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 .
The preliminary amendment filed 8/21/23 has been entered.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims (e.g., claim 9, line 2) by use of the term “computer-readable medium” encompasses both transitory (e.g., a signal) and non-transitory computer-readable media. Since the claims (e.g., claim 9) can encompass a transitory (e.g., a signal) computer-readable medium, the claims are not statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 (see MPEP 2106.03, sections I and II).
Examiner suggests inserting “non-transitory” before the term “computer-readable medium” in claims 9 and 16 to overcome this rejection.
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 1-9 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 claim 1, a transitional phrase such as comprising is not recited which renders the claim indefinite. In other words, since a transitional phrase is missing in the claim, it is not clear whether the claim is open-ended or closed for infringement and/or patentability purposes. The examiner suggests adding the limitation “the method comprising:” after the limitation “the wireless communication network,” in lines 4-5 to overcome this rejection. In addition, the examiner suggests changing “resource pool” (last line) to read “the resource pool” to clearly refer back to the “a resource pool” in lines 3-4.
Dependent claims 2-9 fall in view of claim 1.
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) 10-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al., US 2021/0400732, (“Xue”), in view of Stefanatos et al., US 2023/0262756, (“Stefanatos”).
Regarding independent claim 10, Xue teaches “A method implemented by a second device to utilize at least one resource element within a wireless communication network, said resource element belonging to a first set of radio resources reserved for a first device within a resource pool, the first device and the second device using a device-to device communication within the wireless communication network (see, e.g., Fig. 6, UE 115-e for a “second device”; the “first device” reads on UE 115-d; see Fig. 3 and paragraph no. 0095, “a COT sharing provider may transmit TDM COT sharing information 340 to indicate that the remaining resources (e.g., subsequent symbols 325 …) of the COT are available for sharing … In some other aspects, the TDM COT sharing information 340 may indicate specific time resources for sharing (e.g., by indicating … a symbol index”); the “at least one resource element” reads on the at least one subsequent symbol included in the subsequent symbols 325 or alternatively, the specific time resource indicated by a symbol index; Fig. 6, steps 630 and/or 665 disclose that these subsequent symbols 325 are utilized by UE 115-e for transmitting a SL data message), the method comprising:
- receiving, through the device-to-device communication, an indication that the resource element is available for sharing by the first device (see, e.g., Fig. 6, step 650 and paragraph no. 0115; see Fig. 3 and paragraph no. 0095, “a COT sharing provider may transmit TDM COT sharing information 340 to indicate that the remaining resources (e.g., subsequent symbols 325 …) of the COT are available for sharing … In some other aspects, the TDM COT sharing information 340 may indicate specific time resources for sharing (e.g., by indicating … a symbol index”); the “the resource element” reads on the at least one subsequent symbol included in the subsequent symbols 325 or alternatively, the specific time resource indicated by a symbol index; note that the COT sharing provider is, e.g., UE 115-d of Fig. 6), and
- utilizing the resource element shared by the first device for transmission within the wireless communication network” (see, e.g., Fig. 6, step 665).
Xue does not teach but Stefanatos teaches “wherein utilizing the resource element is based on a secondary criterion, said secondary criterion being related to at least a data related to a congestion level within the resource pool” (see paragraph no. 0081, “Additionally, or alternatively, the second UE 120-2 may determine whether a channel congestion level satisfies a congestion threshold (e.g., whether a measured channel busy ratio (CBR) satisfies a CBR threshold). In this case, when the measured channel congestion is less than the congestion threshold, second UE 120-2 may transmit the one or more packets using the shared channel occupancy despite the updated hop counter value not satisfying the threshold”; note that the second UE 120-2 receives an SCI from a first UE 120-1 that identifies the shared channel occupancy, see paragraph no. 0085, last 3 lines; the “secondary criterion” reads on the measured CBR (“a data”) and its comparison to the congestion threshold; note that the measured CBR is a measure of the congestion level within the resource pool used by the UEs in sharing the COT) of claim 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Xue by incorporating the teachings of Stefanatos to increase the number of UEs that can transmit within the shared COT by taking into account the measured congestion level within the resource pool, as suggested by Stefanatos in paragraph no. 0081.
Regarding claim 11, Xue teaches “wherein the indication that the resource element is available for sharing by the first device (UE1) is received within a sharing signaling message (SSM) though the device-to-device communication” (paragraph no. 0006, “a sidelink control message including the sharing indicator, the sharing indicator indicating TDM sharing for a portion of the occupancy time, FDM sharing for the portion of the occupancy time, or a combination thereof”).
Regarding claim 12, Xue does not teach but Stefanatos teaches “wherein the secondary criterion is further related to one or a combination of the following:
- a pre-configuration message enabling or disabling utilizing the resource element,
- a data related to a channel condition of the wireless communication network (paragraph no. 0081 discloses using RSRP of the decoded signal and comparing it to a RSRP threshold – the RSRP is a measure of a channel condition),
- a data related to a time interval during which the resource element is available for sharing,
- a data related to a geographical zone associated with the resource element available for sharing,
- a data related to a size of the resource element available for sharing,
- a data related to at least one dimension of transmission of the resource element available for sharing, and
- hardware capabilities of the second device.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Xue and Stefanatos by incorporating the additional teachings of Stefanatos to increase the number of UEs that can transmit within the shared COT by taking into account the RSRP of a decoded signal, as suggested by Stefanatos in paragraph no. 0081.
Regarding claim 14, Xue teaches “wherein the second device transmits second data packets to at least a second receiving device using the resource element available for sharing by the first device” (see Fig. 2 which shows that a second UE 115-b transmits to a third UE 115-a (“second receiving device”) after receiving the COT sharing indicator 220 from first UE 115-c).
Regarding claim 15, Xue teaches “comprising a second processing circuit to perform the method as claimed in claim 10” (see Fig. 10 which shows a processor 1040).
Regarding claim 16, Xue teaches “A computer program product comprising a second set of program instruction code stored on a second computer-readable medium for the execution of the method according to claim 10” (see Fig. 10 which shows a memory 1030 with code 1035).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the claim limitation “said indication being emitted based on a primary criterion, said primary criterion being related to at least a value related to a congestion level within resource pool.” Dependent claims 2-9 depend from claim 1.
Xue is the closest prior art of record. Xue discloses that a first UE transmits a sharing indicator, via a SCI, to a second UE, the sharing indicator indicating that the COT obtained by the first UE is available for sharing by the second UE. The resources shared are at the symbol level. However, Xue does not teach or fairly suggest that the sending of the sharing indicator by the first UE is based on a criterion related to at least a value related to a congestion level within the resource pool as required by claim 1.
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest “the indication that the resource element is available for sharing by the first device including at least a data related to a size of the resource element available for sharing, the second device” of claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See at least the abstracts of Xue et al., US 2021/0195637, and Cui et al., US 2021/0368351. Both references disclose the general state of the art in sharing COT by one UE with one or more other UEs.
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
/EDAN ORGAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2414