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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 3 and 4 are amended. Claims 3 and 4 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments at pp. 1-3 of the Remarks and regarding claims 3 and 4 have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies upon one or more references not previously applied in the prior rejection of record for some teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0030575 (hereinafter, “FARAG”) in view of US 2023/0209388 (hereinafter, “HWANG”).
Regarding claim 3, FARAG discloses:
A user equipment (UE) (UE 116), comprising:
at least one processor (processor 340); and
at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium (memory 360) coupled to the at least one processor and storing one or more computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the UE to:
acquire, from a higher layer of the UE, a plurality of pieces of information related to inter-UE coordination (¶ 0231: UE-B checks if inter-UE co-ordination is (pre-)configured and enabled (1301). The configuration of inter-UE co-ordination can be by higher layers. The enabling of inter-UE co-ordination can be based on additional checks in the physical layer and higher layers), the plurality of pieces of information including:
first piece of information indicating a time window (¶ 0211: [A] UE (i.e., UE-A) can provide the start time of the resource selection window and the duration of the resource selection window. . . . In another example, a UE (i.e., UE-A) can provide the end time of the resource selection window and the duration of the resource selection window), and
second piece of information indicating a type of resources, the type being selected from the group consisting of: preferred resources; and non-preferred resources; (¶ 0274: [T]he preferred resources of the inter-UE co-ordination (e.g., RSAI) message may include preferred resources with different preference levels: (1) a first preferred resources, with highest preference level, a UE-B selects SL resources for SL transmission and/or reservation within this set whenever possible; (2) a second preferred resources (if any), with second preference level, a UE-B selects SL resources for SL transmission and/or reservation including resources in this set if there no SL resources available in the first preferred resources, or if the SL resources available in the first preferred resources are not sufficient (e.g., the available SL resources as a percentage of the total resources within a resource selection window is less than or less than or equal to a threshold); and/or (3) a third preferred resources (if any), with third preference level, a UE-B selects SL resources for SL transmission and/or reservation including resources in this set if there no SL resources available in the first and second preferred resources, or if the SL resources available in the first and second preferred resources are not sufficient (e.g., the available SL resources as a percentage of the total resources within a resource selection window is less than or less than or equal to a threshold))
determine, based on the acquired plurality of pieces of information, a set of resources in the time window, wherein a type of the resources in the set is the type indicated by the second piece of information; and (¶ 0255: [D]etermining the candidate SL resources available within a resource selection window based on the preferred and non-preferred resources)
. . .
Although, FARAG discloses “To determine a candidate single-slot resource set to report to higher layers, a UE excludes from the set of available single-slot resources for SL transmission within a resource pool and within a resource selection window,” ¶ 0109, FARAG does not explicitly disclose:
report the determined set of resources to the higher layer of the UE.
In the same field of endeavor, however, HWANG teaches:
report the determined set of resources to the higher layer of the UE. (¶ 0215: [T]he UE-B may report . . . the resources to a higher layer)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify FARAG’s signaling of SL resources for inter-UE coordination procedures to provide reporting to a higher layer as taught by HWANG in scenarios in which all or part of reserved resources which the UE-B has already selected in a resource (re)selection procedure overlap with the non-preferred resources indicated by the additional information. See HWANG, at ¶ 0215.
Regarding claim 4, FARAG discloses:
A method performed by a user equipment (UE) (UE 116), the method comprising:
acquiring, from a higher layer of the UE, a plurality of pieces of information related to inter-UE coordination (¶ 0231: UE-B checks if inter-UE co-ordination is (pre-)configured and enabled (1301). The configuration of inter-UE co-ordination can be by higher layers. The enabling of inter-UE co-ordination can be based on additional checks in the physical layer and higher layers), the plurality of pieces of information including:
first piece of information indicating a time window (¶ 0211: [A] UE (i.e., UE-A) can provide the start time of the resource selection window and the duration of the resource selection window. . . . In another example, a UE (i.e., UE-A) can provide the end time of the resource selection window and the duration of the resource selection window), and
second piece of information indicating a type of resources, the type being selected from the group consisting of: preferred resources; and non-preferred resources; (¶ 0274: [T]he preferred resources of the inter-UE co-ordination (e.g., RSAI) message may include preferred resources with different preference levels: (1) a first preferred resources, with highest preference level, a UE-B selects SL resources for SL transmission and/or reservation within this set whenever possible; (2) a second preferred resources (if any), with second preference level, a UE-B selects SL resources for SL transmission and/or reservation including resources in this set if there no SL resources available in the first preferred resources, or if the SL resources available in the first preferred resources are not sufficient (e.g., the available SL resources as a percentage of the total resources within a resource selection window is less than or less than or equal to a threshold); and/or (3) a third preferred resources (if any), with third preference level, a UE-B selects SL resources for SL transmission and/or reservation including resources in this set if there no SL resources available in the first and second preferred resources, or if the SL resources available in the first and second preferred resources are not sufficient (e.g., the available SL resources as a percentage of the total resources within a resource selection window is less than or less than or equal to a threshold))
determining, based on the acquired plurality of pieces of information, a set of resources in the time window, wherein a type of the resources in the set is the type indicated by the second piece of information; and (¶ 0255: [D]etermining the candidate SL resources available within a resource selection window based on the preferred and non-preferred resources)
. . .
Although, FARAG discloses “To determine a candidate single-slot resource set to report to higher layers, a UE excludes from the set of available single-slot resources for SL transmission within a resource pool and within a resource selection window,” ¶ 0109, FARAG does not explicitly disclose:
reporting the determined set of resources to the higher layer of the UE.
In the same field of endeavor, however, HWANG teaches:
reporting the determined set of resources to the higher layer of the UE. (¶ 0215: [T]he UE-B may report . . . the resources to a higher layer)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify FARAG’s signaling of SL resources for inter-UE coordination procedures to provide reporting to a higher layer as taught by HWANG in scenarios in which all or part of reserved resources which the UE-B has already selected in a resource (re)selection procedure overlap with the non-preferred resources indicated by the additional information. See HWANG, at ¶ 0215.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Garth D Richmond whose telephone number is (703)756-4559. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/GARTH D RICHMOND/Examiner, Art Unit 2644
/KATHY W WANG-HURST/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights