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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claims 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.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC§ 103
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 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.
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.
1-6, 9-11, 14, 15 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al(US 2022/0070921 A1) in view of Zhang et al(US 2024/0373460 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 15, Xue ‘921, a first device ([0072], [0184]–[0186]and Fig. 3 UE 1300), at least one transceiver at least one processor and at least one memory connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, based on being executed by the at least one processor, cause the first device to perform operations comprising ([0072], [0184]–[0186]and Fig. 3 UE 1300 comprising transceiver 1310, processor 1302 and memory 1304):
receiving, from a second device, first sidelink control information (SCI), for scheduling of a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) ([0072], UE receiving a first-stage SCI, via PSCCH, the first stage SCI including information for resource allocation and decoding a second-stage SCI and in a second-stage SCI, the UE 115 receiving SCI in PSSCH ); and second SCI, through a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) ([0072], in a second-stage SCI, the UE 115 receiving SCI in PSSCH), receiving, from the second device, the second SCI through the PSSCH, wherein the second SCI includes destination ID ([0072], the second-stage SCI may include L1 destination identifier (ID)).
Xue ‘921does not explicitly teach, communication range requirement; and determining whether to use a channel occupancy time (COT) shared from the second device, based on the destination ID and based on that distance between location of the first device and location of the second device is smaller or equal to the communication range requirement.
Zhang 460 teaches, communication range requirement ([0004], [0117], receiving PSSCH carrying second stage SCI. The second stage SCI includes destination ID and zone ID which is used to calculate communication range between devices); and determining whether to use a channel occupancy time (COT) shared from the second device based on the destination ID and based on that distance between location of the first device and location of the second device is smaller or equal to the communication range requirement( [0096], [0098], [0108], [0111], [0117], device determining whether to share a COT based on Destination ID and based on whether the distance between the devices is less than a threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Xue ‘921, by incorporating the teaching of Zhang ‘460, since such modification would provide a method to carry out sidelink transmission based on resource allocation mode 2 (autonomous resource selection) in SL-U, as suggested by Zhang ‘460([0011]- [0015]).
Regarding claims 2 and 21, the combination of Xue ‘921 and Zhang ‘460 teaches all of the claim limitations, Zhang ‘460 further teaches, wherein the second SCI further comprises source ID; and wherein, based on the source ID and the destination ID included in the second SCI, whether to use the COT from the second device is determined ([0108], [0117], receiving source and destination ID via second stage SCI and determining whether to use the COT based on the source and destination ID).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Xue ‘921, by incorporating the teaching of Zhang ‘460, since such modification would provide a method to carry out sidelink transmission based on resource allocation mode 2 (autonomous resource selection) in SL-U, as suggested by Zhang ‘460([0011]- [0015]).
Regarding claims 3 and 22, the combination of Xue ‘921 and Zhang ‘460 teaches all of the claim limitations, Zhang ‘460 further teaches, wherein the destination ID comprises a destination ID related with the first device ([0108], [0111], [0117], UE checks destination ID in SCI to decide whether it may use COT).
Regarding claims 4 and 23, the combination of Xue ‘921 and Zhang ‘460 teaches all of the claim limitations, Xue ‘921 further teaches, wherein the second SCI and MAC (medium access control) protocol data unit (PDU) are received from the second device, through the PSSCH, and wherein the destination ID includes a destination ID related with the MAC PDU ([0102]- [0103], UE receiving MAC PDU associated with second stage SCI via PSSCH).
Regarding claims 5 and 24, the combination of Xue ‘921 and Zhang ‘460 teaches all of the claim limitations, Zhang ‘460 further teaches, wherein the second SCI further includes information related to zone ID ([0117], receiving second stage SCI that includes zone ID).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Xue ‘921, by incorporating the teaching of Zhang ‘460, since such modification would provide a method to carry out sidelink transmission based on resource allocation mode 2 (autonomous resource selection) in SL-U, as suggested by Zhang ‘460([0011]- [0015]).
Regarding claims 6 and 25, the combination of Xue ‘921 and Zhang ‘460 teaches all of the claim limitations, Zhang ‘460 further teaches, wherein based on that the first device is within a first zone related with the zone ID, whether to use the COT from the second device is determined ([0117], determining to use the COT based zone ID).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Xue ‘921, by incorporating the teaching of Zhang ‘460, since such modification would provide a method to carry out sidelink transmission based on resource allocation mode 2 (autonomous resource selection) in SL-U, as suggested by Zhang ‘460([0011]- [0015]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Xue ‘921 and Zhang ‘460 teaches all of the claim limitations, Xue ‘921 further teaches, wherein the COT is included within a sidelink (SL) resource pool ([0100], [0105], COT within sidelink resource pool being indicated).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Xue ‘921 and Zhang ‘460 teaches all of the claim limitations, Zhang ‘460 further teaches, further comprising: performing transmission within the COT, based on the determination that the COT is used ([0078], [0082], a device performing sidelink transmission on selected resources within a determined COT).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Xue ‘921, by incorporating the teaching of Zhang ‘460, since such modification would provide a method to carry out sidelink transmission based on resource allocation mode 2 (autonomous resource selection) in SL-U, as suggested by Zhang ‘460([0011]- [0015]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Xue ‘921 and Zhang ‘460 teaches all of the claim limitations, Xue ‘921 further teaches, wherein based on reception of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback for the transmission within the COT being expected, HARQ- feedback-enabled transmission is performed ([0072], [0086], [0111], transmitting HARQ within the allowed COT).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue ‘921 and Zhang ‘460 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Stefanatos et al(US 2023/0309141 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Xue ‘921 and Zhang ‘460 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein, based on that reception of HARQ feedback for the transmission within the COT is not expected, blind transmission is performed.
Stefanatos ‘141 teaches, wherein, based on that reception of HARQ feedback for the transmission within the COT is not expected, blind transmission is performed ([0075], [0081], [0082], a UE performing blind retransmission without feedback trigger).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Xue ‘921 and Zhang ‘460, by incorporating the teaching of Stefanatos ‘141, since such modification would enable the UE to select, from an available resource pool, one or more resources for transmitting a packet on a channel, as suggested by Stefanatos ‘141([0006]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Xue ‘921 and Zhang ‘460 teaches all of the claim limitations except, further comprising: selecting a synchronization reference, and wherein, based on the synchronization reference, whether to use the COT from the second device is determined.
Stefanatos ‘141 teaches, selecting a synchronization reference, and wherein, based on the synchronization reference, whether to use the COT from the second device is determined ([0110], [0111], and Figs. 5-8, based on communicated reference signals and signaling information determining a shared COT).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Xue ‘921 and Zhang ‘460, by incorporating the teaching of Stefanatos ‘141, since such modification would enable the UE to select, from an available resource pool, one or more resources for transmitting a packet on a channel, as suggested by Stefanatos ‘141([0006]).
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 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 AWET A HAILE whose telephone number is (571)270-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571)272-2832. 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.
/AWET HAILE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474