DETAILED ACTION
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
Applicant’s amendment, filed 2 January 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1-20 and 26-29 are canceled.
Claims 21, 23-25, 30-34, 36-38 and 40 are amended.
Claims 21-25 and 30-40 are currently pending.
The outstanding nonstatutory double patenting rejections of Claims 21, 34 and 38 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claims.
The outstanding rejection Claims 21-25 and 30-40 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 21, 34 and 38.
The outstanding rejections of Claims 21, 23, 30-34, 36, 38 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and Claims 22, 24, 25, 35, 37 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 21, 34 and 38.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 January 2026 regarding the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered. The Office notes that Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 21, 34 and 38, specifically the first “wherein” clause, have introduced new issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) that are detailed herein. Applicant’s statement that “(t)he amended dependent claims clearly define the relationship between a SL logical slot and a reference logical slot” is not persuasive, as the issue is not how the SL logical slot and reference logical slot relate to one another, but how both are repeatedly recited throughout the claim set and interchangeably related to recitations of complete/not complete SL logical slot.
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 21-25 and 30-40 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.
Regarding Claims 21, 34 and 38, the claim language has been amended to recite the following: “wherein, based on that a number of SL symbols within one slot is configured to be N, the reference logical slot is a complete sidelink (SL) logical slot among SL logical slots belonging to a SL resource pool, which is closest after a starting time of a system frame number (SFN) with an index and includes at least N SL symbols after the starting time, and wherein N is a positive integer.” However, the claim appears to establish “a number of SL symbols within one slot is configured to be N” as a condition for the subsequent claim language (i.e., that the reference logical slot is a complete SL logical slot when a number of SL symbols within one slot is configured to be N). This is not clear as there is no action clearly performed in response to the condition, as the claim merely sets forth properties of the reference logical slot. Further, the claim language is not clear because the phrase “which is closest after a starting time of a system frame number (SFN) with an index and includes at least N SL symbols after the starting time” is not clearly linked to another phrase in the claim. Specifically, it is not clear whether the claim is requiring “which is closest…and includes” to be related to N, the reference logical slot, the complete SL logical slot, or the SL resource pool. Further, it is not clear if “one slot” refers to the reference logical slot, the complete SL logical slot, or a slot of the configured grant. Claims 22-25, 30-33, 35-37, 39 and 40 are rejected by virtue of dependence on the independent claims.
Regarding Claims 23, 36, and 40, these claims further recite “a SL logical slot”; however, it is not clear whether this refers to the earlier recitation of “SL logical slots belonging to a SL resource pool” in the independent claims. The independent claims recite that “the reference logical slot is a complete sidelink (SL) logical slot among SL logical slots”. These claims further recite “based on that a SL logical slot closest after the starting time is not the complete SL logical slot, the reference logical slot is the complete SL logical slot closest after the SL logical slot.” It is not clear whether the multiple types of slots recited here refer to the same slots in the independent claims or are introducing additional SL logical slots and complete SL logical slots.
Claims 24, 25 and 37 recite “a complete SL logical slot among the SL logical slots belonging to the SL resource pool.” It is not clear if this refers to the same phrase earlier recited in the independent claims. Further, the phrase “which is closest” is unclear for the same reasons as presented in the independent claims. Specifically, it is not clear if this refers to the reference logical slot, the complete SL logical slot, or the SL resource pool.”
Claim 30 recites “a SL logical slot” which is unclear for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 23.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472