DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on 26 December 2025.
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 1-15 were previously pending the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 26 September 2025.
Claims 8, 11, and 15 have been canceled, and the Abstract and claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 have been amended in amendments filed on 26 December 2025.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 12-14 remain pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s arguments/remarks regarding objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and Double Patenting, Applicant's arguments filed on 26 December 2025 have been fully considered and Examiner withdraws the objection to the Abstract and rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in view of the amendments, and withdraws the rejection under Double Patenting in view of the currently pending claims of reference U.S. Non-Provisional Application No. 18/249,725 (hereinafter ‘725). However, another provisional double patent rejection may be required later in prosecution depending on how the claims of the instant application and the claims of ‘725 evolve.
In response to Applicant’s arguments/remarks regarding the prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) and 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant's arguments filed on 26 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument, on page 10 of Applicant Remarks, that, in substance, the claims are allowable over the prior art of record, because Farag et al. (US 2022/0095280, hereinafter Farag) supposedly does not disclose a second user equipment (UE) varying its procedure depending on the type of resource information included in coordination information received from a first UE, such as the second UE excluding indicated non-preferred resources from sensing-resource information when coordination information includes non-preferred resource information, and then performing reselection based on either the coordination information or the sensing-resource information from which the non-preferred resource information has been excluded, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a second UE varying a reselection procedure depending on the type of resource information included in coordination information, and the second UE excluding indicated non-preferred resource information from sensing-resource information and then performing reselection) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). MPEP § 2111(II), see also subsection IV.
Here, the limitation at issue reads as:
wherein the UE transmits the coordination information including the non-preferred resource information to the second UE so that the second UE reselects the sidelink resource while excluding radio resources included in the non-preferred resource information among the sensing result resource information.
Thus, the UE is not required to include information in the coordination information that would cause the second UE to change how it performs reselection beyond merely including non-preferred resource information. Further, the coordination information is not required to instruct or otherwise cause the second UE to do anything, let alone perform certain acts in a particular order, such as exclude radio resources included in non-preferred resource information from sensing result resource information, and then perform sidelink resource reselection. Therefore, a first UE including information in coordination information that would cause a second UE to vary its reselection procedure depending on the type of resource information included, or requiring the coordination information to instruct the second UE to exclude radio resources from sensing information and then perform reselection are not required by the claims.
In response to applicant's argument that the UE is required to transmit coordination information so that a second UE performs sidelink resource reselection while excluding radio resources as indicated in the coordination information, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Here, the claimed intended use is “so that the second UE reselects a sidelink resource based on at least one of the coordination information and sensing result resource information sensed in a sensing window” and “so that the second UE reselects the sidelink resource while excluding radio resources included in the non-preferred resource information among the sensing result resource information”. Nothing in the claim appears to require a UE to include more information than mere non-preferred resource information in coordination information and transmitting the coordination information. Thus, the results of that claimed transmission (i.e., “so that the second UE reselects” and “so that the second UE reselects…while excluding”) appear to be achievable by the UE merely indicating non-preferred resources to the second UE, and the limitations as issue do not, by themselves, define the scope of the UE. Therefore, whether the prior art of record actually discloses any of the features following the phrase “so that” in the “wherein” clauses of claims 1 and 12 are not pertinent for determining whether Farag anticipates the claimed invention as the claims are currently written.
Further, even if the features had any patentable weight on the claimed UE, such as by requiring the UE to include an instruction for the second UE to perform resource reselection and exclusion of indicated non-preferred resources, there is no support in the original disclosure for such an amendment.
Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 714.02. If new matter is added to the claims, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph - written description requirement. In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981). See MPEP § 2163.06.
Here, paragraphs 164 and 167 of the Specification as originally-filed disclosure describe coordination information as including non-preferred resource information and a second UE reselecting sidelink resources while excluding the radio resources included in the non-preferred resource information. However, no portion of the original disclosure appears to describe coordination information as including anything more than non-preferred resource information when coordination information includes non-preferred resource information. Therefore, even if the claims did require the UE to do anything more than include non-preferred resource information in coordination information, such amended claims would not be supported by the original disclosure as required under 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Finally, even if there was support, the prior art of record still discloses such features. As provided in the Non-Final rejection, Farag, at Fig. 9 and paragraphs 88-89, 91, 94, and 124-138, discloses a second UE determining whether to proceed with a sidelink transmission on a sidelink resource based on sensing, and that resource reselection is based on sensing during a sensing window and selecting a sidelink resource during a resource selection window.
As cited by applicant, Farag, at paragraph 175, further discloses a UE-B reselecting a sidelink resource different from a pre-indicated and/or reserved resource indicated by a UE-A as non-preferred. Thus, Farag discloses that the indication of non-preferred resources causes UE-B to perform reselection while excluding indicated non-preferred resources from those that may be selected. Otherwise, the resource reselected by UE-B would not be “different” as disclosed.
Furthermore, as cited in the Non-Final Rejection as pertinent but not relied upon, Farag (US 2022/0030575, hereinafter Farag’), at Fig. 9 and ¶ 191 discloses an UE-A sending RSAI (e.g., inter-UE-coordination information) to UE-B that combines the RSAI with its own sensing to determine a candidate set for sidelink resource selection. Thus, UE-B is at least implied to exclude resources from a candidate resource set for sensing which sidelink resource to (re)select according to the RSAI, wherein the RSAI includes more information than just indicating non-preferred resources.
Therefore, even if the claims were able to be amended to require coordination information to cause a second UE to exclude resources from sensing and then reselect a sidelink resource according to the coordination information or sensing, and somehow avoid the disclosure of Farag, the previously cited-as-pertinent Farag’, either alone or in reasonable combination with Farag, would likely disclose such a claimed invention.
Therefore, the prior art of record still discloses the claimed invention as provided below.
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 1-2, 5-7, 9, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Farag et al. (US 2022/0095280, previously cited, hereinafter Farag).
Regarding Claim 1, Farag discloses a method for controlling sidelink communication by a UE, comprising:
receiving sidelink control information including sidelink reserved resource information from a second UE (Figs. 6-8, 12 and ¶¶ 108, 111, 124, 126-127, 168 disclose UE-A receiving SCI from UE-B1 and/or UE-B2 reserving SL resources);
determining whether to transmit coordination information (Figs. 6-8, 12, and ¶¶ 116, 130, and 168 disclose UE-A determining whether an overlap or collision can occur on the reserved SL resource and consequentially grants or triggers (i.e., coordination information) a SL transmission from UE-B1 or UE-B2 by performing inter-UE coordination based on the reservation signal); and
when transmission of the coordination information is determined, 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, 7, 12, and ¶¶ 116, 133, and 168 disclose the consequential grant or trigger as indicating preferred or non-preferred resources, wherein non-preferred resources are resources that have a collision with another SL or UL transmission — thus, indication of non-preferred resources are also collision indication information),
wherein the UE transmits the coordination information to the second UE (Figs. 6-9, 12, ¶¶ 116, 133, 136-137, and 168 disclose UE-A transmitting, and UE-B receiving, the grant/trigger signal indicating preferred and/or non-preferred resources (resources with conflicts)) so that the second UE reselects a sidelink resource based on at least one of the coordination information and sensing result resource information sensed in a sensing window (NOTE: the claimed limitations directed to the actions of a second UE in a claim directed to a method of a first UE is not further limiting on the method of the first UE; Fig. 9 and ¶¶ 124-138 disclose UE-B determining whether to proceed with SL transmission on a SL resource based on sensing; and ¶¶ 88-89, 91, and 94 disclose reselection as depending on sensing during a sensing window and selecting a SL resource during a resource selection window),
wherein the UE transmits the coordination information including the non-preferred resource information to the second UE (Figs. 6-9, 12, and ¶¶ 116, 133, 136-137 and 168 disclose the grant or trigger as indicating preferred and/or non-preferred resources) so that the second UE reselects the sidelink resource while excluding radio resources included in the non-preferred resource information among the sensing result resource information (NOTE: the claimed limitations directed to the actions of a second UE in a claim directed to a method of a first UE is not further limiting on the method of the first UE; Fig. 9 and ¶¶ 124-138 disclose UE-B determining whether to proceed with SL transmission on a SL resource based on sensing; and ¶¶ 88-89, 91, and 94 disclose reselection as depending on sensing during a sensing window and selecting a SL resource during a resource selection window).
Regarding Claim 2, Farag 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) (Fig. 12 and ¶¶ 160-168 disclose SCI indicating reserved SL resources as reservation signaling as transmitted from a second and/or third UEs to a first UE in PSSCH or PSCCH, and SCI indicating collision of or preferred or non-preferred SL resources previously reserved as transmitted from the first UE to the second and/or third UEs in PSSCH or PSCCH).
Regarding Claim 4, Farag 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 (Fig. 6 and ¶ 116 disclose UE-A indicating non-preferred resources in the grant or triggering of SL transmission, wherein non-preferred resources are resources that have a collision or conflict with another SL or UL transmission — thus, disclosure of including non-preferred resources in the grant or triggering is disclosure of UE-A determining that a full or partial overlap exists with the indicated SL 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, Farag disclose 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 (Figs. 6-8, ¶¶ 116 and 133 disclose UE-A indicating preferred resources based on the pre-indicated or resource reservation and determining (i.e., selecting) the preferred resource further based on an SL-RSRP measurement).
Regarding Claim 6, Farag disclose 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 (Fig. 6 and ¶ 116 disclose the indication of preferred resources as based on sensing; Figs. 7, 8 and ¶ 133 disclose UE-A determining the preferred SL resource based on SL-RSRP being larger than or equal to an SL-RSRP threshold for pre-indicated/reserved resource from UE-B1 and UE-B2; further details of SL-RSRP may also be found at ¶¶ 89, 91, and 95).
Regarding Claim 7, Farag 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 (Fig. 6 and ¶ 116 disclose the indication of non-preferred resources as based on sensing; Figs. 7, 8 and ¶ 133 disclose UE-A determining the preferred SL resource based on SL-RSRP being larger than or equal to an SL-RSRP threshold for pre-indicated/reserved resource from UE-B1 and UE-B2; further details of SL-RSRP may also be found at ¶¶ 89, 91, and 95).
Regarding Claim 9, Farag discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the UE transmits the coordination information including the preferred resource information to the second UE (Figs. 6-9, 12, and ¶¶ 116, 133, 136-137 and 168 disclose the grant or trigger as indicating preferred and non-preferred resources) so that the second UE reselects a radio resource included in both the sensing result resource information and the preferred resource information, as the sidelink resource (NOTE: the claimed limitations directed to the actions of a second UE in a claim directed to a method of a first UE is not further limiting on the method of the first UE; Fig. 9 and ¶¶ 124-138 disclose UE-B determining whether to proceed with SL transmission on a SL resource based on sensing; and ¶¶ 88-89, 91, and 94 disclose reselection as depending on sensing during a sensing window and selecting a SL resource during a resource selection window).
Regarding Claim 10, Farag discloses the method of claim 1,wherein the UE transmits the coordination information including the preferred resource information to the second UE (Figs. 6-9, 12, and ¶¶ 116, 133, 136-137 and 168 disclose the grant or trigger as indicating preferred and non-preferred resources) so that the second UE reselects the sidelink resource among radio resources included in the preferred resource information without considering the sensing result resource information (NOTE: the claimed limitations directed to the actions of a second UE in a claim directed to a method of a first UE is not further limiting on the method of the first UE; Fig. 9 and ¶¶ 124-138 disclose UE-B determining whether to proceed with SL transmission on a SL resource based on sensing; and ¶¶ 88-89, 91, and 94 disclose reselection as depending on sensing during a sensing window and selecting a SL resource during a resource selection window).
Regarding Claims 12-14, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farag as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hosseini et al. (US 2022/0046664, previously cited, hereinafter Hosseini).
Regarding Claim 3, Farag discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the coordination information includes any one of the preferred resource information and the non-preferred resource information (Fig. 6 and ¶ 116 discloses the grant or triggering of SL transmission as indicating preferred or non-preferred SL resources).
Farag may not explicitly disclose 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.
However, in analogous art, Hosseini discloses 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 (Fig. 7 and ¶ 88 disclose a first UE receiving an inter-UE coordination request from a second UE; ¶¶ 89-90 and 93 disclose further details of the request as including information used by the first UE to perform inter-UE coordination — thus, at least implying that the first UE determines whether to perform inter-UE coordination based on the request).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Hosseini to modify Farag in order to base inter-UE coordination off an inter-UE coordination request received from the second UE (i.e., UE-B). One would have been motivated to do this, because provision of such a request from the second UE may help the second UE avoid selecting an unavailable sidelink resource (Hosseini ¶ 94).
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 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