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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/18/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-6, 14, 15, 21, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al(US 2024/0373460 A1) in view of Ganesan et al ( US 2023/0269769 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 15, Zhang 460 teaches, a first device([0004], [0056] and Fig. 1, 14-16, terminal equipment(UE) 102), comprising: at least one transceiver( [0056], [0226] and Fig. 1, 14-16, terminal equipment(UE) comprising transceiver 1630); 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( [0226]-[0228] and Figs. 1, 14-16, terminal equipment(UE) comprising memory 1620 and processor 1610), cause the first device to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a second device, first sidelink control information (SCI) for scheduling of a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) and second SCI, through a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) ([0004], [0071], the transmitting device communicates with a receiving device via physical channels. The PSCCH carries 1st stage SCI which is mainly used for reserving resources), receiving, from the second device, the second SCI through the PSSCH([0004], [0071], The PSSCH carries 2nd stage SCI and data); wherein the second SCI includes a destination ID ([0108] the second stage SCI comprising source and destination ID); and utilizing a channel occupancy time (COT) for performing PSSCH transmission and PSCCH transmission ([0081], [0091], [0092] and Figs. 5-6, the first device shares the COT initiated by the second device, and perform transmission (PSCCH/PSSCH) within the COT).
Zhang 460 does not explicitly teach, wherein the COT shared from the second device is utilized by the first device, based on that a destination ID of the PSSCH transmission and the PSCCH transmission of the first device matches the destination ID of the second device included in the second SCI.
Ganesan ‘769 teaches, wherein the COT shared from the second device is utilized by the first device, based on that a destination ID of the PSSCH transmission and the PSCCH transmission of the first device matches the destination ID of the second device included in the second SCI ([0084], [0085], [0103]- [0104], using a destination ID to authorize which devices can utilize a shared COT. It discloses that transmission may be possible with all SL UEs that are part of a destination group ID and/or destination ID. The UE “may transmit a PSSCH transmission in a remaining COT to all SL UEs that are part of the destination group 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 Zhang ‘460, by incorporating the teaching of Ganesan ‘769, since such modification would enable to a avoid transmission interference during sidelink communication by determining channel occupancy time and sharing the COT, as suggested by Ganesan ‘769([0004]).
Regarding claims 2 and 21, the combination of Zhang ‘460 and Ganesan ‘769 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 shared 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).
Regarding claims 5 and 24, the combination of Zhang ‘460 and Ganesan ‘769 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).
Regarding claims 6 and 25, the combination of Zhang ‘460 and Ganesan ‘769 teaches all of the claim limitations, Zhang ‘460 further teaches, wherein, based on that the first device is within a first zone related to the zone ID, whether to use the COT shared from the second device is determined ([0117], determining to use the COT based zone ID).
Claims 4, 9, 11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ‘460 and Ganesan ‘769 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Xue et al (US 2022/0070921 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 23, the combination of Zhang ‘460 and Ganesan ‘769 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the second SCI and medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) are received from the second device, through the PSSCH, and wherein the destination ID includes destination ID related to the MAC PDU.
Xue ‘921 teaches, wherein the second SCI and medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) are received from the second device, through the PSSCH, and wherein the destination ID includes destination ID related to the MAC PDU ([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 Zhang ‘460 and Ganesan ‘769, by incorporating the teaching of Xue ‘921, since such modification would provide frequency resource reservation for sidelink communication over a shared radio frequency band, as suggested by Xue ‘921([0003]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Zhang ‘460 and Ganesan ‘769 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the COT is included within a sidelink (SL) resource pool.
Xue ‘921 teaches, wherein the COT is included within a sidelink (SL) resource pool ([0100], [0105], COT within sidelink resource pool being indicated).
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 Zhang ‘460 and Ganesan ‘769, by incorporating the teaching of Xue ‘921, since such modification would provide frequency resource reservation for sidelink communication over a shared radio frequency band, as suggested by Xue ‘921([0003]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Zhang ‘460 and Ganesan ‘769 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein, based on that reception of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback for the PSSCH transmission within the COT is expected, HARQ feedback enabled transmission is performed
Xue ‘921 teaches, wherein, based on that reception of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback for the PSSCH transmission within the COT is expected, HARQ feedback enabled transmission is performed ([0072], [0086], [0111], transmitting HARQ within the allowed 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 Zhang ‘460 and Ganesan ‘769, by incorporating the teaching of Xue ‘921, since such modification would provide frequency resource reservation for sidelink communication over a shared radio frequency band, as suggested by Xue ‘921([0003]).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ‘460 and Ganesan ‘769 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Stefanatos et al(US 2023/0309141 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Zhang ‘460 and Ganesan ‘769 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein, based on that reception of HARQ feedback for the PSSCH transmission within the COT is not expected, blind transmission is performed.
Stefanatos ‘141 teaches, wherein, based on that reception of HARQ feedback for the PSSCH 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 Zhang ‘460 and Ganesan ‘769, 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 Zhang ‘460 and Ganesan ‘769 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 shared from the second device is determined.
Stefanatos ‘141 teaches, further comprising: selecting a synchronization reference, and wherein, based on the synchronization reference, whether to use the COT shared 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]).
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
Prosecution Insights