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 Preliminary Amendment
This action is responsive to a preliminary amendment filed on 06 February 2025. Clams 6-21 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Newly presented claims are objected to for presenting numerous claims depending on dependent claims separated by claims not also depending from said dependent claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a control unit” a reception unit” and “a transmission unit” in claims 6-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
As to support for said means, examiner finds lack of support because of the lack of a written description as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has provided a preliminary amendment after the filing date of the application which is not considered to be part of the original disclosure (37 CFR 1.115(a)(2)).
Examiner has thoroughly reviewed applicant’s disclosure and concludes applicant’s specification does not support the particular claimed combination of elements, even though applicant’s specification listed each and every element in the claimed combination. While each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency is lack of adequate description of their combination.
Support must be shown for an entire claimed embodiment and the written description must also provide support for the linkage of the claimed elements creating the embodiment, not just the individual claimed elements. Locating support for an entire claimed embodiment is complicated by the fact that applicant uses language, such as at paragraph [0144] of the as filed specification, “[a]s described above, one or more embodiments have been described. The present invention is not limited to the above embodiments. A person skilled in the art should understand that there are various modifications, variations, alternatives, replacements, etc., of the embodiments”; and, such as at paragraph [0195] of the as filed specification, “[a]s described above, the present invention has been described in detail. It is apparent to a person skilled in the art that the present invention is not limited to one or more embodiments of the present invention described in the present specification. Modifications, alternatives, replacements, etc., of the present invention may be possible without departing from the subject matter and the scope of the present invention defined by the descriptions of claims. Therefore, the descriptions of the present specification are for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to be limitations to the present invention.”
The “alternative embodiment” language restated above gives rise to numerous embodiments that are not specifically discussed. Applicant should know that in order to benefit from a priority date the claimed embodiment must find support in the relied upon disclosure, not the present claims.
In drafting the specification of the instant application, it appears applicant does not fully develop the presently claimed embodiments and relies instead on the “alternative embodiment” language set forth above to pull various elements together to create claimed embodiments. For example, nowhere in the original disclosure is an embodiment specifically discussed having all the elements of claim 1, namely “in a case of performing at least one of reevaluation or preemption checking of a resource that is selected for transmission of at least one of a control channel or a shared channel for device-to-device communication, determine a part of a first time period of a selection target of the resource as a second time period… receive control information by performing partial sensing in slots that are determined based on the second time period… to transmit at least one of the control channel or the shared channel by using a resource that is reselected by the reevaluation or the preemption checking based on the control information” Similarly, independent claim 21 finds no clear support in the original disclosure.
It would seem that as long as Applicant can show where each element of a claim is discussed by particularly pointing to the page(s) and line number(s) in the earliest filed application and point to support for the linkage of the various claimed elements constituting a claimed embodiment or device the 112 first paragraph or 112(a) problems would be overcome.
This rejection is given because the claims now present embodiments or combinations of claimed elements not disclosed in the specification at the time of filing. As discussed above, it is not enough that Applicant show where each claimed element resides in the earliest filed application but must also provide support for the linkage of the claimed elements creating the embodiment. While each element may individually be discussed neither the specification nor drawings clearly support the claimed embodiment as a whole. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have reached the conclusion that applicant possessed the claimed invention at the time of filing the presently pending claims.
Claims 7-20 depend upon claim 1 and appear to suffer the same issues with respect to the written description requirement; accordingly, claims 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of a written description.
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 16-20 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.
The term “similar” in claims 16-20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Accordingly, claims 16-20 are rejected for lack of clarity.
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.
Claim(s) 6-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intel Corporation, “Sidelink Resource Allocation Mode-2 Design for NR V2X Communication”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #97, Reno, USA, May 13th – 17th, 2019, R1-1906796, hereafter D1 in view of NTT DOCOMO INC., “Discussion on sidelink resource allocation for power saving”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #104, e-meeting, January 25th – Feb 5th, 2021, R1-2101630, hereafter D2.
Regarding claim 6, D1 discloses a terminal comprising:
a control unit configured to, in a case of performing at least one of reevaluation or preemption checking of a resource that is selected for transmission of at least one of a control channel or a shared channel for device-to-device communication, determine a selection target of the resource (Section 2.5: first paragraph disclosing UE processing implicitly disclosing a control unit; Figure 1, Short term sensing window disclosed as a sensing window that starts immediately after time instance n of resource selection or re-selection trigger (e.g., at time instance n+1 to time instance n+T2); pg. 5, first paragraph disclosing the short term sensing window is to process reservation announced inside of resource selection window and refine initially selected sidelink resources if any conflict is detected (seen as reevaluation); );
a reception unit configured to receive control information by performing sensing in slots that are determined based on the selection target of the resource (pg. 5, first paragraph disclosing the short term sensing window is to process reservation announced inside of resource selection window; implicitly disclosing some sort of receiver for reception of said announced reservations); and
a transmission unit configured to transmit at least one of the control channel or the shared channel by using a resource that is reselected by the reevaluation or the preemption checking based on the control information (Fig. 1 Case 2 disclosing Collision is detected within short-term sensing window. Initially selected candidate resources for sidelink transmission need adjustment and illustrating “revised initial transmission; implicitly disclosing some sort of transmitter).
D1 does not expressly disclose the following; however, D2 discloses determine a part of a first time period of a selection target of the resource as a second time period and by performing partial sensing in slots that are determined based on the second time period (Section 2.3 and 2.3.0 disclosing partial sensing as sensing Y subframes within the window [n+T1, n+T2]; Section 2.3.3 Partial sensing – Re-evaluation/Pre-emption check, paragraph below Fig. 7, disclosing as depicted in Fig. 8, “target for re-evaluation/pre-emption check is set to same slots as selection target used for the corresponding resource selection in the past. This mechanism is illustrated in the figure below. Here, identification target Y slots are same between in resource selection and in re-evaluation”; it is noted that D2 expressly discloses this is performed while doing re-evaluation/pre-emption check)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of D1 as taught by D2 because the teaching lies in D2 that this avoids degradation of power saving caused by the slots monitored by the UE in existing (Rel-16) re-evaluation and pre-emption checking (pg. 9, paragraph starting on line 4).
Regarding claim 7, D1 does not disclose the following; however, D2 discloses the terminal as claimed in claim 6, wherein the control unit determines the second time period based on a slot in which at least one of reevaluation or preemption checking of the resource is performed (Fig. 8, disclosing m as the trigger slot for re-evaluation or pre-emption check and the second time period is m plus the number of slots to the first slot of the second time period Y).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of D1 as taught by D2 because the teaching lies in D2 that this avoids degradation of power saving caused by the slots monitored by the UE in existing (Rel-16) re-evaluation and pre-emption checking (pg. 9, paragraph starting on line 4).
Regarding claim 8, D1 does not expressly disclose the following; however, D2 discloses the terminal as claimed in claim 7, wherein the control unit determines slots located at or after predetermined time [sic] from the slot in which at least one of reevaluation or preemption checking of the resource is performed as the second time period (paragraph below Fig. 7, disclosing as depicted in Fig. 8, “target for re-evaluation/pre-emption check is set to same slots as selection target used for the corresponding resource selection in the past. This mechanism is illustrated in the figure below. Here, identification target Y slots are same between in resource selection and in re-evaluation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of D1 as taught by D2 because the teaching lies in D2 that this avoids degradation of power saving caused by the slots monitored by the UE in existing (Rel-16) re-evaluation and pre-emption checking (pg. 9, paragraph starting on line 4).
Examiner takes Official notice that it is notoriously well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that slot duration is inversely proportional to the subcarrier spacing used for the transmission in the field of endeavor of D1, accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the predetermined time of D1 is being determined based on a subcarrier spacing.
Regarding claim 9, D1 does not disclose the following; however, D2 discloses the terminal as claimed in claim 6, wherein the control unit determines slots for the partial sensing that are determined based on a periodic reservation as a part of slots for partial sensing that are determined when the resource is selected in a case of performing the reevaluation or the preemption checking (Section 2.3 and 2.3.0 disclosing partial sensing as sensing Y subframes within the window [n+T1, n+T2]; Section 2.3.3 Partial sensing – Re-evaluation/Pre-emption check, paragraph below Fig. 7, disclosing as depicted in Fig. 8, “target for re-evaluation/pre-emption check is set to same slots as selection target used for the corresponding resource selection in the past. This mechanism is illustrated in the figure below. Here, identification target Y slots are same between in resource selection and in re-evaluation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of D1 as taught by D2 because the teaching lies in D2 that this avoids degradation of power saving caused by the slots monitored by the UE in existing (Rel-16) re-evaluation and pre-emption checking (pg. 9, paragraph starting on line 4).
Regarding claim 10, D1 does not disclose the following; however, D2 discloses the terminal as claimed in claim 7, wherein the control unit determines slots for the partial sensing that are determined based on a periodic reservation as a part of slots for partial sensing that are determined when the resource is selected in a case of performing the reevaluation or the preemption checking (Section 2.3 and 2.3.0 disclosing partial sensing as sensing Y subframes within the window [n+T1, n+T2]; Section 2.3.3 Partial sensing – Re-evaluation/Pre-emption check, paragraph below Fig. 7, disclosing as depicted in Fig. 8, “target for re-evaluation/pre-emption check is set to same slots as selection target used for the corresponding resource selection in the past. This mechanism is illustrated in the figure below. Here, identification target Y slots are same between in resource selection and in re-evaluation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of D1 as taught by D2 because the teaching lies in D2 that this avoids degradation of power saving caused by the slots monitored by the UE in existing (Rel-16) re-evaluation and pre-emption checking (pg. 9, paragraph starting on line 4).
Regarding claim 11, D1 does not disclose the following; however, D2 discloses the terminal as claimed in claim 8, wherein the control unit determines slots for the partial sensing that are determined based on a periodic reservation as a part of slots for partial sensing that are determined when the resource is selected in a case of performing the reevaluation or the preemption checking (Section 2.3 and 2.3.0 disclosing partial sensing as sensing Y subframes within the window [n+T1, n+T2]; Section 2.3.3 Partial sensing – Re-evaluation/Pre-emption check, paragraph below Fig. 7, disclosing as depicted in Fig. 8, “target for re-evaluation/pre-emption check is set to same slots as selection target used for the corresponding resource selection in the past. This mechanism is illustrated in the figure below. Here, identification target Y slots are same between in resource selection and in re-evaluation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of D1 as taught by D2 because the teaching lies in D2 that this avoids degradation of power saving caused by the slots monitored by the UE in existing (Rel-16) re-evaluation and pre-emption checking (pg. 9, paragraph starting on line 4).
Regarding claim 12, D1 does not disclose the following; however, D2 discloses the terminal as claimed claim 6, wherein the control unit determines slots for the partial sensing that are determined based on an aperiodic reservation to be slots that are different from slots for partial sensing that are determined when the resource is selected in a case of performing the reevaluation or the preemption checking (Section 2.3.2 for aperiodic reservation monitoring all resources within [y1-31, n-Tproc,0) should be monitored since SCI in the window can indicate the candidate resources, where y1 is the first slot index within Y slots; Section 2.3.3 disclosing for aperiodic traffic, monitoring slots from y1-31 to m-Tproc,0; as opposed to, the slots monitored for partial sensing during re-evaluation/pre-emption checking discloses as: Section 2.3 and 2.3.0 disclosing partial sensing as sensing Y subframes within the window [n+T1, n+T2]; Section 2.3.3 Partial sensing – Re-evaluation/Pre-emption check, paragraph below Fig. 7, disclosing as depicted in Fig. 8, “target for re-evaluation/pre-emption check is set to same slots as selection target used for the corresponding resource selection in the past. This mechanism is illustrated in the figure below. Here, identification target Y slots are same between in resource selection and in re-evaluation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of D1 as taught by D2 because the teaching lies in D2 that this avoids degradation of power saving caused by the slots monitored by the UE in existing (Rel-16) re-evaluation and pre-emption checking (pg. 9, paragraph starting on line 4).
Regarding claim 13, D1 does not disclose the following; however, D2 discloses the terminal as claimed claim 7, wherein the control unit determines slots for the partial sensing that are determined based on an aperiodic reservation to be slots that are different from slots for partial sensing that are determined when the resource is selected in a case of performing the reevaluation or the preemption checking (Section 2.3.2 for aperiodic reservation monitoring all resources within [y1-31, n-Tproc,0) should be monitored since SCI in the window can indicate the candidate resources, where y1 is the first slot index within Y slots; Section 2.3.3 disclosing for aperiodic traffic, monitoring slots from y1-31 to m-Tproc,0; as opposed to, the slots monitored for partial sensing during re-evaluation/pre-emption checking discloses as: Section 2.3 and 2.3.0 disclosing partial sensing as sensing Y subframes within the window [n+T1, n+T2]; Section 2.3.3 Partial sensing – Re-evaluation/Pre-emption check, paragraph below Fig. 7, disclosing as depicted in Fig. 8, “target for re-evaluation/pre-emption check is set to same slots as selection target used for the corresponding resource selection in the past. This mechanism is illustrated in the figure below. Here, identification target Y slots are same between in resource selection and in re-evaluation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of D1 as taught by D2 because the teaching lies in D2 that this avoids degradation of power saving caused by the slots monitored by the UE in existing (Rel-16) re-evaluation and pre-emption checking (pg. 9, paragraph starting on line 4).
Regarding claim 14, D1 does not disclose the following; however, D2 discloses the terminal as claimed claim 8, wherein the control unit determines slots for the partial sensing that are determined based on an aperiodic reservation to be slots that are different from slots for partial sensing that are determined when the resource is selected in a case of performing the reevaluation or the preemption checking (Section 2.3.2 for aperiodic reservation monitoring all resources within [y1-31, n-Tproc,0) should be monitored since SCI in the window can indicate the candidate resources, where y1 is the first slot index within Y slots; Section 2.3.3 disclosing for aperiodic traffic, monitoring slots from y1-31 to m-Tproc,0; as opposed to, the slots monitored for partial sensing during re-evaluation/pre-emption checking discloses as: Section 2.3 and 2.3.0 disclosing partial sensing as sensing Y subframes within the window [n+T1, n+T2]; Section 2.3.3 Partial sensing – Re-evaluation/Pre-emption check, paragraph below Fig. 7, disclosing as depicted in Fig. 8, “target for re-evaluation/pre-emption check is set to same slots as selection target used for the corresponding resource selection in the past. This mechanism is illustrated in the figure below. Here, identification target Y slots are same between in resource selection and in re-evaluation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of D1 as taught by D2 because the teaching lies in D2 that this avoids degradation of power saving caused by the slots monitored by the UE in existing (Rel-16) re-evaluation and pre-emption checking (pg. 9, paragraph starting on line 4).
Regarding claim 15, D1 does not disclose the following; however, D2 discloses the terminal as claimed claim 9, wherein the control unit determines slots for the partial sensing that are determined based on an aperiodic reservation to be slots that are different from slots for partial sensing that are determined when the resource is selected in a case of performing the reevaluation or the preemption checking (Section 2.3.2 for aperiodic reservation monitoring all resources within [y1-31, n-Tproc,0) should be monitored since SCI in the window can indicate the candidate resources, where y1 is the first slot index within Y slots; Section 2.3.3 disclosing for aperiodic traffic, monitoring slots from y1-31 to m-Tproc,0; as opposed to, the slots monitored for partial sensing during re-evaluation/pre-emption checking discloses as: Section 2.3 and 2.3.0 disclosing partial sensing as sensing Y subframes within the window [n+T1, n+T2]; Section 2.3.3 Partial sensing – Re-evaluation/Pre-emption check, paragraph below Fig. 7, disclosing as depicted in Fig. 8, “target for re-evaluation/pre-emption check is set to same slots as selection target used for the corresponding resource selection in the past. This mechanism is illustrated in the figure below. Here, identification target Y slots are same between in resource selection and in re-evaluation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of D1 as taught by D2 because the teaching lies in D2 that this avoids degradation of power saving caused by the slots monitored by the UE in existing (Rel-16) re-evaluation and pre-emption checking (pg. 9, paragraph starting on line 4).
Regarding claim 16, D1 does not expressly disclose the following; however, D2 suggests the terminal as claimed in claim 6, wherein the control unit has a feature in which an operation of the reevaluation or the preemption checking for resource selection according to execution of the partial sensing is similar to an operation of reevaluation or preemption checking for resource selection according to execution of full sensing (Section 2.3.3 disclosing checking less slots that the existing techniques (Rel- 16) to avoid unnecessary power degradation which appears to disclose the same re-evaluation/pre-emption checking in each slot is performed, only on fewer slots).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of D1 as taught by D2 because the teaching lies in D2 that this avoids degradation of power saving caused by the slots monitored by the UE in existing (Rel-16) re-evaluation and pre-emption checking (pg. 9, paragraph starting on line 4).
Regarding claim 17, D1 does not expressly disclose the following; however, D2 suggests the terminal as claimed in claim 7, wherein the control unit has a feature in which an operation of the reevaluation or the preemption checking for resource selection according to execution of the partial sensing is similar to an operation of reevaluation or preemption checking for resource selection according to execution of full sensing (Section 2.3.3 disclosing checking less slots that the existing techniques (Rel- 16) to avoid unnecessary power degradation which appears to disclose the same re-evaluation/pre-emption checking in each slot is performed, only on fewer slots).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of D1 as taught by D2 because the teaching lies in D2 that this avoids degradation of power saving caused by the slots monitored by the UE in existing (Rel-16) re-evaluation and pre-emption checking (pg. 9, paragraph starting on line 4).
Regarding claim 18, D1 does not expressly disclose the following; however, D2 suggests the terminal as claimed in claim 8, wherein the control unit has a feature in which an operation of the reevaluation or the preemption checking for resource selection according to execution of the partial sensing is similar to an operation of reevaluation or preemption checking for resource selection according to execution of full sensing (Section 2.3.3 disclosing checking less slots that the existing techniques (Rel- 16) to avoid unnecessary power degradation which appears to disclose the same re-evaluation/pre-emption checking in each slot is performed, only on fewer slots).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of D1 as taught by D2 because the teaching lies in D2 that this avoids degradation of power saving caused by the slots monitored by the UE in existing (Rel-16) re-evaluation and pre-emption checking (pg. 9, paragraph starting on line 4).
Regarding claim 19, D1 does not expressly disclose the following; however, D2 suggests the terminal as claimed in claim 9, wherein the control unit has a feature in which an operation of the reevaluation or the preemption checking for resource selection according to execution of the partial sensing is similar to an operation of reevaluation or preemption checking for resource selection according to execution of full sensing (Section 2.3.3 disclosing checking less slots that the existing techniques (Rel- 16) to avoid unnecessary power degradation which appears to disclose the same re-evaluation/pre-emption checking in each slot is performed, only on fewer slots).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of D1 as taught by D2 because the teaching lies in D2 that this avoids degradation of power saving caused by the slots monitored by the UE in existing (Rel-16) re-evaluation and pre-emption checking (pg. 9, paragraph starting on line 4).
Regarding claim 20, D1 does not expressly disclose the following; however, D2 suggests the terminal as claimed in claim 12, wherein the control unit has a feature in which an operation of the reevaluation or the preemption checking for resource selection according to execution of the partial sensing is similar to an operation of reevaluation or preemption checking for resource selection according to execution of full sensing (Section 2.3.3 disclosing checking less slots that the existing techniques (Rel- 16) to avoid unnecessary power degradation which appears to disclose the same re-evaluation/pre-emption checking in each slot is performed, only on fewer slots).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of D1 as taught by D2 because the teaching lies in D2 that this avoids degradation of power saving caused by the slots monitored by the UE in existing (Rel-16) re-evaluation and pre-emption checking (pg. 9, paragraph starting on line 4).
Regarding claim 21, the claim is directed towards the method performed by the terminal of claim 6; accordingly, claim 21 is rejected on the grounds presented above for claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph A Bednash whose telephone number is (571)270-7500. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM - 4:30 PM M-F.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/JOSEPH A BEDNASH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461