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 Amendment
This communication is in response to amendment filed on 3/20/2026. Claims 1-15 and 21-25 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5, 11, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 5, 11, and 24 recite “the plurality of IUC parameters includes a first parameter to enable or disable an explicit IUC request.” This limitation does not have support in the specification. While the specification teaches IUC parameters coming from a base station include a parameter to enable or disable IUC feature, it does not disclose the feature is IUC request. Figure 3 and its corresponding paragraphs discloses enabling and disabling explicit IUC request; however, the feature is preconfigured and the concept is for UE-to-UE communication which is part of the non-elected invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what device/node generates and transmits inter-UE coordination(s) to an UE. Is it another UE, a base station, a satellite, or a mobile gateway? The metes and bounds of the claim is unclear. The Applicant tries to keep the scope of claim broad; however, the scope is unclear and confusing even to the Applicant resulting in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of dependent claim 5 above.
Claims 2-8 are rejected for the same reason set forth in claim 1 above.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9-11, 13, 14, 21, 22, 24, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0397529) in view of Balasubramanian et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0140785).
Regarding claims 1 and 22, Nguyen discloses an apparatus (figure 3 310 or 350; paragraph 56: base station) comprising:
interface circuitry (figure 3 RF transceivers 318 or 354); and
processing circuitry (figure 3 processor 375 or 359) coupled with the interface circuitry, the processing circuitry to:
generate a RRC message to provide a user equipment (UE) with inter-UE coordination (IUC) having a plurality of IUC parameters (figure 10A & B, paragraph 140, 143 and Table 1: UE 1002 receives signaling 1018/1020 that indicates one or more types of inter-UE coordination information, the potential types include a type of resource set, identifier, resource reservation interval, transmission priority level, number of sub-channels for the inter-UE coordination, etc.) to be used to avoid interference over a sidelink resources (figure 10A step 1020 enable/disable Types of IUC in Table 1; paragraph 140: UE-A receives from network/base station one or more types of inter-UE coordination information) of a resource pool, wherein the IUC configuration is specifically associated with the sidelink resource pool (paragraphs 54, 85, 106, 140, Table 1, 142: resource pool is used for IUC configuration communication); and
output the RRC message for transmission to the UE via the interface circuitry (figure 10A step 1020 enable/disable Types of IUC in Table 1; figure 10B message 1018; paragraphs 140 and 143: UE-A receives from network/base station one or more types of inter-UE coordination information).
Nguyen does not teach generating a radio resource control message to include configuration information to configure a user equipment (UE) with a sidelink resource pool.
However, a base station configures a UE with a sidelink resource pool via RRC signaling is known in 5G/NR (Balasubramanian’s paragraph 85).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Nguyen generating a radio resource control message to include configuration information to configure a user equipment (UE) with a sidelink resource pool.
The motivation would have been for dynamic configuration from a base station.
Regarding claims 4 and 25, all limitations of claims 1 and 22 are disclosed above. Nguyen discloses the UE is configured for autonomous sidelink resource allocation (paragraphs 32, 66 and 67 in view of paragraph 7: figure 10A: steps 1028; paragraph 142: UE autonomously selects sidelink resource).
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 24, all limitations of claims 1, 9, and 22 are disclosed above. Nguyen does not explicitly discloses the plurality of IUC parameters includes a first parameter to enable or disable an explicit IUC request.
However, Nguyen discloses the plurality of IUC parameters includes a parameter to enable or disable an IUC feature (paragraphs 140 and 144 and Table 1). Nguyen’s paragraph 145 discloses various other conditions similar to an IUC request to trigger an inter-UE coordination information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Nguyen the plurality of IUC parameters includes a first parameter to enable or disable an explicit IUC request.
The motivation would have been for configuration by a base station.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, all limitations of claims 1 and 9 21are disclosed above. Nguyen further teaches the plurality of IUC parameters includes a first parameter to indicate a trigger condition that is to trigger an IUC message (paragraphs 8, 41, 143, 145 and Table 2. Figure 11a and b steps 1118/1120).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, all limitations of claims 1 and 9 are disclosed above. Nguyen’s embodiment in figure 10A does not teach but Nguyen’s embodiment in figure 11A discloses wherein the configuration information is to configure at least one trigger for an IUC message, the at least one trigger to include: detecting a resource conflict with at least a threshold confidence level (figure 11A; paragraph 146 in view of Table 2 conditions for triggering inter-UE coordination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Nguyen the configuration information is to configure at least one trigger for an IUC message, the at least one trigger to include: detecting a resource conflict with at least a threshold confidence level.
The motivation would have been for another way/condition for triggering IUC message from UE-A.
Regarding claim 9, Nguyen discloses a method of operating a processor, the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station, a radio resource control (RRC) message having configuration information that provides an inter-UE coordination (IUC) configuration having a plurality of IUC parameters (figure 10A & B, paragraph 140, 143 and Table 1: UE 1002 receives signaling 1018/1020 that indicates one or more types of inter-UE coordination information, the potential types include a type of resource set, identifier, resource reservation interval, transmission priority level, number of sub-channels for the inter-UE coordination, etc.) to be used to avoid interference over a sidelink resource (figure 10A step 1020 enable/disable Types of IUC in Table 1; paragraph 140: UE-A receives from network/base station one or more types of inter-UE coordination information), wherein the IUC configuration is specifically associated with the sidelink resource pool (paragraphs 54, 85, 106, 140, Table 1, 142: resource pool is used for IUC configuration communication); and
detecting a sidelink resource conflict (figure 10A step 1026; paragraph 141: UE-A sensing for sidelink resource reservations/resource conflict avoidance); and
outputting an IUC message for transmission to a UE user equipment (UE) based on the IUC configuration and the sidelink resource conflict (figure 10A step 1032 Inter-UE Coordination information; paragraphs140-142: UE-A transmits IUC message to UE-B).
Nguyen does not teach receiving a radio resource control message to include configuration information to configure a user equipment (UE) with a sidelink resource pool.
However, a base station configures a UE with a sidelink resource pool via RRC signaling is known in 5G/NR (Balasubramanian’s paragraph 85).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Nguyen generating a radio resource control message to include configuration information to configure a user equipment (UE) with a sidelink resource pool.
The motivation would have been for dynamic configuration from a base station.
Regarding claim 10, all limitations of claim 9 are disclosed above. Nguyen further teaches the first or the second UE is configured to autonomously select sidelink resources from a resource pool for sidelink transmissions (paragraphs 32, 66 and 67 in view of paragraph 7: figure 10A: steps 1028 and 1032: UE autonomously selects sidelink resource).
Regarding claim 21, all limitations of claim 9 are disclosed above. Nguyen further teaches receiving, from the UE, an indication of an IUC capability of the UE (paragraph 145: explicit IUC request).
Claim(s) 2, 12, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0397529) in view of Balasubramanian et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0140785) in view of Shin et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0417919).
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 23, all limitations of claims 1, 9, and 22 are disclosed above. Nguyen does not teach but Shin discloses receiving a report of an IUC capability of the UE; (paragraphs 8, 105-106 in view of figure 4: UE transmits inter-UE coordination capability to base station, base station determines UE’s capability and allocate sidelink resource).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Nguyen receiving a report of an IUC capability of the UE.
The motivation would have been to become UE-A (paragraph 103).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0397529) in view of Balasubramanian et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0140785) in view of Ganesan et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0057121).
Regarding claim 3, all limitations of claim 1 are disclosed above. Nguyen and Balasubramanian further teach the configuration information is first configuration information, the sidelink resource pool is a first sidelink resource pool, the IUC configuration is a first IUC configuration (see claim 1’s rejection). Nguyen and Balasubramanian do not teach receiving second configuration information to configure the UE with a second sidelink resource pool and a second IUC configuration that is specifically associated with the second sidelink resource pool.
Balasubramanian further teaches plurality of resource pools are configured/transmitted via RRC (paragraph 85). Ganesan discloses a base station sends a message to disable inter-UE coordination functionality per resource pool (paragraphs 96, 110, and 111).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Nguyen receiving second configuration information to configure the UE with a second sidelink resource pool and a second IUC configuration that is specifically associated with the second sidelink resource pool.
The motivation would have been for congestion in per resource pool (paragraph 110).
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0397529) in view of Balasubramanian et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0140785) in view of Ganesan et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0057121).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, all limitations of claims 1 and 9 are disclosed above. Nguyen does not teach but Ganesan discloses receiving an indication of a channel busy ratio (CBR) corresponding to the sidelink resource; and generating the configuration information based further on the indication of the CBR (paragraph 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Nguyen receiving an indication of a channel busy ratio (CBR) corresponding to the sidelink resource; and generating the configuration information based further on the indication of the CBR.
The motivation would have been for channel status/condition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In page 6 of Remark, regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, the Applicant argues that by amending claim 1 with “operating a processor”, it is sufficient to inform a
person of ordinary skill in the art with the requisite degree of certainty of the boundaries of the claim in light of the specification as required by 35 U.S.C.§ 112. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In the application, either a base station or an UE is capable of performing the claimed steps; thus, the “processor” could be either apparatus, and the metes and bounds are unclear. Furthermore, limitations in dependent claims 5, 11, and 24 are proof that the metes and bounds is unclear when the Applicant mistakes actions of an UE (claims 5, 11, and 24) for a base station’s in claim 1, resulting in a 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection.
In pages 7-8 of Remark, regarding independent claims, the Applicant argues that the amendment contains an RRC message includes configuration information to both configure a sidelink resource pool and provide an IUC configuration. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim’s language does not require both sidelink resource pool and IUC configuration is in a single RRC message. Second, this feature does not have support in the specification (see figure 4). The specification mentions configuring IUC per resource pool; however, it does not mean both the sidelink resource pool and the IUC information are included in the same RRC message. The base station could configure the UE with plurality of resource pools previously and provide the IUC information per resource pool indication at a later time.
In page 8 of Remark, regarding claims 5 and 6, the Applicant argues that Nguyen reference does not teach the claims’ limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claims 5 and 6 above.
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 TITO Q PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM 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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/TITO Q PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights