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 election filed 2/2/26.
Claims 1-17 and 30-42 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17 and 30, in the reply filed on 2/2/26 is acknowledged. The non-elected claims have been canceled. New claims 31-42 have been examined with the elected Group I claims.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statements filed to date have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-3 and 31 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.
In claims 2 and 31 and taking claim 2 as an example, the limitation “receiving, by the first UE operating in accordance with the first radio access technology, first control signaling indicating the first resource pattern to a second UE operating in accordance with the first radio access technology” (emphasis added) is confusing since it is not clear how the received first control signaling can indicate the first resource pattern to a second UE.
Dependent claim 3 falls with claim 2.
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.
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) 30, 34, 36-38, and 41-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanatos et al., US 2021/0297314, (“Stefanatos”), in view of Luo et al., US 2023/0018928, (“Luo”).
Independent Claims
Regarding independent claim 30, Stefanatos teaches “An apparatus for wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE) (Fig. 2, UE 104), comprising:
a processor (Fig. 2);
memory (Fig. 2) coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
determine a ratio of sidelink messaging traffic by a first radio access technology relative to sidelink messaging traffic by a second radio access technology (see Fig. 3A which is one example of a ratio of two different RATs; the ratio is 5 slots of type A RAT relative to 5 slots of type B RAT for one frame; see Fig. 4A, step 402a and paragraph nos. 0061 and 0104 and in particular, 0104, “In method 400A, at block 402 a, a user equipment or vehicle OBU may receive a time division multiplexed configuration that is determined based on a distribution of a plurality of technologies in a communication system, the distribution corresponding to a traffic load of each technology”; Fig. 3A is one example of a time division multiplexed configuration in which the UE can operate in accordance with type A RAT (first 5 slots) and with type B RAT (second 5 slots); note that type A RAT may be DSRC and type B RAT may be LTE V2X (see paragraph no. 0061); see also, paragraph no. 0034 which discloses that the UE may use D2D/sidelink for communications with other UEs);
select, based at least in part on the ratio, a first resource pattern of a plurality of different resource patterns (Fig. 4A, step 404a and Fig. 3A; see paragraph no. 0104, “At block 404 a, the user equipment or OBU may transmit during a resource allocated according to the received TDM configuration”; the claimed “first resource pattern” may read on, e.g., the resource pattern shown in the first 5 slots of Fig. 3A in which the UE may use the first 5 slots for D2D transmission using type A RAT); and
communicate, via the sidelink channel, a first sidelink message within a first resource of the resource group in accordance with the first resource pattern” (Fig. 4A, step 404a and Fig. 3A; see paragraph no. 0104, “At block 404a, the user equipment or OBU may transmit during a resource allocated according to the received TDM configuration”; the claimed “a first resource” may read on, e.g., the first slot of Fig. 3A in which the UE may use the first slot for D2D transmission using type A RAT).
Stefanatos does not teach but Luo teaches “monitor a resource group of a sidelink channel for an indication of sidelink messaging traffic” (see Fig. 3, steps 316 and 320 and Fig. 2 which disclose that UE2 monitors for a wake-up signal and once this wake-up signal is received, monitors for and receives sidelink data from UE1) of claim 30.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Stefanatos by incorporating the teachings of Luo to enable the UE to further reduce power consumption for monitoring sidelink resource pool by dividing the sidelink resource pool into multiple time divisions as indicated using the time points corresponding to the wakeup control resources as specified in the wakeup control resource configuration, as suggested by Luo in paragraph no. 0043.
Regarding independent claims 41 and 42, these independent claims are corresponding means for and computer-readable medium claims of the apparatus claim 30 and recite similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 30 applies with equal force to these independent claims.
Dependent Claims
Regarding claim 34, Stefanatos teaches “wherein, to communicate the first sidelink message, the instructions cause the apparatus to: communicate, via the first radio access technology, the first sidelink message in a first portion of one or more resource blocks of the resource group allocated to the first radio access technology during a transmission time interval in accordance with the first resource pattern, a second portion of one or more resource blocks of the resource group being allocated to the second radio access technology” (see Fig. 3A; the claimed “a first portion” reads on, e.g., the first slot and the “a second portion” reads on e.g., the 6th slot).
Regarding claim 36, Stefanatos teaches “wherein, to select the first resource pattern, the instructions cause the apparatus to: select the first resource pattern to allocate some or all resources of the resource group to the first radio access technology based at least in part on the ratio, wherein remaining resources are allocated to the second radio access technology based at least in part on the ratio” (see Fig. 3A in which the claimed “the first resource pattern” reads on, e.g., the first 5 slots and the claimed “remaining resources” reads on, e.g., the second 5 slots of the frame shown in Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 37, Stefanatos teaches “wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to: transmit or receive a sidelink control channel signal of the second radio access technology in one or more transmission time intervals” (see paragraph no. 0034 which discloses PSCCH).
Regarding claim 38, Stefanatos teaches “wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to: transmit or receive control signaling indicating the plurality of different resource patterns” (see paragraph nos. 0059, 0079, 0081 which disclose that the TDM configurations are received by the UE from the base station).
Claim(s) 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanatos and Luo as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Li et al., US 2019/0320475, (“Li”).
Regarding claim 32, Stefanatos does not teach but Li teaches “to monitor the resource group, the instructions cause the apparatus to: receive, from a second LE, sidelink control information that indicates that the second UE operates in accordance with the first radio access technology” (see paragraph nos. 0080, 0081 which disclose that a second UE may indicate, via LTE SCI, to another UE that it has the capability to support a particular RAT such as NR RAT).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Stefanatos and Luo by incorporating the teachings of Li to enable one UE to indicate to another UE the particular RAT capability that it supports, thereby improving the SL communications between the two UEs.
Regarding claim 33, Stefanatos does not teach but Li teaches “wherein, to monitor the resource group, the instructions cause the apparatus to: receive, from a second UE, a control message that indicates that the second UE operates in accordance with the first radio access technology” (see paragraph nos. 0080, 0081 which disclose that a second UE may indicate, via LTE SCI, to another UE that it has the capability to support a particular RAT such as NR RAT).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Stefanatos and Luo by incorporating the teachings of Li to enable one UE to indicate to another UE the particular RAT capability that it supports, thereby improving the SL communications between the two UEs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 4-17 are allowed.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the combination of the claim limitations “monitoring a resource group of a sidelink channel for an indication of sidelink messaging traffic;
determining a ratio of sidelink messaging traffic by a first radio access technology relative to sidelink messaging traffic by a second radio access technology based at least in part on the monitoring.”
Regarding claim 1, Stefanatos and Luo are the closest prior art of record. Stefanatos discloses that a UE determines a ratio of sidelink traffic by a first RAT relative to a sidelink traffic by a second RAT (see Fig.3A and the discussion above). However, the ratio is not determined based on “the monitoring” as claimed in claim 1. While Luo discloses the claimed feature of “monitoring a resource group …” as claimed in claim 1, it does not teach or fairly suggest that this monitoring is a basis for determining a ratio of sidelink traffic by a first RAT relative to a sidelink traffic of a second RAT. Hence, even if the teachings of Stefanatos and Luo could be combined, the resulting combination would still fail to teach or fairly suggest the combination of the claim limitations “monitoring a resource group of a sidelink channel for an indication of sidelink messaging traffic;
determining a ratio of sidelink messaging traffic by a first radio access technology relative to sidelink messaging traffic by a second radio access technology based at least in part on the monitoring” as recited in claim 1.
Claims 4-17 depend from claim 1.
Claims 35, 39-40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 35, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest “wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to: transmit, via the first radio access technology, a second sidelink message in a second resource of the resource group indicated by the first resource pattern to be allocated to the second radio access technology based at least in part on a priority of the second sidelink message.”
Regarding claim 39, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest “wherein, to monitor the resource group, the instructions cause the apparatus to: determine a first number of decoded messages that are of the first radio access technology, and a second number of decoded messages that are of the second radio access technology, wherein the ratio is determined based at least in part on the first number of decoded messages and the second number of decoded messages.”
Regarding claim 40, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest “wherein, to monitor the resource group, the instructions cause the apparatus to: monitor the resource group to determine a first channel busy ratio for the first radio access technology, and a second channel busy ratio for the second radio access technology, wherein the ratio is determined based at least in part on the first channel busy ratio and the second channel busy ratio.”
Conclusion
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