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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Chinese Application No. 202210562368.1, filed on May 23, 2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
According to the Applicant’s Detailed Disclosure {“specification”), bits are configured in Sidelink Control Information (SCI) to indicate particular information. The type of information indicated by the bits is determined by value of the 2nd-stage SCI format field in a first SCI, among two recited SCI.
The independent claims 1, 19 and 20 clearly recite a node transmitting, to another node, first Sidelink Control Information (SCI), a second SCI and a first Transport Block (TB) on sidelink, wherein the first SCI schedules a first Physical Sidelink Shared Channel (PSSCH), and both the second SCI and the first TB are transmitted in the first PSSCH. The claims clearly recite that candidates of a format of the second SCI comprise SCI format 2-A, SCI format 2-B, SCI format 2-C and a first format subset, and the first format subset comprises at least a first SCI format. The claims clearly recite that when the value of a 2nd-stage SCI format field in the first SCI is one of 00, 01, and 10, the first bit group is not used to indicate the format of the second SCI, and when the value of the 2nd-stage SCI format field in the first SCI is 11, the first bit group is used to indicate the format of the second SCI.
However, the independent claims recite “whether a first bit group is used to indicate whether the format of the second SCI is related to a value of a 2nd-stage SCI format field in the first SCI”. The same grammar is used in the specification. Examiner asserts that this limitation literally does not require any consideration, holding no patentable weight. Understanding the intent of the invention, the bit group is utilized, a value is configured for each bit. However, in the context of the claims, the bits are not required to consider; “whether a bit group is used to indicate whether…” can be considered in the alternate to not be used to indicate whether the value of the group relates to anything. As recited, the first “whether” gives the choice to consider the bit group, and the second “whether” provides the determination of the bit value’s meaning.
Examiner recommends eliminating the passage.
For example, Claim 1 can be amended to recite:
“ A first node for wireless communications, comprising:
a first receiver, receiving first Sidelink Control Information (SCI), a second SCI and a first Transport Block (TB) on sidelink;
wherein the first SCI schedules a first Physical Sidelink Shared Channel (PSSCH), and both the second SCI and the first TB are transmitted in the first PSSCH;
candidates of a format of the second SCI comprise SCI format 2-A, SCI format 2-B, SCI format 2-C and a first format subset;
the first format subset comprises at least a first SCI format;
when the value of the 2nd-stage SCI format field in the first SCI is one of 00, 01, and 10, the first bit group is not used to indicate the format of the second SCI, and when the value of the 2nd-stage SCI format field in the first SCI is 11, the first bit group is used to indicate the format of the second SCI;
the first bit group comprises at least one bit.
Similar amendment may be made to claims 19 and 20.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230156669 A1 (hereinafter Zhou) in view of Zhang et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240381332 A1 (hereinafter Zhang, using prior art date of parent Chinese application publication CN 116744458 A), and in view of Lee et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240057036 A1 (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhou discloses a first node for wireless communications, comprising: a first receiver, receiving first Sidelink Control Information (SCI), a second SCI and a first Transport Block (TB) on sidelink (e.g., ¶ [0005][0015] resource to the at least one requesting UE includes SCI…using PSSCH; e.g., ¶ [0062] the SCI is in a 1-A format and includes a first-stage SCI, and the identification portion includes a bit field corresponding to frequency domain resource assignment in the first-stage SCI; e.g., ¶ [0065] the SCI further includes a second-stage SCI, and the indication portion includes a bit field corresponding to time domain resource assignment in the first-stage SCI and at least one of bit fields corresponding to a Beta offset indicator, a number of DMRS ports, and a modulation and coding scheme in the second-stage SCI [i.e., interpretations of 1st and 2nd stage SCI as the recited 1st and 2nd SCI]; e.g., ¶ [0018] transmitted [received] resource assistance information (RAI); e.g., ¶ [0023] RAI may indicate one or more Physical Resource Blocks (PRBs)); wherein the first SCI schedules a first Physical Sidelink Shared Channel (PSSCH) (e.g., ¶ [0063] SCI is in 1-A format and includes first stage SCI for scheduling PSSCH and a second-stage SCI (that is, 2nd-stage-SCI) on the PSSCH), and both the second SCI and the first TB are transmitted in the first PSSCH (e.g., ¶ [0063] [receive] first stage SCI… and a second-stage SCI… on the PSSCH); candidates of a format of the second SCI comprise … a first format subset… the first format subset comprises at least a first SCI format (e.g., ¶ [0076] Specific designs of SCI format 2-A and SCI format 2-B can be referred to relevant descriptions in Release 16).
Zhou discloses candidates of a format of the second SCI comprise SCI format 2-A, SCI format 2-B, but does not expressly disclose candidates of a format of the second SCI comprise SCI format 2-A, SCI format 2-B, SCI format 2-C and a first format subset, whether a first bit group is used to indicate whether the format of the second SCI is related to a value of a 2nd-stage SCI format field in the first SCI, when the value of the 2.sup.nd-stage SCI format field in the first SCI is one of 00, 01, and 10, the first bit group is not used to indicate the format of the second SCI, and when the value of the 2.sup.nd-stage SCI format field in the first SCI is 11, the first bit group is used to indicate the format of the second SCI, and the first bit group comprises at least one bit.
Zhang discloses candidates of a format of the second SCI comprise SCI format 2-A, SCI format 2-B, SCI format 2-C and a first format subset, whether a first bit group is used to indicate whether the format of the second SCI is related to a value of a 2nd-stage SCI format field in the first SCI; when the value of the 2nd-stage SCI format field in the first SCI is 11, the first bit group is used to indicate the format of the second SCI; and the first bit group comprises at least one bit (e.g., ¶ [0178] second-stage SCI format may be indicated by using the first-stage SCI, and possible second-stage SCI format fields are shown in Table 2 [i.e., candidates for second-stage SCI format: 2-A, 2-B, 2-C and 2-D, and 2 bit field to depict values that map to SCI format. SCI format 2-C when the format field is “10” [The second stage SCI format field reads on “first bit group is used to indicate the format of the second SCI”, and “first bit group comprises at least one bit”]), and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of indications of SCI format, as disclosed by Zhou, with the disclosure of using a first bit group is used to indicate format of the second SCI, as disclosed by Zhang. The motivation to combine would have been to meet a service requirement (Zhang: e.g., ¶ [0003]).
Zhou in view of Zhang does not expressly disclose when the value of the 2.sup.nd-stage SCI format field in the first SCI is one of 00, 01, and 10, the first bit group is not used to indicate the format of the second SCI.
Lee discloses when the value of the 2nd-stage SCI format field in the first SCI is one of 00, 01, and 10, the first bit group is not used to indicate the format of the second SCI (e.g., ¶ [0118] Table 5: second-stage SCI indicated by using the first-stage SCI; [at least] value 10 of second-stage SCI format field is reserved, i.e., not explicitly indicating a SCI format).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of indications of SCI format, as disclosed by Zhou in view of Zhang, with the disclosure of with the disclosure of not using a first bit group is used to indicate format of the second SCI, as disclosed by Lee. The motivation to combine would have been to support enhanced sidelink communication (Lee: e.g., ¶ [0005]).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhou in view of Zhang and in view of Lee discloses all the limitations of the first node according to claim 1.
Zhou does not expressly disclose wherein the first bit group belongs to the first SCI or the first bit group belongs to the second SCI.
Zhang discloses wherein the first bit group belongs to the first SCI or the first bit group belongs to the second SCI (e.g., ¶ [0178] second-stage SCI format may be indicated by using the first-stage SCI, and possible second-stage SCI format fields are shown in Table 2), and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of indications of SCI format, as disclosed by Zhou, with the disclosure of using a first bit group is used to indicate format of the second SCI, as disclosed by Zhang. The motivation to combine would have been to meet a service requirement (Zhang: e.g., ¶ [0003]).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhou in view of Zhang and in view of Lee discloses all the limitations of the first node according to claim 1.
Zhou does not expressly disclose wherein the first bit group belongs to the first SCI; wherein the meaning of the phrase that the first bit group is used to indicate the format of the second SCI is: the first bit group indicates the format of the second SCI from the first format subset; the first bit group belongs to at least one of a modulation-coding-related field or reserved field of the first SCI.
Zhang discloses wherein the first bit group belongs to the first SCI and wherein the meaning of the phrase that the first bit group is used to indicate the format of the second SCI is: the first bit group indicates the format of the second SCI from the first format subset (e.g., ¶ [0178] second-stage SCI format may be indicated by using the first-stage SCI, and possible second stage SCI format fields are shown in Table 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of indications of SCI format, as disclosed by Zhou, with the disclosure of using a first bit group is used to indicate format of the second SCI, as disclosed by Zhang. The motivation to combine would have been to meet a service requirement (Zhang: e.g., ¶ [0003]).
Zhou in view of Zhang does not expressly disclose the first bit group belongs to at least one of a modulation-coding-related field or reserved field of the first SCI.
Lee discloses the first bit group belongs to at least one of a modulation-coding-related field or reserved field of the first SCI (e.g., ¶ [0118] Table 5: second-stage SCI indicated by using the first-stage SCI; values 10 of second-stage SCI format field is reserved, i.e., not explicitly indicating a SCI format).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of indications of SCI format, as disclosed by Zhou in view of Zhang, with the disclosure of with the disclosure of not using a first bit group is used to indicate format of the second SCI, as disclosed by Lee. The motivation to combine would have been to support enhanced sidelink communication (Lee: e.g., ¶ [0005]).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhou in view of Zhang and in view of Lee discloses all the limitations of the first node according to claim 2.
Zhou does not expressly disclose wherein the first bit group belongs to the first SCI; wherein the meaning of the phrase that the first bit group is used to indicate the format of the second SCI is: the first bit group indicates the format of the second SCI from the first format subset; the first bit group belongs to at least one of a modulation-coding-related field or reserved field of the first SCI.
Zhang discloses wherein the first bit group belongs to the first SCI and wherein the meaning of the phrase that the first bit group is used to indicate the format of the second SCI is: the first bit group indicates the format of the second SCI from the first format subset (e.g., ¶ [0178] second-stage SCI format may be indicated by using the first-stage SCI, and possible second stage SCI format fields are shown in Table 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of indications of SCI format, as disclosed by Zhou, with the disclosure of using a first bit group is used to indicate format of the second SCI, as disclosed by Zhang. The motivation to combine would have been to meet a service requirement (Zhang: e.g., ¶ [0003]).
Zhou in view of Zhang does not expressly disclose the first bit group belongs to at least one of a modulation-coding-related field or reserved field of the first SCI.
Lee discloses the first bit group belongs to at least one of a modulation-coding-related field or reserved field of the first SCI (e.g., ¶ [0118] Table 5: second-stage SCI indicated by using the first-stage SCI; values 10 of second-stage SCI format field is reserved, i.e., not explicitly indicating a SCI format).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of indications of SCI format, as disclosed by Zhou in view of Zhang, with the disclosure of with the disclosure of not using a first bit group is used to indicate format of the second SCI, as disclosed by Lee. The motivation to combine would have been to support enhanced sidelink communication (Lee: e.g., ¶ [0005]).
Regarding Claim 15, Zhou in view of Zhang and in view of Lee discloses all the limitations of the first node according to claim 2.
Zhou discloses wherein the first bit group depends on a reinterpretation of either the first SCI or the second SCI; wherein the meaning of the phrase that the first bit group depends on a reinterpretation of either the first SCI or the second SCI comprises: the first bit group belongs to the first SCI, and the first bit group depends on a reinterpretation of at least one field of the first SCI; or the first bit group belongs to the second SCI, and the first bit group depends on a reinterpretation of at least one field of the second SCI (Examiner asserts that it is unclear what the reinterpretation of SCI needs to be. The claim does not preclude any information regarding SCI format in either the first or second SCI from being considered and to be considered “reinterpreted”).
Regarding Claim 19, Zhou in view of Zhang and in view of Lee discloses a second node for wireless communications, comprising: a second transmitter (Zhou: e.g., ¶ [0029] apparatus for indicating a sidelink coordinated resource [with] circuitry configured to transmit information of the recommended/non-recommended resource), transmitting information that is functionally similar to the information that is received by the first node of claim 1. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 1 shall be applied to claim 19.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim is directed to a method in a first node for wireless communications, comprising operations that are functionally similar to those performed by the first node of claim 1. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 1 shall be applied to claim 20.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, in view of Zhang, and in view of Lee, and in view of Pan et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240015755 A1 (hereinafter Pan).
Regarding Claim 11, Zhou in view of Zhang and in view of Lee discloses all the limitations of the first node according to claim 1.
Zhou does not expressly disclose the first RRC message is used to indicate a size of the first SCI format comprised in the first format subset.
Pan discloses the first RRC message is used to indicate a size of the first SCI format comprised in the first format subset (e.g., ¶ [0167] The SCI format may be configured by gNB e.g., via RRC or PC5-RRC. The size of SCI format as well as the size of control field in SCI format and the presence/absence of control field may be configurable by gNB e.g., via RRC or PC5-RRC signaling).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of indications of SCI format, as disclosed by Zhou, with the disclosure of SCI format size indicated by RRC message, as disclosed by Pan. The motivation to combine would have been to provide coordination based inter-user equipment (UE) operation for new radio (NR) Sidelink (Pan: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10, 12-14, and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and the 112(b) issue is addressed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, dependent from claims 1 and 2, respectively, the prior art of record fails to disclose individually or in combination or render obvious the limitations wherein the first bit group belongs to the second SCI; wherein the first format subset comprises at least two SCI formats, and numbers of bits comprised in all SCI formats in the first format subset are the same.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, dependent from claims 1 and 2, respectively, the prior art of record fails to disclose individually or in combination or render obvious the limitations wherein the first bit group belongs to the second SCI; wherein a size of the first SCI format comprised in the first format subset is the same as a size of one of the SCI format 2-A, the SCI format 2-B or the SCI format 2-C; the SCI format 2-A and the SCI format 2-B do not comprise a padding bit field.
Claims 9 and 10, dependent from claims 5 and 6, respectively, are also objected.
Regarding Claim 12, dependent from claim 1, the prior art of record fails to disclose individually or in combination or render obvious the limitations wherein at least partial bits in the first bit group belong to the first SCI; at least partial bits in the first bit group belong to the second SCI; the first bit group comprises at least two bits.
Claims 13 and 14, dependent from claims 12, are also objected.
Regarding Claim 16, dependent from claim 1, the prior art of record fails to disclose individually or in combination or render obvious the limitations wherein the format of the second SCI belongs to the first format subset, and the second SCI is used for positioning.
Regarding Claim 17, dependent from claim 1, the prior art of record fails to disclose individually or in combination or render obvious the limitations wherein the format of the second SCI belongs to the first format subset, and the second SCI is used for carrier aggregation.
Regarding Claim 18, dependent from claim 1, the prior art of record fails to disclose individually or in combination or render obvious the limitations wherein the format of the second SCI belongs to the first format subset, and the second SCI is used for multi-antenna.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References considered relevant to this application are listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited” (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADISLAV Y AGUREYEV whose telephone number is (571)272-0549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday--Friday (9-5).
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached on (571) 272-8586. 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.
/VLADISLAV Y AGUREYEV/ Examiner, Art Unit 2471