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 .
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 10/14/25.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-11, 13-16, 18, 23-24, 26, 29, and 36-38 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 15-16, 18, 23-24, 26, 29, and 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selvanesan et al., US 2023/0081131, (“Selvanesan”), in view of Ye et al., US 2022/0322359, (“Ye”), and Ye et al., US 2022/0322360, (“Apple”), newly cited.
Independent Claims
Regarding claim 1, Selvanesan teaches “A method performed by a first wireless communication device (e.g., UE-A, paragraph no. 0123) comprising:
detecting a trigger for a Medium Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE) for sidelink communication (paragraph nos. 0245, 0246, 0229 disclose sending AIM via a MAC-CE based on certain triggers); and
responsive to detecting the trigger, transmitting the MAC CE to a second wireless communication device (paragraph nos. 0245, 0246, 0229 disclose sending AIM via a MAC-CE based on certain triggers; see also, paragraph nos. 0250 - 0273),
wherein the MAC CE comprises one or more information fields that indicate one or more resources (paragraph no. 0124) and comprises information that indicates a type or purpose of the one or more information fields and the type or purpose is to indicate that the one or more resources are not preferred to be considered for resource selection by the second wireless communication device for sidelink transmission” (the claimed “information that indicates a type or purpose … the one or more resources are not preferred …” appears to be implicit since paragraph no. 0141 discloses “the UE (UE-A) is to determine from a set of sidelink resources … a set of resources that are available and/or unavailable for usage by one or more further UEs (UE-B)”; an implicit indication in the MAC-CE/AIM to indicate to the UE-B that the unavailable resources (aka, non-preferred resources) are not available appears implicit in Selvanesan, however, see below for an explicit teaching).
Ye teaches “comprises information that indicates a type or purpose of the one or more information fields and the type or purpose is to indicate that the one or more resources(see paragraph nos. 0006 and 0135 which disclose that an indication of non-preferred resources are included in an inter-UE coordination message sent to another UE; the indication may take the form of a bitmap as disclosed in paragraph no. 0006 or an indication as disclosed in paragraph no. 0139, “an indication of a set of resources for sidelink communications, e.g., via an inter-UE coordination message”; note that this indication in paragraph no. 0139 includes an indication of non-preferred resources and this indication implicitly would indicate to the another UE that the non-preferred resources are “not preferred to be considered for resource selection by the second wireless communication for sidelink transmission” (emphasis added) as now amended since if the another UE would not use these resources for SL communication, then the another UE would not even consider these same resources as part of a resource selection procedure; however, see below for an explicit teaching of the newly amended “not preferred to be considered for resource selection” claim limitation) of claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Selvanesan by incorporating the teachings of Ye to improve the V2X Mode 2 resource allocation by including additional parameters such as an indication of non-preferred resources in an inter-UE coordination/AIM message, as suggested by Ye in paragraph nos. 0004 and 0135. Such a modification would enable the receiving UE (UE-B) to quickly distinguish between preferred/available and non-preferred/unavailable resources for SL communications to the UE-A.
While Ye implicitly teaches the limitation “not preferred to be considered for resource selection” as part of its indication of non-preferred resources in the inter-UE coordination message transmitted to the another UE, Apple teaches this newly added limitation explicitly, see paragraph no. 0128, “In some embodiments, a UE, such as UE 106, may receive an inter-UE coordination message that includes an indication of non-preferred resources. Based on the indication of non-preferred resources, the UE may perform resource selection” and paragraph no. 0130, “At 802, a UE, such as UE 106, may receive, from a coordinating UE. a set of non-preferred resources via an inter-UE coordination message. At this point, the UE may not have selected sidelink resources, thus the UE may apply the set of-non-preferred resources as part of a resource selection procedure. Thus, the UE may identify a set of resources within a resource selection window. Then, at 804, the UE may exclude the non-preferred resources from the set of resources for sidelink transmission to generate a set of candidate resources.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Selvanesan and Ye by incorporating the teachings of Apple to improve the V2X Mode 2 resource allocation procedure by not considering the non-preferred resources for resource selection in order to form an improved set of candidate resources for SL communications, thereby reducing the latency and/or reliability of SL communications.
Regarding independent claim 18, this independent claim is a corresponding apparatus claim of the method claim 1 and recites similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 11 applies with equal force to this independent claim and as further amplified below to highlight the minor differences between the claims. See Selvanesan, Figs. 6 and 13, for the claimed structural elements of a UE.
Regarding independent claim 23, Selvanesan teaches “A method performed by a second wireless communication device (UE-B, paragraph no. 0123) comprising:
receiving a Medium Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE) from a first wireless communication device (paragraph nos. 0245, 0246, 0229 disclose sending AIM via a MAC-CE based on certain triggers; see also, paragraph nos. 0250 - 0273); and
performing resource selection to select one or more resources for sidelink transmission based on information comprised in the MAC CE received from the first wireless communication device (paragraph nos. 0123, 0124, 0131-0139),
wherein the MAC CE comprises one or more information fields that indicate one or more resources and comprises information that indicates a type or purpose of the one or more information fields and the type or purpose is to indicate that the one or more resources are not preferred to be considered for resource selection by the second wireless communication device for sidelink transmission” (paragraph no. 0124; the claimed “information that indicates a type or purpose … the one or more resources are not preferred …” appears to be implicit since paragraph no. 0141 discloses “the UE (UE-A) is to determine from a set of sidelink resources … a set of resources that are available and/or unavailable for usage by one or more further UEs (UE-B)”; an implicit indication in the MAC-CE/AIM to indicate to the UE-B that the unavailable resources (aka, non-preferred resources) are not available appears implicit in Selvanesan, however, see below for an explicit teaching).
Ye teaches “comprises information that indicates a type or purpose of the one or more information fields and the type or purpose is to indicate that the one or more resources(see paragraph nos. 0006 and 0135 which disclose that an indication of non-preferred resources are included in an inter-UE coordination message sent to another UE; the indication may take the form of a bitmap as disclosed in paragraph no. 0006 or an indication as disclosed in paragraph no. 0139, “an indication of a set of resources for sidelink communications, e.g., via an inter-UE coordination message”; note that this indication in paragraph no. 0139 includes an indication of non-preferred resources and this indication implicitly would indicate to the another UE that the non-preferred resources are “not preferred to be considered for resource selection by the second wireless communication for sidelink transmission” (emphasis added) as now amended since if the another UE would not use these resources for SL communication, then the another UE would not even consider these same resources as part of a resource selection procedure; however, see below for an explicit teaching of the newly amended “not preferred to be considered for resource selection” claim limitation) of claim 23.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Selvanesan by incorporating the teachings of Ye to improve the V2X Mode 2 resource allocation by including additional parameters such as an indication of non-preferred resources in an inter-UE coordination/AIM message, as suggested by Ye in paragraph nos. 0004 and 0135. Such a modification would enable the receiving UE (UE-B) to quickly distinguish between preferred/available and non-preferred/unavailable resources for SL communications to the UE-A.
While Ye implicitly teaches the limitation “not preferred to be considered for resource selection” as part of its indication of non-preferred resources in the inter-UE coordination message transmitted to the another UE, Apple teaches this newly added limitation explicitly, see paragraph no. 0128, “In some embodiments, a UE, such as UE 106, may receive an inter-UE coordination message that includes an indication of non-preferred resources. Based on the indication of non-preferred resources, the UE may perform resource selection” and paragraph no. 0130, “At 802, a UE, such as UE 106, may receive, from a coordinating UE. a set of non-preferred resources via an inter-UE coordination message. At this point, the UE may not have selected sidelink resources, thus the UE may apply the set of-non-preferred resources as part of a resource selection procedure. Thus, the UE may identify a set of resources within a resource selection window. Then, at 804, the UE may exclude the non-preferred resources from the set of resources for sidelink transmission to generate a set of candidate resources.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Selvanesan and Ye by incorporating the teachings of Apple to improve the V2X Mode 2 resource allocation procedure by not considering the non-preferred resources for resource selection in order to form an improved set of candidate resources for SL communications, thereby reducing the latency and/or reliability of SL communications.
Regarding independent claim 36, this independent claim is a corresponding apparatus claim of the method claim 23 and recites similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 23 applies with equal force to this independent claim and as further amplified below to highlight the minor differences between the claims. See Selvanesan, Figs. 6 and 13, for the claimed structural elements of a UE.
Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 2 and 24, Selvanesan teaches “wherein the sidelink transmission uses resources autonomously selected by the second wireless communication device” (paragraph nos. 0147, 0343) as recited in claim 2 and similarly recited in claim 24.
Regarding claims 3, 26, and 37, Selvanesan teaches “wherein the one or more resources comprise one or more time domain resources, one or more frequency domain resources, one or more reference signals, or any combination thereof” (paragraph no. 0173, 0188).
Regarding claims 15, 29, and 38, Selvanesan teaches “wherein the MAC CE carries information for inter-device coordination of resources for sidelink transmissions” (paragraph nos. 0123, 0131-0139).
Regarding claim 16, Selvanesan teaches at least the last recited alternative “reception of a request from the second wireless communication device” (paragraph no. 0245).
Claim(s) 6, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selvanesan, Ye, and Apple as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han et al., US 2023/0292334, (“Han”).
Regarding claim 6, Selvanesan does not teach but Han teaches “wherein transmitting the MAC CE to the second wireless communication device comprises selecting the MAC CE from a plurality of MAC CEs, data for transmission based on a priority of the MAC CE, or the MAC CE from the plurality of MAC CEs and the data for transmission based on the priority of the MAC CE” (the first alternative is taught, see paragraph nos. 0029, 0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Selvanesan, Ye, and Apple by incorporating the teachings of Han to enable the UE (UE-A) to transmit a MAC-CE based on priority of the MAC-CE, as suggested by Han in paragraph no. 0080.
Regarding claim 8, Selvanesan does not teach but Han teaches “wherein transmitting the MAC CE to the second wireless communication device comprises selecting the MAC CE from a plurality of MAC CEs, data for transmission based on a latency requirement for transmission of the MAC CE, or the MAC CE from the plurality of MAC CEs and the data for transmission based on the latency requirement for transmission of the MAC CE” (the first alternative is taught, see paragraph nos. 0029, 0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Selvanesan, Ye, and Apple by incorporating the teachings of Han to enable the UE (UE-A) to transmit a MAC-CE based on latency of the MAC-CE, as suggested by Han in paragraph no. 0080.
Regarding claim 9, Selvanesan does not teach but Ye teaches “receiving a sidelink grant from a network node; data for transmission using the sidelink grant (paragraph no. 0122), or the MAC CE from the plurality of MAC CEs and data for transmission using the sidelink grant; wherein transmitting the MAC CE comprises, transmitting to the second wireless communication device in accordance with the sidelink grant, responsive to for transmission using the sidelink grant” (paragraph no. 0122).
Selvanesan and Ye do not teach but Han teaches the limitations “selecting the MAC CE from a plurality of MAC CEs” and “the MAC CE” and “selecting the MAC CE” (see paragraph nos. 0034 and 0080 which disclose selecting a MAC CE from a second group of MAC CEs and transmitting the selected MAC CE) as required by claim 9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Selvanesan, Ye and Apple by incorporating the teachings of Ye and Han to enable the UE (UE-A) to transmit a MAC-CE, selected from a group of MAC CEs, based on latency of the selected MAC-CE as suggested by Han in paragraph no. 0080 and furthermore, based on a received sidelink grant from the network, as suggested by Ye in paragraph no. 0122.
Regarding claim 10, Selvanesan does not teach but Han teaches “wherein selecting the MAC CE from the plurality of MAC CEs, data for transmission, or both selecting the MAC CE from the plurality of MAC CEs and data for transmission comprise: selecting the MAC CE from among the plurality of MAC CEs, data for transmission based on a priority of the MAC CE, a latency requirement for transmission of the MAC CE, or any combination thereof” (see paragraph nos. 0034 and 0080 which disclose selecting a MAC CE from a group of MAC CEs and based on either priority or latency).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Selvanesan, Ye, Apple, and Han by incorporating the additional teachings of Han to enable the UE (UE-A) to transmit a MAC-CE, selected from a group of MAC CEs, based on either priority or latency of the selected MAC-CE as suggested by Han in paragraph no. 0080.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selvanesan, Ye, and Apple as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al., US 2020/0267594, (“Xu”).
Regarding claim 11, Selvanesan does not teach but Xu teaches “starting a retransmission timer upon transmitting the MAC CE to the second wireless communication device; and retransmitting the MAC CE to the second wireless communication device upon expiration of the retransmission timer” (paragraph no. 0390; the retransmission of the BSR MAC CE after the expiration of the BSR retransmisson timer is implicit in Xu since the purpose of a retransmission timer is to retransmit the same signal upon its expiration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Selvanesan, Ye and Apple by incorporating the teachings of Xu to improve the reliability of the transmission of the AIM message via a MAC CE by retransmitting it upon expiration of a retransmission timer.
Regarding claim 14, Selvanesan does not teach but Xu teaches “receiving, from a network node, information that configures the retransmission timer, a periodic timer, or a prohibit timer” (see paragraph no. 0400).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Selvanesan, Ye, Apple, and Xu by incorporating the additional teachings of Xu to enable the network to control the retransmission of data from one UE to another, thereby improving the reliability of the SL communications among the UEs.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selvanesan, Ye, and Apple as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He et al., US 2023/0065305, (“He”).
Selvanesan does not teach but He teaches “starting a prohibit timer upon transmitting the MAC CE to the second wireless communication device; and preventing transmission of another MAC CE to the second wireless communication device until expiration of the prohibit timer” (paragraph no. 0082 discloses a prohibit timer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Selvanesan, Ye, and Apple by incorporating the teachings of He to enable the network to control the retransmission of data from one UE to another, thereby reducing the congestion of the SL communications among the UEs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to each independent claim 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.
To the extent that some of the arguments may not be considered moot, these arguments are addressed herein. Applicant argues that “unavailability” of a resource is not the same as the claimed resource(s) that are not preferred and amended the claim language of claim 1 to recite “that the one or more resources are not preferred to be considered for resource selection by the second wireless communication device for sidelink transmission.” Applicant further argues that “”Not preferred to be considered for resource selection” is distinctly different from resources that are unavailable” (see the paragraph bridging pages 9 and 10 of the amendment).
The examiner has carefully considered these arguments but these arguments are not persuasive. Applicant has not provided any evidentiary support that “not preferred to be considered for resource selection” is distinctly different from resources that are unavailable. Applicant has not provided any evidentiary support how the resources that “are not preferred to be considered for resource selection” are distinctly different from resources that are unavailable as Selvanesan teaches or non-preferred as Ye teaches. It would appear that “unavailable” and “non-preferred” would carry the same ordinary meaning. In addition, the newly amended claim language “not preferred to be considered for resource selection” of claim 1 is so broad that it would read on Ye’s teaching that the inter-UE coordination message includes an indication of non-preferred resources. This is so since it would appear that if a UE of Ye receives the inter-UE coordination message having an indication of non-preferred resources for SL communications, then, these same resources would not be considered for resource selection for SL communications by the UE, thus teaching the newly added claim limitation. However, in order to facilitate compact prosecution, the newly cited reference to Apple, clearly teaches the newly added claim limitation and hence, the claims are not patentable given the teachings of the prior art of record.
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 WON TAE C. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/WON TAE C KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2414