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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/7/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-9, 11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DUTTA; Sourjya et al. US PGPUB 20230224764 A1.
Regarding claim 1. Dutta teaches A method comprising:
selecting, by a first wireless device and for inter user equipment (inter-UE) coordination (Fig. 6, mTRP UE 605), a second wireless device, ([0072] In some aspects, transmitting the collision indication to the third UE may include refraining from transmitting the collision indication to the second UE.) among the second wireless device and a third wireless device, (Fig. 6, UE 615 and UE 610) to receive an indication of resource collision, ([0072] In some aspects, transmitting the collision indication to the third UE may include refraining from transmitting the collision indication to the second UE.)
wherein the selecting is based on: first resources for a first sidelink transmission by the second wireless device overlapping in time and frequency with second resources for a second sidelink transmission by the third wireless device ([0060] the UE 510 and the UE 515 may reserve the same, or overlapping, sidelink resources for communicating with the mTRP UE 505, which may lead to a communication collision at the mTRP UE 505. See Fig. 5); and a comparison of a first priority value of the first sidelink transmission and a second priority value of the second sidelink transmission; ([0072] In this way, the UE with the lower priority communication may be notified of the collision and take action to avoid the collision.) and
transmitting, based on the selecting, the indication of the resource collision to the second wireless device. ([0072])
Regarding claim 4. Dutta teaches The method of claim 1, Yu teaches wherein the first resources fully or partially overlaps with the second resources. ([0060] the UE 510 and the UE 515 may reserve the same, or overlapping, sidelink resources for communicating with the mTRP UE 505,)
Regarding claim 7. Dutta teaches teaches The method of claim 1, and wherein the second wireless device is a transmitter of one or more sidelink transmissions via the first resources. (Fig. 3, TBs with data and L feedback reserved by SCI).
Regarding claim 8. Dutta teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the third wireless device is a transmitter of one or more sidelink transmissions via the second resources. (Fig. 3, TBs with data and L feedback reserved by SCI).
Regarding claim 9. Dutta teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising determining to prioritize the second wireless device over the third wireless device, for transmitting the indication of the resource collision, based on the first priority value and the second priority value. ([0072] In some aspects, the mTRP UE 605 may determine that at least one of the updated first set of estimated RSRQ values satisfies the collision threshold and may, based at least in part on this determination, transmit the collision indication to the third UE. In some aspects, transmitting the collision indication to the third UE may include refraining from transmitting the collision indication to the second UE.)
Regarding claim 11, 17-19. Dutta teaches A first wireless device comprising: one or more processors (Fig. 2, Controller/Processor 280); and memory storing instructions (Memory 282) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the first wireless device to perform the method recited in claims 1, 7-9 respectively. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20. Dutta teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a first wireless device, ([0040] Memories 242 and 282 may store data and program codes for base station 110 and UE 120, respectively. In some aspects, memory 242 and/or memory 282 may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions (e.g., code, program code, and/or the like) for wireless communication.) cause the first wireless device to perform the method recited in claim 1. It is rejected for the same reason.
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 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, further in view of LEE; Seungmin et al., US PGPUB 20230292342 A1.
Regarding claim 2. Dutta teaches The method of claim 1, determining the second wireless device is further based on the first SCI and the second SCI. ([0049] Additionally, or alternatively, the UE 305 may perform resource selection and/or scheduling using SCI 330 received in the PSCCH 315, which may indicate occupied resources, channel parameters, and/or the like.)
but Dutta does not teach further comprising receiving, by the first wireless device: first sidelink information (SCI), of the first sidelink transmission, comprising the first priority value and an identifier (ID) of the first wireless device; and second SCI, of the second sidelink transmission, comprising the second priority value and the ID of the first wireless device,
However, Lee teaches
receiving, by the first wireless device: first sidelink information (SCI), of the first sidelink transmission, ([0130] the TX UE may transmit some or all of the following information to the RX UE through a first SCI and/or a second SCI) comprising the first priority value ([0140] (Transmission traffic/packet related) QoS information (e.g., priority information) ) and an identifier (ID) of the first wireless device; ([0136] L1 destination ID information and/or L1 source ID information ) and second SCI, of the second sidelink transmission, comprising the second priority value and the ID of the first wireless device, ([0140] and [0136])
wherein determining the second wireless device further based on the first SCI and the second SCI. (abstract, determining to reselect the first resource, based on overlap of the first resource and the second resource and a relationship between a first priority value of the first sidelink transmission and a second priority value of the second sidelink transmission satisfying a pre-configured condition;)
In order to improve system performance by UE efferently selecting resources ([0115])
Dutta and Lee are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Dutta with the technique of SL resource selecting in Lee in order to improve system performance.
Regarding claim 3. Dutta teaches The method of claim 1, but it does not teach wherein the first resources are associated with the first priority value and the second resources are associated with the second priority value.
However, Lee teaches
wherein the first resources are associated with the first priority value and the second resources are associated with the second priority value. (abstract, determining to reselect the first resource, based on overlap of the first resource and the second resource and a relationship between a first priority value of the first sidelink transmission and a second priority value of the second sidelink transmission satisfying a pre-configured condition;)
In order to improve system performance by UE efferently selecting resources ([0115])
Dutta and Lee are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Dutta with the technique of SL resource selecting in Lee in order to improve system performance.
Regarding claim 12-13. Dutta teaches the first wireless device of claim 11 performing the method recited in claims 2-3 respectively. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu; Ling et al. US PGPUB 20220053460 A1.
Regarding claim 5. Dutta teaches The method of claim 1, but it does not teach further comprising receiving first sidelink control information (SCI), wherein the first SCI comprises a first request message for a first inter-UE coordination between the first wireless device and the second wireless device.
However, Yu teaches further comprising receiving first sidelink control information (SCI), wherein the first SCI comprises a first request message for a first inter-UE coordination between the first wireless device and the second wireless device. ([0138] UE3 may indicate the resource collision in its own SCI transmission(s), for example as a resource collision indication included in an SCI.)
In order to improve reliability of wireless communication (0127))
Dutta and Yu are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Dutta with the technique of collision management request in Yu in order to improve reliability of wireless communication.
Regarding claim 6. Dutta teaches The method of claim 5, and but it does not teach further comprising receiving second SCI, wherein the second SCI comprises a second request message for a second inter-UE coordination between the first wireless device and the third wireless device.
However, Yu teaches further comprising receiving second SCI, wherein the second SCI comprises a second request message for a second inter-UE coordination between the first wireless device and the third wireless device. ([0138] UE3 may indicate the resource collision in its own SCI transmission(s), for example as a resource collision indication included in an SCI.)
In order to improve reliability of wireless communication (0127))
Dutta and Yu are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Dutta with the technique of collision management request in Yu in order to improve reliability of wireless communication.
Regarding claim 15-16. Dutta teaches the first wireless device of claim 11 performing the method recited in claims 5-6 respectively. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Farag; Emad N. et al. US PGPUB 20220095280 A1.
Regarding claim 10. Dutta teaches The method of claim 1, but they don’t teach wherein the resource collision is indicated by a set of non-preferred resources.
However, Hwang teaches wherein the resource collision is indicated by a set of non-preferred resources. ([0104] UE-A can indicate to the one or more UE-Bs whether the determined SL resources are preferred or non-preferred. Non-preferred resources are resources that have a collision or conflict with another SL or UL transmission.)
in order to increase system reliability by reducing interference from a hidden node ([0100]).
Dutta and Hwang are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Dutta with the technique of indicating non-preferred resources in Hwang in order to increase system reliability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHAOHUI YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7527. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM M-F.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached on 571 270-1096. 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.
/ZHAOHUI YANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/MARCUS SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2468