DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on 12 May 2026.
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
Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12-14 were pending in the Final Rejection of 12 February 2026.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, 12, and 14 have been amended by Amendments filed on 12 May 2026.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12-14 remain pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12-14 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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 4, lines 1-2 — “wherein determining whether to transmit the coordination information determines to transmit” appears to be missing a term between “information” and “determines” — perhaps “wherein determining whether to transmit the coordination information comprises determining to transmit”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7, 9-10, and 12-14 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.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “wherein the coordination information includes any one of the preferred resource information and the non-preferred resource information for sidelink resource reselection performed based on at least one of the coordination information and sensing result resource information sensed in a sensing window” in the application as filed.
Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “wherein the sensing result resource information indicates candidate radio resources identified based on sensing performed within the sensing window” in the application as filed.
Here, the original disclosure appears to describe wherein “[e]ach UE selects or reselects a specific radio resource in the resource pool using the radio resource sensing result value sensed in the sensing window.” See ¶ 163 of the Specification as originally filed. However, neither this disclosure of sensing nor any other disclosure of sensing by the UE, whose method of which claim 1 is directed, describes the UE indicating non-preferred resource information in coordination information based on sensing. See ¶¶ 164, 167, 183-184, 193-196, and 201-204 of the Specification as original filed disclosing the second UE performing sensing after receiving coordination information from the UE in order perform selecting or reselecting.
Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “wherein a filtered candidate resource set is generated by excluding, from the candidate radio resources indicated by the sensing result resource information, radio resources indicated by the non-preferred resource information, and wherein a sidelink resource is reselected from the filtered candidate resource set” in the application as filed.
Further, user equipment (UE), the method of which claim 1 is directed, does not appear to be supported by the original disclosure of the instant application to perform the limitation at issue. There is no support for a “filtered candidate resource set” in the original disclosure, let alone a filtered candidate resource set generated by a UE that receives configuration information from a base station and sidelink control information from a second UE.
Finally, as the claims are currently written, the limitation at issue could be reasonable read to require the UE, to which whose method claim 1 is directed, to reselect a resource from the filtered candidate resource. However, the original disclosure appears to only describe a second UE, the second UE from which the UE receives sidelink control information as required in claim 1, as reselecting a sidelink resource. See Figures 11-13 and ¶¶ 183, 193, and 201 of the Specification as originally filed on 19 April 2023.
Regarding Claims 2-7 and 9-10, by virtue of ultimately depending on claim 1, claims 2-7 and 9-10 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 9, Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “wherein the sidelink resource is reselected from radio resources included in both the filtered candidate resource set and the preferred resource information” in the application as filed.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “wherein the sidelink resource is reselected from among radio resources included in the preferred resource information without considering the sensing result resource information after generating the filtered candidate resource set” in the application as filed.
Regarding Claim 12, though of a different scope, the limitations of claim 12 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 1, and claim 12 is rejected under the same reasoning.
Regarding Claims 13-14, by virtue of ultimately depending on claim 12, claims 13-14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 12 and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 14, Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “wherein at least one selected radio resource included in the preferred resource information is included in the filtered candidate resource set after excluding sidelink reserved resource information having an RSRP measurement value larger than a preset threshold among the sidelink reserved resource information reserved by the at least one other UE” in the application as filed.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12-14 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, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: how coordination information can include preferred resource information or non-preferred resource information based on the coordination information.
Regarding Claims 2-7 and 9-10, by virtue of ultimately depending on claim 1, claims 2-7 and 9-10 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 12, though of a different scope, the limitations of claim 12 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 1, and claim 12 is rejected under the same reasoning.
Regarding Claims 13-14, by virtue of ultimately depending on claim 12, claims 13-14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 12 and are rejected under the same reasoning.
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, 9-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US 2023/0262774, previously made of record, hereinafter Wu).
Regarding Claim 1, Wu discloses a method for controlling sidelink communication by a UE, comprising:
receiving, from a base station, an indication indicating activation or deactivation of transmission of coordination information, wherein the indication is included in configuration information for a sidelink coordination operation (Figs. 6, 8A, 8B, ¶¶ 3, 80, 85, and 90 disclose a receiving user equipment (rxUE) configuring a sidelink (SL) session to support coordinated resource selection based on a network configuration; ¶ 145 discloses coordination message transmission being enabled or disabled via session-based configuration (i.e., network configuration));
receiving sidelink control information including sidelink reserved resource information from a second UE (Figs. 6, 8A, 8B, ¶¶ 80, 86, and 90-91 disclose the rxUE receiving SL control information (SCI) in PSCCH or PSSCH from the txUE for reserving resources);
determining, based on the indication, whether to transmit coordination information (Figs. 6, 8A, 8B, ¶¶ 80, 85, and 90 disclose the rxUE configuring the SL session to support coordinated resource selection operations apparently based on the network configuration); and
when transmission of the coordination information is determined and the transmission of the coordination information is activated according to the indication, transmitting the coordination information including any one of collision indication information, preferred resource information, and non-preferred resource information to the second UE (Figs. 6, 8A, 8B, ¶¶ 80, 87, 91-92 disclose the rxUE determining whether a coordination message is triggered based on the UE scheduling information (i.e., the network configuration) — Wu’s disclosure of transmission of a coordination message is determined to not be triggered anticipates the instant claim since the claim includes no further limitations for when the transmission of the coordination information is not determined; and ¶¶ 147-148 disclose a UE enabling or disabling coordination message transmission based on its own decision or based on data Quality of Service (QoS) or congestion level (based on (pre)configuration) — see MPEP § 2131 providing "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001); additionally, ¶¶ 80, 89, 94 disclose the coordination message as reflecting the rxUE’s sensing result and scheduling information (i.e., collision indication information), information on a specific resource reserved by the txUE at a specific time slot and in a specific frequency and an indication indicating whether the specific resource reserved by the txUE is a preferred resource for a subsequent transmission — explicitly disclosing the coordination message as indicating preferred resource information, but also at least implying the coordination message as indicating non-preferred resource information),
wherein the coordination information includes any one of the preferred resource information and the non-preferred resource information for sidelink resource reselection performed based on at least one of the coordination information and sensing result resource information sensed in a sensing window (Wu’s disclosure of transmission of a coordination message is determined to not be triggered anticipates the instant claim since the claim includes no further limitations for when the transmission of the coordination information is not determined — see MPEP § 2131 providing "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001); additionally, ¶¶ 80, 89, 94 disclose the coordination message as reflecting the rxUE’s sensing result and scheduling information (i.e., collision indication information), information on a specific resource reserved by the txUE at a specific time slot and in a specific frequency and an indication indicating whether the specific resource reserved by the txUE is a preferred resource for a subsequent transmission — explicitly disclosing the coordination message as indicating preferred resource information, but also at least implying the coordination message as indicating non-preferred resource information),
wherein the sensing result resource information indicates candidate radio resources identified based on sensing performed within the sensing window (Wu’s disclosure of transmission of a coordination message is determined to not be triggered anticipates the instant claim since the claim includes no further limitations for when the transmission of the coordination information is not determined — see MPEP § 2131 providing "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001); additionally, ¶ 86 discloses local sensing as performed as a parallel continuous procedure occurring over a sliding window; ¶ 87 discloses the rxUE determining whether a collision happens among multiple reserved resources (i.e., candidate resources) based on the performed local sensing),
wherein the UE transmits the coordination information including the non-preferred resource information to the second UE for sidelink resource reselection (Wu’s disclosure of transmission of a coordination message is determined to not be triggered anticipates the instant claim since the claim includes no further limitations for when the transmission of the coordination information is not determined — see MPEP § 2131 providing "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001); additionally, ¶ 94 discloses the coordination message as including an indication of whether a reserved resource is a preferred resource, which at least implies the coordination message including an indication of a reserved resource being a non-preferred resource),
wherein a filtered candidate resource set is generated by excluding, from the candidate radio resources indicated by the sensing result resource information, radio resources indicated by the non-preferred resource information, and wherein a sidelink resource is reselected from the filtered candidate resource set (Wu’s disclosure of transmission of a coordination message is determined to not be triggered anticipates the instant claim since the claim includes no further limitations for when the transmission of the coordination information is not determined — see MPEP § 2131 providing "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001); under broadest reasonable interpretation, any device generating a filtered candidate resource set and any device reselecting a SL resource from the filtered candidate resource set is encompassed by the instant limitation; additionally, Figs. 6, 9A, 9B, ¶¶ 114-115, 118, 128 disclose the transmitting UE (txUE) performing resource reselection from a portion of the reserved resources based on the coordination message).
Regarding Claim 2, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the sidelink control information and the coordination information are included in at least one of a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) and a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) (Figs. 6, 8A, 8B, ¶¶ 80, 86, and 90-91 disclose the rxUE receiving SL control information (SCI) in PSCCH or PSSCH from the txUE for reserving resources), and wherein the coordination information is transmitted based on the sidelink coordination operation configured by the base station (Figs. 6, 8A, 8B, ¶¶ 3, 80, 85, and 90 disclose a receiving user equipment (rxUE) configuring a sidelink (SL) session to support coordinated resource selection based on a network configuration; ¶ 145 discloses coordination message transmission being enabled or disabled via session-based configuration (i.e., network configuration)).
Regarding Claim 3, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether to transmit the coordination information determines to transmit the coordination information when request information for requesting to transmit the coordination information is received from the second UE (Wu’s disclosure of transmission of a coordination message is determined to not be triggered anticipates the instant claim since the claim includes no further limitations for when the transmission of the coordination information is not determined — see MPEP § 2131 providing "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001); additionally, ¶ 35 discloses a first UE (rxUE) receiving a request from a second UE (txUE)), and
wherein the coordination information includes any one of the preferred resource information and the non-preferred resource information (Wu’s disclosure of transmission of a coordination message is determined to not be triggered anticipates the instant claim since the claim includes no further limitations for when the transmission of the coordination information is not determined — see MPEP § 2131 providing "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001); additionally, ¶¶ 80, 89, 94 disclose the coordination message as reflecting the rxUE’s sensing result and scheduling information (i.e., collision indication information), information on a specific resource reserved by the txUE at a specific time slot and in a specific frequency and an indication indicating whether the specific resource reserved by the txUE is a preferred resource for a subsequent transmission — explicitly disclosing the coordination message as indicating preferred resource information, but also at least implying the coordination message as indicating non-preferred resource information).
Regarding Claim 4, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether to transmit the coordination information determines to transmit the coordination information when a radio resource indicated by the sidelink reserved resource information transmitted from the second UE at least partially overlaps sidelink reserved resource information reserved by at least one other UE, received by the UE (Wu’s disclosure of transmission of a coordination message is determined to not be triggered anticipates the instant claim since the claim includes no further limitations for when the transmission of the coordination information is not determined — see MPEP § 2131 providing "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001); additionally, ¶¶ 87 and 91-92 disclose the rxUE determining whether a collision happens among multiple reserved resources), and
wherein the coordination information includes the collision indication information indicating whether a collision occurs in the sidelink reserved resource information transmitted from the second UE (Id.).
Regarding Claim 5, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein preferred resource information included in the coordination information includes at least one radio resource selected based on sidelink reserved resource information reserved by at least one other UE, received by the UE (Wu’s disclosure of transmission of a coordination message is determined to not be triggered anticipates the instant claim since the claim includes no further limitations for when the transmission of the coordination information is not determined — see MPEP § 2131 providing "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001); additionally, ¶¶ 8 and 94 disclose the coordination message indicating whether a reserved resource is a preferred resource).
Regarding Claim 6, Wu discloses the method of claim 5, wherein at least one selected radio resource included in the preferred resource information is configured to exclude the radio resource indicated in the sidelink reserved resource information that is reserved by the at least one other UE, and an RSRP measurement value of the radio resource indicated in the sidelink reserved resource information is larger than a preset threshold (Wu’s disclosure of transmission of a coordination message is determined to not be triggered anticipates the instant claim since the claim includes no further limitations for when the transmission of the coordination information is not determined — see MPEP § 2131 providing "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001); additionally, ¶¶ 116-117 discloses a third UE monitoring the coordination information of the rxUE and txUE, wherein the third UE selects a reserved resource if its RSRP is below a threshold; ¶¶ 103, 109, 111, 136, 140-141, and 148 disclose the rxUE determining a congestion level and QoS of the physical channel).
Regarding Claim 7, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein non-preferred resource information included in the coordination information includes at least one radio resource determined based on an RSRP measurement value measured by the UE and the sidelink reserved resource information reserved by at least one other UE, received by the UE (Wu’s disclosure of transmission of a coordination message is determined to not be triggered anticipates the instant claim since the claim includes no further limitations for when the transmission of the coordination information is not determined — see MPEP § 2131 providing "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001); additionally, ¶¶ 116-117 discloses a third UE monitoring the coordination information of the rxUE and txUE, wherein the third UE selects a reserved resource if its RSRP is below a threshold; ¶¶ 103, 109, 111, 136, 140-141, and 148 disclose the rxUE determining a congestion level and QoS of the physical channel).
Regarding Claim 9, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the UE transmits the coordination information including the preferred resource information to the second UE for a radio resource (Wu’s disclosure of transmission of a coordination message is determined to not be triggered anticipates the instant claim since the claim includes no further limitations for when the transmission of the coordination information is not determined — see MPEP § 2131 providing "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001); under broadest reasonable interpretation, any device generating a filtered candidate resource set and any device reselecting a SL resource from the filtered candidate resource set is encompassed by the instant limitation; additionally, ¶¶ 80, 89, 94 disclose the coordination message as reflecting the rxUE’s sensing result and scheduling information (i.e., collision indication information), information on a specific resource reserved by the txUE at a specific time slot and in a specific frequency and an indication indicating whether the specific resource reserved by the txUE is a preferred resource for a subsequent transmission), and
wherein the sidelink resource is reselected from radio resources included in both the filtered candidate resource set and the preferred resource information (Wu’s disclosure of transmission of a coordination message is determined to not be triggered anticipates the instant claim since the claim includes no further limitations for when the transmission of the coordination information is not determined — see MPEP § 2131 providing "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001); under broadest reasonable interpretation, any device generating a filtered candidate resource set and any device reselecting a SL resource from the filtered candidate resource set is encompassed by the instant limitation; additionally, ¶ 94 discloses the coordination message as including an indication of whether a reserved resource is a preferred resource; and Figs. 6, 9A, 9B, ¶¶ 114-115, 118, 128 disclose the transmitting UE (txUE) performing resource reselection from a portion of the reserved resources based on the coordination message).
Regarding Claim 10, Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the UE transmits the coordination information including the preferred resource information to the second UE for sidelink resource reselection (Wu’s disclosure of transmission of a coordination message is determined to not be triggered anticipates the instant claim since the claim includes no further limitations for when the transmission of the coordination information is not determined — see MPEP § 2131 providing "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001); under broadest reasonable interpretation, any device generating a filtered candidate resource set and any device reselecting a SL resource from the filtered candidate resource set is encompassed by the instant limitation; additionally, ¶¶ 80, 89, 94 disclose the coordination message as reflecting the rxUE’s sensing result and scheduling information (i.e., collision indication information), information on a specific resource reserved by the txUE at a specific time slot and in a specific frequency and an indication indicating whether the specific resource reserved by the txUE is a preferred resource for a subsequent transmission), and
wherein the sidelink resource is reselected from among radio resources included in the preferred resource information without considering the sensing result resource information after generating the filtered candidate resource set (Wu’s disclosure of transmission of a coordination message is determined to not be triggered anticipates the instant claim since the claim includes no further limitations for when the transmission of the coordination information is not determined — see MPEP § 2131 providing "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001); additionally, ¶ 94 discloses the coordination message as indicating whether the reserved resources are preferred, which the txUE uses to reselect a resource for subsequent transmissions).
Regarding Claims 12-13, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 12-14 are substantially similar or identical to those of claims 1, 4, and 6, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 14, Wu discloses the UE of claim 12, wherein preferred resource information included in the coordination information includes at least one radio resource selected based on sidelink reserved resource information reserved by at least one other UE, received by the UE (Wu’s disclosure of transmission of a coordination message is determined to not be triggered anticipates the instant claim since the claim includes no further limitations for when the transmission of the coordination information is not determined — see MPEP § 2131 providing "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001); additionally, ¶¶ 8 and 94 disclose the coordination message indicating whether a reserved resource is a preferred resource), and
wherein at least one selected radio resource included in the preferred resource information is included in the filtered candidate resource set after excluding sidelink reserved resource information having an RSRP measurement value larger than a preset threshold among the sidelink reserved resource information reserved by the at least one other UE (Wu’s disclosure of transmission of a coordination message is determined to not be triggered anticipates the instant claim since the claim includes no further limitations for when the transmission of the coordination information is not determined — see MPEP § 2131 providing "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001); additionally, ¶¶ 116-117 discloses a third UE monitoring the coordination information of the rxUE and txUE, wherein the third UE selects a reserved resource if its RSRP is below a threshold; ¶¶ 103, 109, 111, 136, 140-141, and 148 disclose the rxUE determining a congestion level and QoS of the physical channel; and Figs. 6, 9A, 9B, ¶¶ 114-115, 118, 128 disclose the transmitting UE (txUE) performing resource reselection from a portion of the reserved resources based on the coordination message).
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R CAIRNS whose telephone number is (571)270-0487. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM ET 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 at (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.
/Thomas R Cairns/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights