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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, set forth at pp. 3-7 of the Remarks, with respect to claims 3 and 4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on one or more references applied in the prior rejection of record for ore or more teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In particular, the claims recite the limitation, “second piece of information which is resource type indication information indicating only a type of resources.” Applicant, at p. 4 of the Remarks, relies upon p. 26, ll. 3-4 of the originally-filed specification, which describes:
PNG
media_image1.png
53
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
–as providing support for the requirement that the resource type indication information indicating only a type of resources.
In response, the Examiner finds that the disclosure that the pieces of information “include” resource type indication information cannot be reasonably interpreted to provide support for the requirement that the resource type indication information indicating only a type of resources.
Accordingly, appropriate correction is required.
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 “3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #103-e R1-2008757” (hereinafter, “FRAUNHOFER NPL”) (copy provided by Applicant’s IDS dated 6 Mar. 2025) in view of US 2021/0219268 (hereinafter, “LI”).
Regarding claim 3, FRAUNHOFER NPL discloses:
acquire, from a higher layer of the UE, a plurality of pieces of information related to inter-UE coordination, the plurality of pieces of information including: (P. 3, § 2.2: UE-A can . . . obtain a set of randomly selected resources from within the candidate resource set, as determined by the higher layers)
first piece of information indicating a time window, and (P. 6, § 2.6: The set of resources that are determined . . . are essentially within the selection window of UE-B's intended transmission, as mentioned in Section 2.4. It is also possible for the assistance messages to provide information about resources from the sensing window, or resources from the past. This information can be sensing results in the form of measurement results, such as measured SL-RSRP values, for resources within the sensing window of the intended transmission by UE-B. They can also indicate a set of resources based on the measurement results)
second piece of information which is resource type indication information indicating only a type of resources, the type being selected from the group consisting of: (P. 6, § 2.6: The set of resources that are determined . . . are essentially within the selection window of UE-B's intended transmission, as mentioned in Section 2.4. It is also possible for the assistance messages to provide information about resources from the sensing window, or resources from the past. This information can be sensing results in the form of measurement results, such as measured SL-RSRP values, for resources within the sensing window of the intended transmission by UE-B. They can also indicate a set of resources based on the measurement results)
preferred resources; and (P. 3, § 2.2: The candidate resource set would include a set of resources that have been determined to be below a SL-RSRP threshold, in the case of a preferred set of resources)
non-preferred resources; (P. 3, § 2.2: The candidate resource set would include a set of resources that have been determined to be . . . above the threshold, in the case of a set of resources to be avoided by UE-B)
determine, based on the acquired plurality of pieces of information, a set of resources in the time window, (P. 6, § 2.6: The set of resources that are determined . . . are essentially within the selection window)
wherein a type of the resources in the set is the type indicated by the second piece of information; and (P. 3, § 2.2: The candidate resource set would include a set of resources that have been determined to be below a SL-RSRP threshold)
report the determined 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 NPL does not explicitly disclose:
A user equipment (UE), comprising:
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-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the UE to:
In the same field of endeavor, however, LI teaches:
A user equipment (UE), comprising: (wireless transmit/receive units (WTRUs) 102)
at least one processor; and (processor 118)
at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium 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: (Memory 130/132)
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 NPL’s inter-UE coordination procedure to provide UE elements as taught by LI to enable sensing-based resource selection and congestion control transmission schema. See LI, at ¶ 0003.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by FRAUNHOFER NPL.
Regarding claim 4, FRAUNHOFER NPL discloses:
A method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising:
acquiring, from a higher layer of the UE, a plurality of pieces of information related to inter-UE coordination, the plurality of pieces of information including: (P. 3, § 2.2: UE-A can . . . obtain a set of randomly selected resources from within the candidate resource set, as determined by the higher layers)
first piece of information indicating a time window, and (P. 6, § 2.6: The set of resources that are determined . . . are essentially within the selection window of UE-B's intended transmission, as mentioned in Section 2.4. It is also possible for the assistance messages to provide information about resources from the sensing window, or resources from the past. This information can be sensing results in the form of measurement results, such as measured SL-RSRP values, for resources within the sensing window of the intended transmission by UE-B. They can also indicate a set of resources based on the measurement results)
second piece of information which is resource type indication information indicating only a type of resources, the type being selected from the group consisting of: (P. 6, § 2.6: The set of resources that are determined . . . are essentially within the selection window of UE-B's intended transmission, as mentioned in Section 2.4. It is also possible for the assistance messages to provide information about resources from the sensing window, or resources from the past. This information can be sensing results in the form of measurement results, such as measured SL-RSRP values, for resources within the sensing window of the intended transmission by UE-B. They can also indicate a set of resources based on the measurement results)
preferred resources; and (P. 3, § 2.2: The candidate resource set would include a set of resources that have been determined to be below a SL-RSRP threshold, in the case of a preferred set of resources)
non-preferred resources; (P. 3, § 2.2: The candidate resource set would include a set of resources that have been determined to be . . . above the threshold, in the case of a set of resources to be avoided by UE-B)
determining, based on the acquired plurality of pieces of information, a set of resources in the time window, (P. 6, § 2.6: The set of resources that are determined . . . are essentially within the selection window)
wherein a type of the resources in the set is the type indicated by the second piece of information; and (P. 3, § 2.2: The candidate resource set would include a set of resources that have been determined to be below a SL-RSRP threshold)
reporting the determined 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
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 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