS. Kowalski discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: determine a modulation coding scheme (MCS) for the sidelink communication based on the IC assumption for the allocated resources; and transmit the sidelink communication to the one or more other UEs using the determined MCS (see paragraphs [0063]-[0065]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Kowalski’s invention with Moshavi’s invention for improving communication flexibility and/or efficiency as described throughout Kowalski.
Regarding Claim 14, Moshavi discloses the UE and sidelink communications as
it pertains to the claims as described above. Moshavi fails to disclose wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit an indication of the IC assumption to the one or more other UEs. Kowalski discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit an indication of the IC assumption to the one or more other UEs (see paragraphs [0087] and [0110]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Kowalski’s invention with Moshavi’s invention for improving communication flexibility and/or efficiency as described throughout Kowalski.
Regarding Claim 18, Moshavi discloses the network entity and sidelink communications as it pertains to the claims as described above. Moshavi fails to disclose wherein the indication of allocated resources transmitted to the UE includes an indication of an IC assumption for the allocated resources. Kowalski discloses wherein the indication of allocated resources transmitted to the UE includes an indication of an IC assumption for the allocated resources (see paragraphs [0087] and [0110]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Kowalski’s invention with Moshavi’s invention for improving communication flexibility and/or efficiency as described throughout Kowalski.
Regarding Claim 20, Moshavi discloses the network entity and sidelink communications as it pertains to the claims as described above. Moshavi fails to disclose wherein the indication of the IC assumption indicates that interference cancellation is assumed. Kowalski discloses wherein the indication of the IC assumption indicates that interference cancellation is assumed (see paragraphs [0087] and [0110]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Kowalski’s invention with Moshavi’s invention for improving communication flexibility and/or efficiency as described throughout Kowalski.
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 SHANTELL LAKETA HEIBER whose telephone number is (571)272-0886. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Addy, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-0886. 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 for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHANTELL L HEIBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
March 27, 2026