DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on 22 December 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4-6 are currently amended; claims 2 and 3 are cancelled; no claims are previously presented; no claims have been added. Claims 1 and 4-6 are pending and ready for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 22 December 2025, with respect to “Objection to the Title” have been fully considered and the examiner notes the applicant has made the appropriate corrections to overcome the objection.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 22 December 2025, with respect to “Claim Rejections under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Lee in view of Lin fails to teach (i) wherein when at least a predetermined number of time sections among time sections, in which the transmitting the plurality of the signals is requested, overlap each other, the processor causes the transmitter to multiplex and transmit the plurality of the signals.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Lin does not teach comparing the number of overlapping time sections to a predetermined number” as stated in p. 10 of applicant’s arguments) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In particular, the predetermined number is not specified in the claims and broadly can be interpreted as zero, as that is one possible predetermined number. Further, there is no comparing step in the limitation of the claim in question (such as stating comparing the number of overlapping time sections to a predetermined number/threshold).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0061079 A1), hereafter referred Lee, in view of Lin (CA 3096345 A1), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0077376 A1), hereafter referred Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a communication apparatus comprising:
a receiving unit configured to receive, from another communication apparatus, a plurality of requests to transmit a signal in a resource autonomously selected by the another communication apparatus (Lee, [0106]-[0108] and [0115]-[0128]; UE1 may transmit a sidelink control information to UE2 through a PSCCH, where UE1 may autonomously select a resource within a configured resource pool and the SCI may include a SL (L1) RSRP report request indicator and reference signal related to channel estimation);
a control unit configured to control the transmitting of a plurality of the signals respectively corresponding to the plurality of the requests, based on a condition (Lee, Fig. 15, [0174]-[0180]; the second UE may measure RSRP for each of reference signals, compensate offset values with the measured RSRP value and transmit the RSRP value to the first UE); and
a transmitting unit configured to transmit, to the another communication apparatus, at least a predetermined number of signals among the plurality of signals (Lee, Fig. 15, [0174]-[0180]; the second UE may measure RSRP for each of reference signals, compensate offset values with the measured RSRP value and transmit the RSRP value to the first UE).
Lee does not expressly teach wherein when at least a predetermined number of time sections among time sections, in which the transmitting of the plurality of the signals is requested, overlap each other, the control unit causes the transmitting unit to multiplex and transmit the plurality of the signals.
However, Lin teaches wherein when at least a predetermined number of time sections among time sections, in which the transmitting of the plurality of the signals is requested, overlap each other, the control unit causes the transmitting unit to multiplex and transmit the plurality of the signals (Lin, p. 1-2; determining a plurality of signals transmitted within a target time unit, where the plurality of signals at least partially overlap in time domain and multiplexing information carried in the plurality of signals in one signal within the target time unit for transmission).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Lee to include the above recited limitations as taught by Lin in order to effectively transmit information when a plurality of channels/signals at least partially overlap in the time domain (Lin, p. 1).
Lee in view of Lin does not expressly teach wherein the transmitting unit multiplexes and transmits the plurality of the signals in the resource corresponding to the signal requested later among the plurality of the signals.
However, Kim teaches wherein the transmitting unit multiplexes and transmits the plurality of the signals in the resource corresponding to the signal requested later among the plurality of the signals (Kim, [0070]-[0072]; the feedback information about the data received from a plurality of subframes may be multiplexed and reported in the indicated xPUCCH resource where the terminal transmits the created feedback information to the base station).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Lee in view of Lin to include the above recited limitations as taught by Kim in order to indicate whether decoding was successful or not (Kim, [0069]).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches a communication method executed by a communication apparatus, the communication method comprising:
receiving, from another communication apparatus, a plurality of requests to transmit a signal in a resource autonomously selected by the another communication apparatus (Lee, [0106]-[0108] and [0115]-[0128]; UE1 may transmit a sidelink control information to UE2 through a PSCCH, where UE1 may autonomously select a resource within a configured resource pool and the SCI may include a SL (L1) RSRP report request indicator and reference signal related to channel estimation);
controlling the transmitting of a plurality of the signals respectively corresponding to the plurality of the requests, based on a condition (Lee, Fig. 15, [0174]-[0180]; the second UE may measure RSRP for each of reference signals, compensate offset values with the measured RSRP value and transmit the RSRP value to the first UE); and
transmitting, to the another communication apparatus, at least a predetermined number of signals among the plurality of signals (Lee, Fig. 15, [0174]-[0180]; the second UE may measure RSRP for each of reference signals, compensate offset values with the measured RSRP value and transmit the RSRP value to the first UE).
Lee does not expressly teach wherein when at least a predetermined number of time sections among time sections, in which the transmitting of the plurality of the signals is requested, overlap each other, the control unit causes the transmitting unit to multiplex and transmit the plurality of the signals.
However, Lin teaches wherein when at least a predetermined number of time sections among time sections, in which the transmitting of the plurality of the signals is requested, overlap each other, the control unit causes the transmitting unit to multiplex and transmit the plurality of the signals (Lin, p. 1-2; determining a plurality of signals transmitted within a target time unit, where the plurality of signals at least partially overlap in time domain and multiplexing information carried in the plurality of signals in one signal within the target time unit for transmission).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Lee to include the above recited limitations as taught by Lin in order to effectively transmit information when a plurality of channels/signals at least partially overlap in the time domain (Lin, p. 1).
Lee in view of Lin does not expressly teach wherein the transmitting unit multiplexes and transmits the plurality of the signals in the resource corresponding to the signal requested later among the plurality of the signals.
However, Kim teaches wherein the transmitting unit multiplexes and transmits the plurality of the signals in the resource corresponding to the signal requested later among the plurality of the signals (Kim, [0070]-[0072]; the feedback information about the data received from a plurality of subframes may be multiplexed and reported in the indicated xPUCCH resource where the terminal transmits the created feedback information to the base station).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Lee in view of Lin to include the above recited limitations as taught by Kim in order to indicate whether decoding was successful or not (Kim, [0069]).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Lin further in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seo et al. (US 9,516,638 B2), hereafter referred Seo.
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Lin further in view of Kim teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1 above. Lee in view of Lin does not expressly teach wherein the control unit causes the transmitting unit to multiplex and transmit remaining signals among the plurality of the signals.
However, Lin teaches wherein the control unit causes the transmitting unit to multiplex and transmit remaining signals among the plurality of the signals (Lin, p. 1-2; determining a plurality of signals transmitted within a target time unit, where the plurality of signals at least partially overlap in time domain and multiplexing information carried in the plurality of signals in one signal within the target time unit for transmission).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Lee to include the above recited limitations as taught by Lin in order to effectively transmit information when a plurality of channels/signals at least partially overlap in the time domain (Lin, p. 1).
Lee in view of Lin further in view of Kim does not expressly teach wherein the control unit causes the transmitting unit to drop or postpone the transmitting of at least one signal among the plurality of the signals.
However, Seo teaches wherein the control unit causes the transmitting unit to drop or postpone the transmitting of at least one signal among the plurality of the signals (Seo, Column 20, lines 8-37; In case of assuming that wideband periodic CQI feedback transmission period and a D2D SPS signal transmission period may meet in an identical timeline, if the D2D SPS signal transmission has a higher priority, the D2D SPS transmitting end my ignore a CQI feedback request and transmit a D2D SPS signal instead, or if the D2D SPS signal has a low priority relative to a different request, the D2D SPS transmitting end omits the D2D SPS signal transmission and preferentially process the requested operation).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Lee in view of Lin further in view of Kim to include the above recited limitations as taught by Seo in order to efficiently transmit a D2D signal in a wireless communication system supporting D2D communications (Seo, Column 3, lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Lin further in view of Kim teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1 above. Lee does not expressly teach wherein when at least a predetermined number of transmission resources among transmission resources of the plurality of the signals overlap each other, the control unit causes the transmitting unit to multiplex and transmit the plurality of the signals when priority levels of the plurality of the signals are same.
However, Lin teaches wherein when at least a predetermined number of transmission resources among transmission resources of the plurality of the signals overlap each other, the control unit causes the transmitting unit to multiplex and transmit the plurality of the signals when priority levels of the plurality of the signals are same (Lin, p. 1-2; determining a plurality of signals transmitted within a target time unit, where the plurality of signals at least partially overlap in time domain and multiplexing information carried in the plurality of signals in one signal within the target time unit for transmission).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Lee to include the above recited limitations as taught by Lin in order to effectively transmit information when a plurality of channels/signals at least partially overlap in the time domain (Lin, p. 1).
Lee in view of Lin further in view of Kim does not expressly teach wherein the control unit causes the transmitting unit to drop a low-priority signal among the plurality of the signals and to transmit a high-priority signal among the plurality of the signals when priority levels of the plurality of the signals are different.
However, Seo teaches wherein the control unit causes the transmitting unit to drop a low-priority signal among the plurality of the signals and to transmit a high-priority signal among the plurality of the signals when priority levels of the plurality of the signals are different (Seo, Column 20, lines 8-37; In case of assuming that wideband periodic CQI feedback transmission period and a D2D SPS signal transmission period may meet in an identical timeline, if the D2D SPS signal transmission has a higher priority, the D2D SPS transmitting end my ignore a CQI feedback request and transmit a D2D SPS signal instead, or if the D2D SPS signal has a low priority relative to a different request, the D2D SPS transmitting end omits the D2D SPS signal transmission and preferentially process the requested operation).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Lee in view of Lin further in view of Kim to include the above recited limitations as taught by Seo in order to efficiently transmit a D2D signal in a wireless communication system supporting D2D communications (Seo, Column 3, lines 7-11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 RODRICK MAK whose telephone number is (571)270-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am - 5:30 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, Noel Beharry can be reached at 571-270-5630. 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.
/R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights