DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on March 19, 2026 after the non-final rejection of the application.
The Amendment filed 3/19/26 has been entered. Claims 2, 6-11, 13, 15-16, 18-20, 26-27, 29 were cancelled. Claims 1, 3-5, 12, 14, 17, 21-25, 28, and 30 are pending, of which claims 1, 3-5, 12, 14, 17, 24 and 28 were amended, and claim 30 was newly added.
In light of amendments, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to claims 18, 20 (now cancelled), and claim 24 were withdrawn.
The rejections of amended claims 1 and 28 (and their corresponding dependent claims) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the addition of limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejections of [amended claims 1, 3-5, 12, 14, 17, 24 and 28 and 28] have been considered but are not persuasive.
To be specific, the applicant argued that Cheng and Hahn, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest adapting the aperiodic sensing occasion based on a periodicity of the periodic sensing occasions or based on a window size of one or more of the periodic sensing occasions or based on a starting time of a nearest one of the periodic sensing occasions to the aperiodic sensing occasion or based on an ending time of a nearest one of the periodic sensing occasions to the aperiodic sensing occasion -- as recited in amended independent claims 1 and 28.
Amended independent claims 1 and 28 are now rejected using the combination of Cheng, Hahn, and Lee.
Consequently, the rejections of claims 1, 3-5, 12, 14, 17, 21-25, 28, and 30 are still to be maintained.
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 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.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 claim at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, 12, 14, 17, 21-25, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 20230024809 A1), hereinafter Cheng, in view of Hahn et al. (US 20230337051 A1), hereinafter Hahn, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20190104510 A1), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 1,
Cheng discloses a method performed by a wireless communication device (method of sensing to detect resource reserved by another device-to-device {D2D} communication, [0109]), the method comprising:
starting periodic sensing (performs sensing in section B to detect a resource reserved by another D2D communication [0109], wherein sensing section B is determined for periodic traffic [0141]), where the periodic sensing comprises sensing during a plurality of periodic sensing occasions (where sensing section B is formed by a plurality of consecutive slots, e.g., sensing occasions [Abstract]); and
performing the aperiodic sensing occasion (performing sensing in sensing section A to detect a resource reserved by another D2D communication [0109], wherein sensing section A is determined for aperiodic traffic [0141]).
Cheng does not further disclose after starting the periodic sensing, detecting a triggering event for an aperiodic sensing occasion, and adapting the aperiodic sensing occasion based on a periodicity of the periodic sensing occasions or based on a window size of one or more of the periodic sensing occasions or based on a starting time of a nearest one of the periodic sensing occasions to the aperiodic sensing occasion or based on an ending time of a nearest one of the periodic sensing occasions to the aperiodic sensing occasion.
Hahn, from the same field of endeavor, discloses after starting the periodic sensing (after performing a sensing operation for transmission of periodic data #1 [0138]);
detecting a triggering event for an aperiodic sensing occasion (detecting on triggering condition(s) then changing sensing window [0156]), adapting the aperiodic sensing occasion (selecting sensing window #3 with period #3 comprising number of slots, when congestion level 3 is determined [0124, table 8 and [0108])), one or more of the plurality of periodic sensing occasions (selecting sensing window #1 with period #1 comprising number of slots, when congestion level 1 is determined [0124, table 8 and [0108]), or both the aperiodic sensing occasion and the one or more of the plurality of periodic sensing occasions (or both period #2 and #3, [0124, table 8] and [0108]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt or select aperiodic sensing occasion, periodic sensing occasions, or both; thus efficiently performing sidelink communications using resources selected by proper sensing operations – Hahn [0005].
Cheng in view of Hahn does not disclose adapting the aperiodic sensing occasion based on a periodicity of the periodic sensing occasions or based on a window size of one or more of the periodic sensing occasions or based on a starting time of a nearest one of the periodic sensing occasions to the aperiodic sensing occasion or based on an ending time of a nearest one of the periodic sensing occasions to the aperiodic sensing occasion.
Lee teaches adapting the aperiodic sensing occasion based on a periodicity of the periodic sensing occasions or based on a window size of one or more of the periodic sensing occasions (identifying a dynamic monitoring periodicity, e.g., aperiodic, that indicates slot 210-c as next GC PDCCH monitoring occasion based on determining that it does not need to monitor for GC PDCCH in next default monitoring occasion (i.e., slot 210-b), e.g., periodic sensing occasion, [0087], wherein monitoring periodicity corresponds to set of monitoring occasions for GC PDCCH or number of slots, e.g., window size, [0087]) or based on a starting time of a nearest one of the periodic sensing occasions to the aperiodic sensing occasion or based on an ending time of a nearest one of the periodic sensing occasions to the aperiodic sensing occasion (dynamic slot based on slot following {default} final slot [0046] or element 415 in Fig.4).
Also, Lee states that determining dynamic monitoring period as being shorter, equal, or longer than default monitoring period [0098], wherein dynamic periodicity may differ in some aspects from a default monitoring periodicity [0005]. Lee further mentions that monitoring GC PDCCH may benefit from employing a dynamic monitoring periodicity for the GC PDCCH. That is, rather than using resources to monitor for a format of a slot whose resources have already been configured, the UE may efficiently monitor for the SFI based at least in part on the dynamic periodicity [ 0046].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt aperiodic sensing occasions based on periodic sensing occasions, window size, slot format; thus improving system throughput, reducing communication latency and signaling overhead associated with dynamically scheduled resources – resulting from flexibly monitoring control channels – Lee [0005].
Regarding claim 3:
Cheng in view of Hahn and Lee discloses all limitations of claim 1, and –
Chen does not, while Hahn further teaches wherein adapting the aperiodic sensing occasion comprises:
adapting a window size of the aperiodic sensing occasion (changing sensing window when {aperiodic} (re)transmission of data is required [0156]), or
adapting a starting time of the aperiodic sensing occasion (start locations of sensing #3 is different [0119]) , or
adapting an ending time of the aperiodic sensing occasion (ending locations (e.g., F2, F3, and F4) of sensing windows #3 is different [0114]) , or
a combination of any two or more of (a)-(c).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt window size, or start/ end times of the aperiodic sensing occasion; thus improving the sidelink resource use efficiency by varying the sensing window size/ location in time and frequency domain in a collision scenario – Hahn [0095].
Regarding claim 4:
Cheng in view of Hahn and Lee discloses all limitations of claim 1, and –
Cheng further discloses wherein adapting the aperiodic sensing occasion comprises: (a) adapting a window size of the aperiodic sensing occasion, or (b) adapting a starting time of the aperiodic sensing occasion, or (c) adapting an ending time of the aperiodic sensing occasion, or (d) a combination of any two or more of (a)-(c),
such that a sum of the window size of the aperiodic sensing occasion and a window size of the one or more of the plurality of periodic sensing occasions is less than a threshold (sum of number of slots belonging to {aperiodic} sensing section A {=30}, and number of subframes/slots belonging to {periodic} sensing section (B) {= 20} is less than 1,000 subframes, e.g., threshold [0110]-[0111]) .
Regarding claim 5:
Cheng in view of Hahn and Lee discloses all limitations of claim 1, and –
Cheng further discloses wherein adapting the aperiodic sensing occasion comprises: (a) adapting a window size of the aperiodic sensing occasion, or (b) adapting a starting time of the aperiodic sensing occasion, or (c) adapting an ending time of the aperiodic sensing occasion, or (d) a combination of any two or more of (a)-(c),
such that a sum of a window size of the aperiodic sensing occasion, a window size of an additional aperiodic sensing occasion that is associated with the aperiodic sensing occasion for re-evaluation or re-selection of resources (sum of number of slots belonging to {aperiodic} sensing section A {=30} [0110-0111], and additional section A [Fig. 9] for reselection of resources [0138]); and a window size of the one or more of the plurality of periodic sensing occasions is less than a threshold (number of subframes/slots belonging to {periodic} sensing section (B) {= 20} is less than 1,000 subframes, e.g., threshold [0110]-[0111]) .
Regarding claim 12:
Cheng in view of Hahn and Lee discloses all limitations of claim 1, and –
Chen does not, while Hahn further discloses wherein adapting the aperiodic sensing occasion comprises:
turning off the aperiodic sensing occasion (stop the sensing operation [0155]) , determining that an amount of overlap between the aperiodic sensing occasion and a periodic sensing occasion of the plurality of periodic sensing occasions ( resource regions of sensing windows #1 to #3 may overlap each other [0114] ).
Also, Hahn mentions that congestion levels are configured based on specific threshold(s), wherein the congestion level 1 means the most congested state, e.g., degree of congestion is 66% or more [0127]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to turn off the aperiodic sensing occasion responsive to determining that an amount of overlap between the aperiodic sensing occasion and a periodic sensing occasion of the plurality of periodic sensing occasions is greater than a threshold amount; thus being able to identify available resources by performing a sensing operation on occasions within a proper sensing window – Hahn [0095].
Regarding claim 17:
Cheng in view of Hahn and Lee discloses all limitations of claim 1, and –
Cheng in view of Hahn does not, while Lee further teaches adapting the aperiodic sensing occasion based on one or more of the plurality of periodic sensing occasions (identifying a dynamic monitoring periodicity that indicates slot 210-c as next GC PDCCH monitoring occasion based on determining that it does not need to monitor for GC PDCCH in next default monitoring occasion (i.e., slot 210-b) [0087], wherein monitoring periodicity corresponds to set of monitoring occasions for GC PDCCH or number of slots, e.g., window size, [0087]) and adapting at least one of the plurality of periodic sensing occasions based on the aperiodic sensing occasion (resuming monitoring for GC PDCCH immediately following conclusion of dynamic monitoring period [0096]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the aperiodic sensing occasion based on one or more of the plurality of periodic sensing occasions and adapting at least one of the plurality of periodic sensing occasions based on the aperiodic sensing occasion; thus supporting flexible monitoring periodicity for downlink control channels – Lee [0084]
Regarding claim 21:
Cheng in view of Hahn and Lee discloses all limitations of claim 1, and –
Cheng further discloses performing sensing during the aperiodic sensing occasion (sensing in sensing section A [0097]);
selecting one or more resources for a sidelink transmission based on sensing information obtained as a result of the sensing during the aperiodic sensing occasion (determining a resource, e.g., a slot, for transmitting a D2D signal based on sensing result [0097]); and
transmitting the sidelink transmission on the one or more selected resources (and transmitting data by using determined resource [0097]).
Regarding claim 22:
Cheng in view of Hahn and Lee discloses all limitations of claim 21.
Cheng further discloses wherein selecting the one or more resources is further based on sensing information obtained as a result of sensing during at least one of the plurality of periodic sensing occasions (determining resource to be used for periodic traffic by performing sensing [0081]).
Regarding claim 23:
Cheng in view of Hahn and Lee discloses all limitations of claim 21.
Cheng further discloses wherein selecting the one or more resources comprises selecting the one or more resources from a set of resources that comprises one or more resources that are comprised in one or more upcoming periodic sensing occasions (resource reservation of periodic traffic is detected by using and {upcoming/ second} sensing occasions [0108 and FIG. 8]).
Regarding claim 24:
Cheng in view of Hahn and Lee discloses all limitations of claim 21.
Cheng further discloses wherein selecting the one or more resources comprises:
selecting the one or more resources from a set of resources (detecting reserved resources in candidate selection subframe set for periodic traffic[0083]), wherein one or more resources that are comprised in one or more upcoming periodic sensing occasions are included in the set of resources (determining remaining resources for transmitting data [0083]) or are excluded from the set of resources (or are excluded from candidate selection subframe set resources [0083]), depending on at least one of a priority associated to the sidelink transmission (depending on higher priority set to communication [0137] or a priority associated periodic traffic associated to the one or more periodic sensing occasions (resource in candidate selection subframe set is reserved by periodic traffic [0081]).
Cheng does not specify the priority associated to periodic transmission associated to the one or more periodic sensing occasions; which is well known in the art.
Hahn, from the same field of endeavor, shows that specifying the priority associated to periodic transmission associated to the one or more periodic sensing occasions (determining delay, priority of periodic data associated with a sensing window of periodic data [0136]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include or to exclude resources from the set of resources based on the priority of traffic characteristics, e.g., priority of periodic traffic; thus improving the communication reliability by using proper resources – Hahn [0085].
Regarding claim 25:
Cheng in view of Hahn and Lee discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Cheng further discloses wherein the aperiodic sensing occasion is an aperiodic sensing occasion for re-evaluation or re-selection of resources previously selected based on sensing information obtained during a prior aperiodic sensing occasion (performing sensing in sensing section A and selecting resource R1, which is reserved by another communication device having a higher priority; releasing resource R1 and reselecting resource R2 [0137-0138]).
Regarding claim 28:
Claim 28 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 1 above, except that claim 28 is in a device claim format.
Regarding claim 30:
Cheng in view of Hahn and Lee discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Cheng in view of Hahn does not, while Lee further teaches adapting the aperiodic sensing occasion such that an ending time of the aperiodic sensing occasion is aligned with a starting time of a next periodic sensing occasion (when failing to decode the SFI during a monitoring occasion associated with dynamic monitoring periodicity, monitoring control channel in each slot subsequent to the monitoring occasion until a monitoring occasion associated with default monitoring periodicity may be reached [0015].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the aperiodic sensing occasion such that an ending time of the aperiodic sensing occasion is aligned with a starting time of a next periodic sensing occasion; thus efficiently supporting flexible monitoring periodicity for downlink control channels – Lee [0084].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Hahn and Lee, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moon et al. (US 20230068462 A1), hereinafter Moon.
Regarding claim 14:
Cheng in view of Hahn and Lee discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Cheng in view of Hahn and Lee does not further disclose adapting the aperiodic sensing occasion such that it overlaps one of the plurality of periodic sensing occasions if a packet delay budget for a transmission that triggered the aperiodic sensing occasion is greater than Tperiod, where Tperiod is a periodicity of the plurality of periodic sensing occasions; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Moon’s disclosure as below.
Moon, from the same field of endeavor, teaches determining a packet delay budget for a transmission that triggered the aperiodic sensing occasion is greater than Tperiod, where Tperiod is a periodicity of the plurality of periodic sensing occasions (determining latency requirements are greater than periodicity [0116]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a packet delay budget for a transmission that triggered the aperiodic sensing occasion is greater than Tperiod; thus being able to evaluate the resources allocation for each periodicity to process traffic – Moon [0126].
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 CAMQUYEN THAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7245. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and videoconferencing 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, Ayman A. Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.Q.T./
/AYMAN A ABAZA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights