DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted January 7, 2026. Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on February 2, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 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.
4. 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.
5. 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
6. Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0377748 A1 (hereinafter “He”), in view of the non-patent literature document titled QoS Management For Sidelink (hereinafter “R1-1910218”), and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0201528 A1 (hereinafter “Shin`528”).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15: He teaches a method comprising: selecting, by a wireless device, first resources for a first sidelink transmission in a resource pool; determining to select second resources for the first sidelink transmission based on: a sidelink preemption of the first resources by a second sidelink transmission; selecting, based on the determining to select the second resources, the second resources; and transmitting, via the second resources, the first sidelink transmission (see, e.g. [0073]-[0078] and/or [0085]-[0088]; first resources are selected followed by a reselection/updating of the resources based on preemption and/or other parameters; transmission follows on the updated resources).
He teaches basing selection/reselection on measurements of the resource pool for utilization, but does not explicitly state a basis on “a channel busy ratio (CBR) measurement of the resource pool.” However, this feature is taught by R1-1910218 (see, e.g., section 2; note also overlapping teachings with respect to resource selection and preemption – section 2.2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of R1-1910218, such as the signaling and/or indication functionality, within the system of He, in order to enhance V2X sidelink congestion control.
He modified by R1-1910218 does not explicitly state “[a determination] based on one or more of the first resources overlapping with one or more of the second resources, wherein overlapping resources of the first resources for the first sidelink transmission are excluded from the second resources for the first sidelink transmission.” However, this feature is taught by Shin`528 (see, e.g., [0308]-[0310]; note also overlapping teachings with respect to resource selection and preemption criteria [0343]-[0347], [0416]-[0418]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Shin`528, such as the signaling and/or preemption functionality, within the system of He modified by R1-1910218, in order to maximize resource implementation during reselection.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 1 is applicable to the device and medium of claims 8 and 15, respectively.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16: He modified by R1-1910218 and Shin`528 further teaches wherein the determining to select the second resources is further based on the CBR measurement of the resource pool satisfying a CBR threshold (see, e.g., R1-1910218 section 2.1; He [0035], [0072]-[0076]; and/or Shin`528 [0309], [0416]-[0422]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 2.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 2 is applicable to the device and medium of claims 9 and 16, respectively.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19: He modified by R1-1910218 and Shin`528 further teaches receiving, from a second wireless device, a sidelink control information (SCI) indicating the second sidelink transmission and a second priority value of the second sidelink transmission (i.e. claim 4); and wherein the sidelink preemption is determined based on: a resource collision between the first resources and the second resources; and a first priority value, of the first sidelink transmission, being greater than the second priority value (i.e. claim 5) (see, e.g., He [0022], [0033], [0040], [0075]-[0078], and [0085]; R1-1910218 section 2.2; and/or Shin`528 [0309], [0346]-[0348]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claims 4 and 5.
The rationale set forth above regarding the methods of claims 4 and 5 is applicable to the devices and mediums of claims 11, 12, 18, and 19, respectively.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20: He modified by R1-1910218 and Shin`528 further teaches wherein the determining is further based on:a channel state information (CSI) report latency requirement of the first sidelink transmission (i.e. claim 6); and wherein the determining is further based on the second resources not satisfying the CSI report latency requirement of the first sidelink transmission (i.e. claim 7) (see, e.g., He [0033], [0035], and [0105]; R1-1910218 section 2.2; and/or Shin`528 [0157]-[0161]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claims 6 and 7.
The rationale set forth above regarding the methods of claims 6 and 7 is applicable to the devices and medium of claims 13, 14, and 20, respectively.
7. Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He, in view of R1-1910218, in further view of Shin`528, and alternatively in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0329301 A1 (hereinafter “Shin`301”).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17: He modified by R1-1910218 and Shin`528 further teaches the feature of receiving, from a base station, one or more messages indicating the CBR threshold (see, e.g., He [0073] and/or R1-1910218 section 2.3; note higher layer signaling and gNB authorized parameters). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 3.
To the extent the said feature is not inherent to the system of He modified by R1-1910218 and Shin`528, it is nevertheless taught by Shin`301 (see, e.g., [0374]-[0384]; note higher layer configuration signaling from the base station). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Shin`301, such as the signaling, within the system of He modified by R1-1910218 and Shin`528, in order to provide nodes with core configuration.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 3 is applicable to the device and medium of claims 10 and 17, respectively.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476