DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted March 18, 2026. Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on March 18, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-4 and 6 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest the amended limitation incorporated from previous claim 5 (now canceled) (Remarks, pp. 6-8). The Examiner has carefully considered this argument and reviewed the references, but respectfully disagrees. At the least, Yasukawa teaches retransmission control functionality ([0016]). This feedback provides NACK functionality and indicates the resource for retransmission (see, e.g., [0068]-[0072]). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant also argues that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no motivation to supply the missing elements [of claim 1] without the benefit of Applicant’s own disclosure as a guide” (Remarks, p. 9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Examiner notes that Applicant makes this argument summarily without pointing to any particular combination or rationale – the rejection of claim 1 sets forth an alternative modification under Kim, as well as a modification using either Harada or Freda, and Applicant does not argue any. Nevertheless, each of these modifications is either self-evident or clearly set forth in the rejection. For instance, Kim more explicitly than Yasukawa teaches the alternatively claimed resource determination, and is relied upon only to the extent the feature(s) are not inherent to Yasukawa. Autonomous and/or heteronomous determination has the self-evident advantage of permitting determination when a device is out-of-range from an external source (in the case of autonomous), as well as capitalizing on cell processing resources (in the case of heteronomous). With respect to preamble inclusion, both Harada and Freda explicitly set forth the otherwise commonly known advantages of preamble implementation – to promote signal detection (e.g. Harada 5:47-48; Feda [0254]). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2017/0347394 A1 (hereinafter “Yasukawa”), alternatively in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0045103 A1 (hereinafter “Kim”), and in further view of either U.S. Patent No. 9,794,767 (hereinafter “Harada”) or U.S. Publication No. 2019/0320467 A1 (hereinafter “Freda”).
Regarding claims 1 and 6: Yasukawa teaches communication device comprising: a processor configured to autonomously determine a first resource to be used for transmission; a transmitter configured to transmit data to another communication device by using the first resource (see, e.g., [0005]-[0007], [0013]; a transmitting UE autonomously determines a resource used for transmitting to a receiving UE); and
a receiver configured to receive feedback information corresponding to the data by using a second resource that is autonomously or heteronomously determined by the another communication device (see, e.g., [0013]-[0016]; the receiving UE sends feedback on a determined resource),
wherein the transmitter retransmits the data to the another communication device by using a resource for retransmission of the data, information indicating the resource for retransmission of the data being included in the feedback information, in a case where the receiver receives the feedback information indicating a reception failure of the data (see, e.g., Yasukawa [0016], [0051], [0068]-[0072]).
To the extent the system taught by Yasukawa does not inherently teach or include the feature wherein the second resource is autonomously or heteronomously determined (see, e.g., resource configurations for feedback beginning at [0057], also [0116]), this feature is nevertheless taught by Kim (see, e.g., [0099]-[0105], [0126]; both transmitting and receiving UEs determine resources autonomously; note also overlapping teachings with respect to resource determination and feedback). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Kim, such as the resource determination functionality, within the system of Yasukawa, in order to reduce collisions and/or improve spectrum utilization.
Yasukawa alternatively modified by Kim does not explicitly state transmission of a “preamble signal.” However, this feature is taught by Harada (see, e.g., col. 5:35 – 6:14; col. 13:25 – col. 14:32). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Harada, such as the indication functionality, within the system of Yasukawa alternatively modified by Kim, in order to improve signal detection.
Alternatively to Harada, the said feature is taught by Freda (see, e.g., [0254]-[0257]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Freda, such as the indication functionality, within the system of Yasukawa alternatively modified by Kim, in order to improve signal detection.
The rationale set forth above regarding the device of claim 1 is applicable to the method of claim 6.
Regarding claim 2: Yasukawa alternatively modified by Kim, and further Harada or Freda, further teaches wherein the receiver assumes that the second resource is arranged in a period that starts from a time at which the first resource is arranged (see, e.g., Yasukawa [0059]-[0066], note also figures 3-7; and/or Kim [0101], [0162], [0172]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 2.
Regarding claim 3: Yasukawa alternatively modified by Kim, and further Harada or Freda, further teaches wherein the processor determines the second resource to be used for reception of the feedback information corresponding to the data, based on a timing of a beam of the another communication device, the transmitter transmits information indicating the second resource to the another communication device, and the receiver receives the feedback information by using the second resource (see, e.g., Yasukawa [0065]; also Kim [0099]-[0105], [0126]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 3.
Regarding claim 4: Yasukawa alternatively modified by Kim, and further Harada or Freda, further teaches wherein the control unit determines a resource group that includes candidates of the second resource to be used for reception of the feedback information corresponding to the data, the transmitter transmits, to the another communication device, information indicating the resource group, the another communication device autonomously determines the second resource from among the resource group, and the receiver receives the feedback information by using the second (see, e.g., Yasukawa [0057]-[0066], [0135], [0195]-[0196]; also Kim [0118], [0157]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 4.
Conclusion
7. All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights