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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the cited references do not disclose “wherein the at least one prioritization rule comprises a prioritization between a respective reference signal type of the first SL-RS and the second SL-RS,” because, in the R1-2000187 reference, the two colliding signals are not sidelink signals. However, the colliding signals in R1-2000187 are sidelink signals: a CSI-RS within a PSSCH and a PSSCH DMRS (R1-2000187, page 13, section 8.2.1 CSI-RS transmission procedure, CSI request field; page 15, section 8.5.2.3, collision between CSI-RS within PSSCH and PSCCH DMRS resolved in favor of PSCCH DMRS).
Further, even if the signals with the R1-2000187 reference were not sidelink signals, R1-2000187’s disclosure of a prioritization rule between different types of reference signals would still have been obvious to use with the sidelink reference signals of the primary reference.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim(s) is/are: 25-30.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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(s) 1-2, 13-16, 18-19, 24-25 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (US 2022/0014338) in view of HUAWEI et al., "Remaining Details of Physical Layer Procedures for Sidelink", R1-2000187, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #100-e, 3rd Generation Partnership Project, Mobile Competence Centre, 650, Route Des Lucioles, F-06921, Sophia-Antipolis Cedex, France, Vol, RAN WG1, No. 20200224 - 20200306, 15 February 2020, XP051853183, 23 Pages, section 4. (cited in Applicant’s IDS filed on July 18, 2023) (Hereafter, R1-2000187).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshioka discloses a method for wireless communication at a wireless communication device in a wireless communication network (Yoshioka, paragraph [0002], LTE or NR system in which a UE communicates without other UEs), the method comprising:
receiving a first request for communication of a first sidelink communication corresponding to a first sidelink reference signal (SL-RS) within a first set of resources (Yoshioka, Figs. 7, 10; paragraph [0072], perform measurement on a per CSI-RS resource basis and report the measurement result; paragraph [0075], communication apparatus 20B receives a CSI request from communication apparatus 20A and performs measurement of a target reference signal specified in the CSI request; paragraph [0079], communication apparatus 20B measures the signal [CSI-RS, PBCH] on the basis of the CSI request), wherein the first set of resources at least partially overlaps in a time domain with a second set of resources indicated in a second request for communication of a second sidelink communication corresponding to a second SL-RS (Yoshioka, Figs. 7, 10; paragraph [0110], set of time and/or frequency resources for notifying CSI of a sidelink communication collide with time and/or frequency resources for reporting CSI of another sidelink communication; paragraph [0120], time and/or frequency resources for reporting CSI of a sidelink communication collide with time and/or frequency resources for reporting CSI of another sidelink communication); and
communicating a selected sidelink communication of the first sidelink communication or the second sidelink communication corresponding to a selected SL-RS the first SL-RS or the second SL-RS within at least overlapping resources between the first set of resources and the second set of resources based on at least one prioritization rule associated with the first SL-RS and the second SL-RS (Yoshioka, Figs. 7, 10; paragraph [0110], set of time and/or frequency resources for notifying CSI of a sidelink communication collide with time and/or frequency resources for reporting CSI of another sidelink communication; paragraph [0120], communication apparatus may report a high priority CSI and not report a low priority CSI on the basis of a priority order assigned).
Yoshioka does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one prioritization rule comprises a prioritization between a respective reference signal type of the first SL-RS and the second SL-RS.
R1-2000187 discloses wherein the at least one prioritization rule comprises a prioritization between a respective reference signal type of the first SL-RS and the second SL-RS (R1-2000187, page 15, section 8.5.2.3, collision between CSI-RS and DMRS resolved in favor of DMRS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by R1-2000187 into the system of Yoshioka in order to resolve CSI resource conflicts (R1-2000187, page 15, section 8.5.2.3).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yoshioka and R1-2000187, particularly Yoshioka discloses wherein the at least one prioritization rule comprises a prioritization between a respective timing behavior of the first sidelink communication and the second sidelink communication, wherein the timing behavior comprises periodic, semi-persistent, or aperiodic (Yoshioka, paragraph [0114], priority order of aperiodic CSI then semi-persistent CSI on PUSCH then semi-persistent CSI on PUCCH then periodic CSI).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Yoshioka and R1-2000187, particularly Yoshioka discloses wherein the at least one prioritization rule comprises a prioritization between a respective communication direction of the first sidelink communication and the second sidelink communication (Yoshioka, paragraph [0115], priority based on sidelink vs Uu link).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Yoshioka and R1-2000187, particularly Yoshioka discloses wherein the selected sidelink communication comprises one of the first SL-RS or the second SL-RS, and further comprising: communicating the selected sidelink communication within the overlapping resources; and communicating the first SL-RS or the second SL-RS within non-overlapping resources between the first set of resources and the second set of resources (Yoshioka, paragraph [0119], multiplexing the CSIs).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Yoshioka and R1-2000187, particularly Yoshioka discloses further comprising: transmitting a first feedback indication to a first device associated with a non-selected sidelink communication of the first sidelink communication and the second sidelink communication, wherein the first feedback indication indicates that the non-selected sidelink communication was dropped (Yoshioka, paragraph [0069], sidelink HARQ; paragraph [0120], not report a low priority CSI).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Yoshioka and R1-2000187, particularly Yoshioka discloses wherein the transmitting the first feedback indication comprises: transmitting the first feedback indication comprising a negative acknowledgement on a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) or a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) (Yoshioka, paragraph [0069], sidelink HARQ transmitted on PSFCH).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Yoshioka and R1-2000187, particularly Yoshioka discloses further comprising: transmitting a second feedback indication to a second device associated with the selected sidelink communication, wherein the second feedback indication comprises an acknowledgement of the selected sidelink communication (Yoshioka, paragraph [0069], sidelink HARQ; paragraph [0120], report a high priority CSI).
Claims 19 and 24 are rejected under substantially the same rationale as claims 1 and 18, respectively. Yoshioka additionally discloses a transceiver; a memory; and a processor coupled to the transceiver and the memory (Yoshioka, Figs. 14, 15).
Claims 25 and 30 are rejected under substantially the same rationale as claims 1 and 18, respectively.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (US 2022/0014338) in view of R1-2000187, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0226648).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yoshioka and R1-2000187 does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one prioritization rule comprises a prioritization between a respective time of communication of each of the first request and the second request.
Lee discloses wherein the at least one prioritization rule comprises a prioritization between a respective time of communication of each of the first request and the second request (Lee, paragraph [0058], priority of an earlier triggered CSI report is configured with a higher priority).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Lee into the system of the combination of Yoshioka and R1-2000187 in order to resolve CSI resource conflicts (Lee, [0007]).
Claim(s) 4, 8-12, 17, 20-23 and 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (US 2022/0014338) in view of R1-2000187, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0028842).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yoshioka and R1-2000187 does not explicitly disclose further comprises a prioritization between a respective cast type of a respective sidelink associated with the first request and the second request, wherein the cast type comprises unicast, broadcast or groupcast.
Kim discloses wherein the at least one prioritization rule further comprises a prioritization between a respective cast type of a respective sidelink associated with the first request and the second request, wherein the cast type comprises unicast, broadcast or groupcast (Kim, paragraph [0009], priority determined by communication scheme which may be unicast, groupcast, broadcast).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Kim into the system of the combination of Yoshioka and R1-2000187 in order to efficiently perform CSI feedback for the sidelink and improve performance of the communication system (Kim, [0026]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yoshioka and R1-2000187 does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one prioritization rule comprises a prioritization between a respective source identity (ID) associated with the first request and the second request or a respective sidelink resource allocation mode associated with the first request and the second request
Kim discloses wherein the at least one prioritization rule comprises a prioritization between a respective source identity (ID) associated with the first request and the second request or a respective sidelink resource allocation mode associated with the first request and the second request (Kim, paragraph [0087] and [0098], priority determined based on equation 1 including parameter c which indicates the serving cell index).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Kim into the system of the combination of Yoshioka and R1-2000187 in order to efficiently perform CSI feedback for the sidelink and improve performance of the communication system (Kim, [0026]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yoshioka and R1-2000187 does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one prioritization rule comprises a prioritization between a respective first priority of each of the first sidelink communication and the second sidelink communication or a respective second priority associated with a first sidelink on which the first sidelink communication is communicated and a second sidelink on which the second sidelink communication is communicated.
Kim discloses wherein the at least one prioritization rule comprises a prioritization between a respective first priority of each of the first sidelink communication and the second sidelink communication or a respective second priority associated with a first sidelink on which the first sidelink communication is communicated and a second sidelink on which the second sidelink communication is communicated (Kim, paragraph [0087]-[0089] and [0098], priority determined based on equation 1 including parameter k which indicates the type of CSI report and parameter c which indicates the serving cell index).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Kim into the system of the combination of Yoshioka and R1-2000187 in order to efficiently perform CSI feedback for the sidelink and improve performance of the communication system (Kim, [0026]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yoshioka and R1-2000187 and Kim, particularly Yoshioka discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the first request comprises a first priority of the first sidelink communication and the second request comprises a second priority of the second sidelink communication (Yoshioka, paragraph [0120], communication apparatus may report a high priority CSI and not report a low priority CSI on the basis of a priority order assigned) (Kim, paragraph [0087]-[0089] and [0098], priority determined based on equation 1 including parameter k which indicates the type of CSI report and parameter c which indicates the serving cell index).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yoshioka and R1-2000187 does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one prioritization rule comprises a prioritization between a respective resource pool identifier (ID) associated with the first set of resources and the second set of resources or a respective carrier identity (ID) of a first carrier associated with the first set of resources and a second carrier associated with the second set of resources.
Kim discloses wherein the at least one prioritization rule comprises a prioritization between a respective resource pool identifier (ID) associated with the first set of resources and the second set of resources or a respective carrier identity (ID) of a first carrier associated with the first set of resources and a second carrier associated with the second set of resources (Kim, paragraph [0087]-[0089] and [0098], priority determined based on equation 1 including parameter k which indicates the type of CSI report and parameter c which indicates the serving cell index; paragraph [0117]-[0118], different serving cell index for different carriers and BWPs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Kim into the system of the combination of Yoshioka and R1-2000187 in order to efficiently perform CSI feedback for the sidelink and improve performance of the communication system (Kim, [0026]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Yoshioka and R1-2000187 does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one prioritization rule comprises a prioritization between a respective zone identifier (ID) associated with the first request and the second request.
Kim discloses wherein the at least one prioritization rule comprises a prioritization between a respective zone identifier (ID) associated with the first request and the second request (Kim, paragraph [0087]-[0089] and [0098], priority determined based on equation 1 including parameter k which indicates the type of CSI report and parameter c which indicates the serving cell index).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Kim into the system of the combination of Yoshioka and R1-2000187 in order to efficiently perform CSI feedback for the sidelink and improve performance of the communication system (Kim, [0026]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Yoshioka and R1-2000187 does not explicitly disclose wherein the transmitting the first feedback indication comprising the negative acknowledgement on the PSFCH or the PUCCH further comprises: transmitting the first feedback indication on the PSFCH within a set of feedback resources based on a mapping between the set of feedback resources and a non-selected set of resources of the first set of resources and the second set of resources or a non-selected request of the first request and the second request associated with the non-selected sidelink communication.
Kim discloses wherein the transmitting the first feedback indication comprising the negative acknowledgement on the PSFCH or the PUCCH further comprises: transmitting the first feedback indication on the PSFCH within a set of feedback resources based on a mapping between the set of feedback resources and a non-selected set of resources of the first set of resources and the second set of resources or a non-selected request of the first request and the second request associated with the non-selected sidelink communication (Kim, paragraph [0130], PSFCH mapped to a CSI report).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Kim into the system of the combination of Yoshioka and R1-2000187 in order to efficiently perform CSI feedback for the sidelink and improve performance of the communication system (Kim, [0026]).
Claim 20 is rejected under substantially the same rationale as claim 14. Yoshioka additionally discloses a transceiver; a memory; and a processor coupled to the transceiver and the memory (Yoshioka, Figs. 14, 15).
Claim 21 is rejected under substantially the same rationale as claim 15.
Claim 22 is rejected under substantially the same rationale as claim 16.
Claim 23 is rejected under substantially the same rationale as claim 17.
Claim 26 is rejected under substantially the same rationale as claim 14.
Claim 27 is rejected under substantially the same rationale as claim 15.
Claim 28 is rejected under substantially the same rationale as claim 16.
Claim 29 is rejected under substantially the same rationale as claim 17.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (US 2022/0014338) in view of HUAWEI et al., "Remaining Details of Physical Layer Procedures for Sidelink", R1-2000187, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #100-e, 3rd Generation Partnership Project, Mobile Competence Centre, 650, Route Des Lucioles, F-06921, Sophia-Antipolis Cedex, France, Vol, RAN WG1, No. 20200224 - 20200306, 15 February 2020, XP051853183, 23 Pages, section 4. (cited in Applicant’s IDS filed on July 18, 2023) (Hereafter, R1-2000187), and further in view of Kwak et al. (US 2017/0237478).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yoshioka and R1-2000187 does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one prioritization rule comprises a prioritization between a respective first number of resources associated with the first request and the second request or a respective second number of resources associated with the first set of resources and the second set of resources.
Kwak discloses wherein the at least one prioritization rule comprises a prioritization between a respective first number of resources associated with the first request and the second request or a respective second number of resources associated with the first set of resources and the second set of resources (Kwak, paragraph [0151], priorities of CSI-RS set on a condition such as number of CSI-RS resources in a CSI process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Kwak into the system of the combination of Yoshioka and R1-2000187 in order to report channel status using a CSI-RS when a CSI resource conflict occurs (Kwak, [0011]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Manolakos et al. (US 20230108914) discloses prioritizing positioning reference signals, explicit and/or implicit indications of priority may be analyzed. A structure of positioning reference signals (e.g., quantities of symbols per slot, a repetition quantity, or a gap between consecutive repetitions) may influence priority of processing (e.g., measuring) of positioning reference signals. Priority of a positioning signal over a channel may be given for a search window for searching for the positioning signal. When a positioning signal has priority and collides with a symbol of another reference signal or channel information, then the non-colliding portion of the other signal or channel may be processed (e.g., measured).
Yi et al. (US 20210105126) discloses communication comprising a scheduling request and a sidelink SR. The communication may comprise a collision between the SR and the SL SR. A wireless device may avoid sending an SL SR based on determining that a PUCCH corresponding to the SL SR overlaps with another PUCCH corresponding to an SR. A base station 3004 may configure (e.g., via RRC configuration messages 3012) first SR resources for SR transmissions that may be initiated by uplink data from a wireless device 3008. The base station 3004 may configure second SR resources for SL SR transmissions that may be initiated by sidelink data by the wireless device 3008.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN LOUIS LINDENBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-3858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM EST.
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, Un Cho can be reached at (571) 272-7919. 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.
/A.L.L/Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413
