DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 11/20/2025.
Claims 21,26-34,38, and 41-49 are pending.
Claims 21,32-34,38 and 41-49 are rejected.
Claims 26-30 are objected to for having allowable subject matter.
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 Amendments
This communication is in response to Applicant’s reply filed under 3 CFR 1.111 on 11/20/2025. Claims 21,26-34, and 38 were amended, claims 22-25,35-37,39 and 40 were canceled, claims 41-49 were added and claims 21,26-34,38, and 41-49 remain pending.
Amendment to claims 21,34 and 38 in response to objection under informalities has been considered. The amendment to the claims obviates previously raised objection, as such this objection is hereby withdrawn.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21,32,34, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US Pub. 2022/0329301)(S1 hereafter) in view of Miao et al. (US Pub. 2024/0114543)(M1 hereafter) in further view of Wu et al. (US Pub. 2024/0008079)(W1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 21,34 and 38, S1 teaches a first device [refer Fig. 11][paragraph 0024] adapted to perform wireless communication [paragraph 0050], the first device comprising:
at least one transceiver [refer Fig. 11; 110, 1104][paragraph 0570]; at least one processor [refer Fig. 11; 1102]; and
at least one memory [paragraph 0030] connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions [paragraph 0030] that, based on being executed, cause the first device to perform operations [paragraph 0572] comprising:
performing sensing on at least one first slot related to the at least one candidate slot [paragraph 0078];
performing physical sidelink shared channel (PSCCH) and physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) reception based on at least one second slot (i.e. adjacent resource region where PSCCH and PSSCH are allocated)[paragraph 0406]; and
sidelink (SL) received signal strength indicator (RSSI) [paragraph 0405] is measured in the at least one first slot (i.e. for the PSSCH region and PSCCH region)[paragraph 0406], the first device performs a measurement [paragraph 0404] for a PSSCH region [paragraph 0406] in a channel busy ratio (CBR) measurement window [paragraph 0409].
However, S1 fails to expressly disclose performing partial sensing on the at least one first slot, and the first device performs the partial sensing.
M1, in the same field of endeavor, discloses that a device can use a partial sensing scheme for selection of resources for transmissions [paragraph 0059], the terminal device determines the number of resources on which to perform partial sensing on [paragraph 0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of S1 to incorporate partial sensing as taught by M1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known procedure with regards to resource selection in the field of endeavor to yield predictable results [refer M1; paragraph 0065].
However, S1 in view of M1 fails to disclose the SL received signal strength indicator (RSSI) is measured on the at least one first slot and the at least one second slot, the first device performs the PSCCH and PSSCH reception within a channel busy ratio (CBR) measurement window.
W1 discloses that a SL RSSI can be measured by the UE over a CBR window, which are equal to 100 or 100x2 slots, the SL RSSI can be defined for an observed slot configured for PSCCH and PSSCH [paragraph 0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of S1 for performing a CBR measurement a defined window [refer S1; paragraph 0409] to incorporate SL RSSI measurement over a CBR window with a slot configured for PSCCH and PSSCH as taught by W1. One would be motivated to do so to provide an explicitly defined window of time to determine whether resources are busy for sidelink communications [refer M1; paragraph 0031].
Regarding claim 32, S1 teaches a length of the CBR measurement window is determined in units of logical slots [paragraph 0410].
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S1 in view of M1 in further view of W1, as applied to claims 21 and 34, in further view of Mok et al. (US Pub. 2018/0124771)(M2 hereafter).
Regarding claim 31, S1 fails to disclose a length of the CBR measurement window is determined based on a type of the first device, and the type of the first device includes either of a vehicle UE or a roadside unit (RSU).
M2 discloses that a UE can be mounted on a vehicle or on a fixed RSU, in which a base station can configure a UE with period information to report resources of a zone used by the terminal and a CBR based on the period information (i.e. window determined based on a type of device)[paragraph 0263].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of S1 to incorporate the configuration of a zone and period for measuring CBR for a vehicle as taught by M2. One would be motivated to do so to provide better reliability for vehicle communications [refer M2 paragraph 0011].
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S1 in view of M1 in further view of W1, as applied to claims 21 and 34, in further view of Foud et al. (US Pub. 2023/0079867)(F1 hereafter).
Regarding claim 33, S1 fails to disclose that the at least one second slot is a slot included in an active time duration related to SL discontinuous reception (DRX).
F1 discloses that receiving and sensing windows in mandatory slots can be equal to a subset of DRX ON duration (i.e. active time duration)[paragraph 0144], and that sensing can be partial sensing [paragraph 0103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of S1 to incorporate the use of DRX durations for receiving and sensing mandatory slots and the use of partial sensing as taught by F1. One would be motivated to do so to avoid potential collisions in communications [refer F1; paragraph 0147].
Claims 41-43,44-46, and 47-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S1 in view of M1 in further view of W1, as applied to claims 21 and 34, in further view of Zhao et al. (US Pub. 2023/0345550)(Z1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 41,44, and 47, S1 fails to disclose that a CBR value is obtained based on a portion of sub-channels in a resource pool whose SL RSSI measured by the first device exceed a threshold sensed over the CBR measurement window.
Z1 discloses that in a measurement window from slot n-a to slot n-1, a channel busy ratio (CBR) measurement value measured in slot n is defined as a proportion of sub channels having a received signal strength indication (RSSI) measurement value greater than a configured threshold in a sidelink resource pool [paragraph 0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of S1 to incorporate the use of a CBR value based upon sub-channels in a resource pool as taught by Z1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known procedure within the field of endeavor to yield predictable results with regards to CBR measurements [refer Z1; paragraph 0030].
Regarding claims 42,45, and 48, S1 fails to disclose a calculation of a CBR value is limited within the at least one first slot and the at least one second slot (i.e. interval) for which the SL RSSI is measured.
Z1 discloses that in a measurement window from slot n-a to slot n-1, a channel busy ratio (CBR) measurement value measured in slot n is defined as a proportion of sub channels having a received signal strength indication (RSSI) measurement value greater than a configured threshold in a sidelink resource pool [paragraph 0030], a measurement time unit may have limitations set, such as time units in a measurement unit set no later than first time unit [paragraph 0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of S1 to incorporate the use of a CBR value based upon sub-channels in a resource pool as taught by Z1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known procedure within the field of endeavor to yield predictable results with regards to CBR measurements [refer Z1; paragraph 0030].
Regarding claims 43,46, and 49, S1 fails to disclose a default CBR value is used based on that a number of the at least one first slot and the at least one second slot for which the SL RSSI is measured within the CBR measurement window is less than a threshold.
Z1 discloses, in the field of CBR measurements measured in a slot n defined for RSSI measurement in a sidelink resource pool [paragraph 0030], that if a UE cannot obtain a sidelink channel busy measurement value corresponding to a first time unit, the user equipment uses a default measurement value as the channel busy measurement value [paragraph 0085], it can be understood that a plurality of time units whose time interval with a second time unit is not greater than the first time length threshold form a time range, and the first time unit is one of the time units within the time range (i.e. less than a threshold) [paragraph 0079].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of S1 to incorporate the use of a default CBR measurement value for RSSI measurement as taught by Z1. One would be motivated to do so to ensure that a busy measurement value of the sidelink channel can be obtained in a time when transmission is required [refer Z1; paragraph 0003].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-30 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/20/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 21,34 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wu et al. (US Pub. 2024/0008079) as noted in the above rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21,34 and 38 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.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C KAVLESKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3619. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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.
Ryan Kavleski
/R.C.K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2412