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 Amendment
Applicant’s submission dated 16 Dec. 2025—in which claims 3 and 4 are amended—has been entered into the record and is considered herein. Claims 3 and 4 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments—set forth at pp. 3-4 in the Remarks with respect to independent claims 3 and 4—have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons and the grounds for rejection set forth below.
In particular, the Applicant disagrees with the Examiner’s reliance on FRAUNHOFER for disclosing several limitations of the claimed method steps:
Specifically, Fraunhofer, in the cited sections, describes that a trigger message can be transmitted by UE-B to UE-A and UE-A can report the resource set to higher layers. This, clearly indicates that an inter-layer interaction takes place between two different UEs. Fraunhofer, however, does not describe that the inter-layer interaction takes place within the same UE, a feature that is recited in amended independent claim 3.
Remarks, p. 4.
In response, the Examiner notes that FRAUNHOFER, at § 2.2 “Determination of ‘a set of resources’ by UE-A,” discloses a “Set of Selected Resources” procedure, in which UE-A
report[s] the candidate set SA to the higher layers, and obtain[s] a set of randomly selected resources from within the candidate resource set, as determined by the higher layers . . . . UE-A can then send the set of selected resources to UE-B in the form of assistance messages. UE-B can then consider these resources as a preferred set of resources for its own transmissions.”
The Examiner finds that the described sensing-based resource selection procedure involves i) UE-A reporting the candidate resource set SA to the higher layers of UE-A, ii) the higher layers of UE-A determining a set of randomly selected resources from within SA, and then iii) UE-A sending the set of selected resources to UE-B in the form of assistance messages. Thus, Applicant’s argument that FRAUNHOFER’s procedure for selection of a set of resources “clearly indicates that an inter-layer interaction takes place between two different UEs” as opposed to an inter-layer interaction that “takes place within the same UE,” is not supported by this section of FRAUNHOFER when taken in context.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over FRAUNHOFER, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #103-e R1-2008757 e-Meeting, October 26th — November 13th, 2020, Agenda item: 8.11.2.2, “Resource Allocation Enhancements for Mode 2” (hereinafter, “FRAUNHOFER”), in view of US 2024/0073875 (hereinafter, “LEON CALVO”).
Regarding claim 3, FRAUNHOFER discloses:
A user equipment (UE) (UE-A), comprising:
. . .
acquire, from a higher layer of the UE, one or more pieces of information related to inter-UE coordination, the one or more pieces of information including (§ 2 “Design Aspects of Inter-UE Coordination,” P. 3, § 2.2: UE-A can . . . report the candidate set SA to the higher layers, and obtain a set of randomly selected resources from within the candidate resource set, as determined by the higher layers)
first information indicating a time window, and (P. 6, § 2.4: [R]esources have to be within the selection window of the intended transmission in order to be considered)
second information indicating a type of resources; (P. 3, § 2.1: [C]ontrol information indicating which type of assistance message is being received)
the type being selected from the group consisting of:
preferred resources; and (P. 2, § 2.1: [A] set of resources which is preferred for UE-B’s transmission)
non-preferred resources; (P. 2, § 2.1: [A] set of resources which is preferred not to be used by UE-B)
determine a set of resources in the time window, (P. 6, § 2.6: The set of resources that are determined by UE-A . . . are essentially within the selection window of UE-B’s intended transmission)
wherein a type of the resources in the set is the type indicated by the second information; and (P. 3, § 2.1: [W]here both the preferred to be used and preferred not to be used resources are supported by Rel-17, UE-B also requires control information indicating which type of assistance message is being received)
report the set of resources to the higher layer of the UE. (P. 3, § 2.2: UE-A can . . . report the candidate resource set SA to the higher layers)
FRAUNHOFER does not explicitly disclose:
at least one processor; and
at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to the at least one processor and storing one or more computer-readable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the UE to:
In the same field of endeavor, however, LEON CALVO teaches:
at least one processor; and (processor 920)
at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to the at least one processor and storing one or more computer-readable instructions (memory 930), when executed by the at least one processor, cause the UE to:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify FRAUNHOFER’s UE-A to provide UE components as taught by LEON CALVO to provide a sensing-based resource selection procedure specified in Technical Specification 38.214, Clause 8.1.4, such that resource collisions due to the terminal device's incapability of sensing transmissions from other terminal devices are mitigated. See LEON CALVO, e.g., at ¶¶ 0049, 0083, 0087.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office Action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FRAUNHOFER.
Regarding claim 4, FRAUNHOFER discloses:
A method performed by a user equipment (UE) (UE-A), the method comprising:
acquiring, from a higher layer of the UE, one or more pieces of information related to inter-UE coordination, the one or more pieces of information including (§ 2 “Design Aspects of Inter-UE Coordination,” P. 3, § 2.2: UE-A can . . . report the candidate set SA to the higher layers, and obtain a set of randomly selected resources from within the candidate resource set, as determined by the higher layers)
first information indicating a time window, and (P. 6, § 2.4: [R]esources have to be within the selection window of the intended transmission in order to be considered)
second information indicating a type of resources, (P. 3, § 2.1: [C]ontrol information indicating which type of assistance message is being received)
the type being selected from the group consisting of:
preferred resources; and (P. 2, § 2.1: [A] set of resources which is preferred for UE-B’s transmission)
non-preferred resources; (P. 2, § 2.1: [A] set of resources which is preferred not to be used by UE-B)
determining a set of resources in the time window, (P. 6, § 2.6: The set of resources that are determined by UE-A . . . are essentially within the selection window of UE-B’s intended transmission)
wherein a type of the resources in the set is the type indicated by the second information; and (P. 3, § 2.1: [W]here both the preferred to be used and preferred not to be used resources are supported by Rel-17, UE-B also requires control information indicating which type of assistance message is being received)
reporting the set of resources to the higher layer of the UE. (P. 3, § 2.2: UE-A can . . . report the candidate resource set SA to the higher layers)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
/SAID M ELNOUBI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2644