DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In virtue of the Application filed on 10/11/2023 and the preliminary amendment filed on the same date, in which claims 1-12, 18-27 are presented for examination, wherein claims 1, 12 are recited in independent form. The present Application is a 371 of PCT/CN2021/092397 with a filing date of 05/08/2021.
Claim Interpretation
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, without importing limitations from the specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is only 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 and is otherwise given the broadest reasonable interpretation. The Examiner has not identified any language which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, therefore the limitations will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation, without importing limitations for the specification.
Response to Arguments
Examiner note efforts in the First Action on the Merits to identify allowable subject matter. Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagrees regarding Applicant’s assertions regarding the teaching of d1 in view of d2 in view of d3. Examiner asserts that d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 meet the limitations of claims when given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Regarding d1, d1 discloses use of SCI including via decoding (see d1 Fig. 3 para. 0034); determining a potential overlap (i.e. collision) in the resources used between UEs based on SCI information for resources (see d1 Fig. 3 para. 0071, 0076); and transmitting an indication (i.e. pre-collision message) (which infers generation of the indication) of a potential collision (see d1 Fig. 3 para. 0075, 0078, 0106, 0109, 0112). The Examiner maintains the a reasonable interpretation of a pre collision message is any message which is sent pre collision. Applicant is attempting to imbue the limitation with meaning which extend beyond the broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore the messaging of d1 is equated to the pre-collision messages of the claims in question. D2 suggests, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, suggests decoding, at a first user equipment (UE), sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by a plurality of second UEs reserving a set of resources for sidelink transmission to the first UE (see d2 para. 0038; Fig. 2 para. 0040-0043); detecting, at the first UE, a potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources based on decoding of the SCI (see d2 para. 0004-0005); generating a pre-collision message that identifies the set of resources that are susceptible to the potential resource collision (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043) which includes transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043). D3 suggests, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, suggests decoding, at a first user equipment (UE), sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by a plurality of second UEs reserving a set of resources for sidelink transmission to the first UE (see d3 section 3.2.2); detecting, at the first UE, a potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources based on decoding of the SCI (see d3 section 3.2.2); generating a pre-collision message that identifies the set of resources that are susceptible to the potential resource collision (see d3 section 3.2.2) which includes transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs (see d3 section 3.2.2). When treated in combination Applicant asserts that the limitation “transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs” is not taught the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, Applicant readily admits that transmission to at least 1 UE is present in the combination of d1 in view of d2 in view of d3. Examiner contends that extension to transmission comprises at least an aspect which is obvious from d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 as it is a mere repeating of the step already admitted to have been performed to at least a single UE. Furthermore, turning to d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 it is suggested that a “trigger UE-A to provide a set of reliable and available resources to other UEs in need of resources, especially for high priority transmissions” (see d2 section 3.2.2) which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that transmission to a plurality of UE lies within the scope of what was contemplated in the prior art. The Examiner contents the transmission of information regarding available resources to other UEs, suggests transmission to a plurality of UEs, wherein the of information regarding available resources is transmitted pre collision (i.e. in the context to potential collisions of d1, d2 and d3), which certainly meet the limitations of the claims. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the limitations are met according the explicit teaching in the art according to the articulated reasoning set forth above.
Applicant also asserts “Office Action has not established a case of prima facie obviousness because there is no proper motivation to combine Hu, Zhao and D3” the Examiner disagrees. Applicant has attempted to create a case for a generic statements by excerpting a fraction of the substantial evidence provided by the Examiner in the reasons to combine, and attempting to pass the quotations as comprising the entirety of the reasoning.
The Reasoning for combination includes the articulation of substantial evidence including, regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2 it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve efficiency (see d2 para. 0037, 0108). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Similarly, regarding a motivation to combine d1, d2 and d3 it is noted that d1 and d3 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve reliability and latency (see d3 section 1). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Similarly, regarding a motivation to combine d1, d2 and d3 it is noted that d1 and d3 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve reliability and latency (see d3 section 1). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, contrary to Applicant assertions, a well-reasoned, articulated reason for combination is set forth with ample evidence, including reasoning as to why Regarding a motivation to combine d1, d2 and d3 it is noted that d1 and d3 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve reliability and latency (see d3 section 1). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success. Examiner maintains the reasoning below as creating a prima facie case under any reasonable interpretation of the requirements for establishing a prima facie case. The Examiner, therefore, makes the rejection final.
The Examiner encourages the Applicant to consider the subject matter identified as containing allowable subject matter notified in the first action on the merits. The Examiner expended considerable effort to provide the Applicant with a path toward allowance as early in prosecution as possible.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-8, 12, 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20240073907 to Hu et al (hereinafter d1) in view of US-20230362739 to Zhao (hereafter d2) in View of NPL document “Resource Allocation Enhancements for Mode 2” to 3GPP (hereinafter d3).
Regarding claim 1, as to the limitations “A method of wireless communication, comprising:” d1 discloses a system (see d1 Fig. 2) including at least an apparatus for wireless communication (see d1 Fig. 2, elements 210-230) wherein the devices (see d1 Fig. 7) comprise at least one or more memories (see d1 Fig. 7, para. 0144), which contain instructions (see d1 Fig. 7, para. 0145), wherein one or more processors in combination with the memories execute the instructions (see d1 Fig. 7, para. 0145) the instructions encoding a method (see d1 Figs. 5-6; para. 0006);
As to the limitation “decoding, at a first user equipment (UE), sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by a plurality of second UEs reserving a set of resources for sidelink transmission to the first UE; detecting, at the first UE, a potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources based on decoding of the SCI; generating a pre-collision message that identifies the set of resources that are susceptible to the potential resource collision; and transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs” d1 discloses use of SCI including via decoding (see d1 Fig. 3 para. 0034); determining a potential overlap (i.e. collision) in the resources used between UEs based on SCI information for resources (see d1 Fig. 3 para. 0071, 0076); and transmitting an indication (i.e. pre-collision message) (which infers generation of the indication) of a potential collision (see d1 Fig. 3 para. 0075, 0078, 0106, 0109, 0112);
d1 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations of claim 1, although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, suggests decoding, at a first user equipment (UE), sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by a plurality of second UEs reserving a set of resources for sidelink transmission to the first UE (see d2 para. 0038; Fig. 2 para. 0040-0043); detecting, at the first UE, a potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources based on decoding of the SCI (see d2 para. 0004-0005); generating a pre-collision message that identifies the set of resources that are susceptible to the potential resource collision (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043) which includes transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2 it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve efficiency (see d2 para. 0037, 0108). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
D2 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations of claim 1, although the disclosure of d2 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d3 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, suggests decoding, at a first user equipment (UE), sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by a plurality of second UEs reserving a set of resources for sidelink transmission to the first UE (see d3 section 3.2.2); detecting, at the first UE, a potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources based on decoding of the SCI (see d3 section 3.2.2); generating a pre-collision message that identifies the set of resources that are susceptible to the potential resource collision (see d3 section 3.2.2) which includes transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs (see d3 section 3.2.2).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1, d2 and d3 it is noted that d1 and d3 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve reliability and latency (see d3 section 1). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, as to the limitation “The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs, comprises: transmitting the pre-collision message on a resource set reserved for inter-coordination messages” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 suggests transmission of an indication reflecting the pre-collision message (see d1 Fig. 3, para.0070; d2 para. 0004-0005) and use of a resource set reserved for inter-coordination messages (see d1 para. 0032-0033, 0066, 0071, 0076, 0081, 0103, 0107; d2 para. 0049) which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
d1 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations of claim 1, although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, suggests decoding, at a first user equipment (UE), sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by a plurality of second UEs reserving a set of resources for sidelink transmission to the first UE (see d2 para. 0038; Fig. 2 para. 0040-0043); detecting, at the first UE, a potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources based on decoding of the SCI (see d2 para. 0004-0005); generating a pre-collision message that identifies the set of resources that are susceptible to the potential resource collision (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043) which includes transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1, d2 and d3 it is noted that d1 and d3 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve reliability and latency (see d3 section 1). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, as to the limitation “The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs, comprises: transmitting the pre-collision message using orthogonal resource set with inter- coordination messages” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 suggests transmission of an indication which reflects a pre-collision message as set forth above, as well as using orthogonal resource set (see d1 para. 0039, 0078; d2 para. 0078) which applying such to inter- coordination messages is one of a known set of alternatives which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
d1 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations of claim 1, although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, suggests decoding, at a first user equipment (UE), sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by a plurality of second UEs reserving a set of resources for sidelink transmission to the first UE (see d2 para. 0038; Fig. 2 para. 0040-0043); detecting, at the first UE, a potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources based on decoding of the SCI (see d2 para. 0004-0005); generating a pre-collision message that identifies the set of resources that are susceptible to the potential resource collision (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043) which includes transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1, d2 and d3 it is noted that d1 and d3 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve reliability and latency (see d3 section 1). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, as to the limitation “The method of claim 3, wherein the orthogonal resource set is orthogonal to data transmission or share same resource set as the data transmission” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 suggests using orthogonal resources which is known to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ orthogonality to other data transmission and/or using another known multiplexing transmission technique including allowing sharing the same resource set as the data transmission (see d1 para. 0039, 0078), which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
d1 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations of claim 1, although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, suggests decoding, at a first user equipment (UE), sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by a plurality of second UEs reserving a set of resources for sidelink transmission to the first UE (see d2 para. 0038; Fig. 2 para. 0040-0043); detecting, at the first UE, a potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources based on decoding of the SCI (see d2 para. 0004-0005); generating a pre-collision message that identifies the set of resources that are susceptible to the potential resource collision (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043) which includes transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1, d2 and d3 it is noted that d1 and d3 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve reliability and latency (see d3 section 1). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, as to the limitation “The method of claim 1, wherein detecting the potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources comprises: detecting that the plurality of second UEs are scheduled for sidelink transmission over either overlapping resources or adjacent resources in a frequency domain such that there is a potential for inter-band leakage (IBE)” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 suggests detecting overlapping resources or adjacent resources in a frequency domain (see d1 para. 0071, 0076, Fig. 3; d2 para. 0040, 0041, 0047) which is known to produce inter-band leakage (IBE), to one of ordinary skill in the art, which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
d1 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations of claim 1, although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, suggests decoding, at a first user equipment (UE), sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by a plurality of second UEs reserving a set of resources for sidelink transmission to the first UE (see d2 para. 0038; Fig. 2 para. 0040-0043); detecting, at the first UE, a potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources based on decoding of the SCI (see d2 para. 0004-0005); generating a pre-collision message that identifies the set of resources that are susceptible to the potential resource collision (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043) which includes transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1, d2 and d3 it is noted that d1 and d3 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve reliability and latency (see d3 section 1). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, as to the limitation “The method of claim 1, wherein detecting the potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources comprises: measuring a reference signal received power (RSRP) for a signal between the first UE and at least one of the plurality of second UEs; and calculating that the RSRP measured for the signal between the first UE and at least one of the plurality of second UEs is less than a threshold” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 suggests using RSRP (see d1 para. 0066; d3 section 2) which implies the known use of measuring and calculation with respect to a threshold to one of ordinary skill in the art, which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
d1 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations of claim 1, although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, suggests decoding, at a first user equipment (UE), sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by a plurality of second UEs reserving a set of resources for sidelink transmission to the first UE (see d2 para. 0038; Fig. 2 para. 0040-0043); detecting, at the first UE, a potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources based on decoding of the SCI (see d2 para. 0004-0005); generating a pre-collision message that identifies the set of resources that are susceptible to the potential resource collision (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043) which includes transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1, d2 and d3 it is noted that d1 and d3 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve reliability and latency (see d3 section 1). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, as to the limitation “The method of claim 6, further comprising: identifying that at least two or more of the plurality of second UEs have reserved adjacent frequency resources in an overlapping time slot” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 suggests identifying that at least two or more of the plurality of second UEs reserved frequency resources including overlapping time slot wherein adjacent frequency resources are obvious from disclosure of identifying resources which potentially collide (see d1 para. 0040, 0042, 0047), which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
d1 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations of claim 1, although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, suggests decoding, at a first user equipment (UE), sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by a plurality of second UEs reserving a set of resources for sidelink transmission to the first UE (see d2 para. 0038; Fig. 2 para. 0040-0043); detecting, at the first UE, a potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources based on decoding of the SCI (see d2 para. 0004-0005); generating a pre-collision message that identifies the set of resources that are susceptible to the potential resource collision (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043) which includes transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1, d2 and d3 it is noted that d1 and d3 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve reliability and latency (see d3 section 1). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, as to the limitation “The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs, comprises: measuring one or both of a reference signal received power (RSRP) or distance between the first UE and at least one of the plurality of second UEs; and calculating that one or both of the RSRP or the distance between the first UE and at least one of the plurality of second UEs is less than a threshold” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 suggests use of RSRP which renders obvious the known techniques regarding RSRP including measuring and calculating with respect to a threshold (see d1 para. 0044; d3 section 2) which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
d1 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations of claim 1, although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, suggests decoding, at a first user equipment (UE), sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by a plurality of second UEs reserving a set of resources for sidelink transmission to the first UE (see d2 para. 0038; Fig. 2 para. 0040-0043); detecting, at the first UE, a potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources based on decoding of the SCI (see d2 para. 0004-0005); generating a pre-collision message that identifies the set of resources that are susceptible to the potential resource collision (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043) which includes transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1, d2 and d3 it is noted that d1 and d3 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve reliability and latency (see d3 section 1). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, as to the limitations “An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories, individually or in combination, having instructions; and one or more processors, individually or in combination, coupled to the one or more memories and configured to execute the instructions to:” d1 discloses a system (see d1 Fig. 2) including at least an apparatus for wireless communication (see d1 Fig. 2, elements 210-230) wherein the devices (see d1 Fig. 7) comprise at least one or more memories (see d1 Fig. 7, para. 0144), which contain instructions (see d1 Fig. 7, para. 0145), wherein one or more processors in combination with the memories execute the instructions (see d1 Fig. 7, para. 0145) the instructions encoding a method (see d1 Figs. 5-6; para. 0006);
As to the limitation “decode, at a first user equipment (UE), sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by a plurality of second UEs reserving a set of resources for sidelink transmission to the first UE; detect, at the first UE, a potential resource collision for the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources based on decoding of the SCI; generate a pre-collision message that identifies the set of resources that are susceptible to the potential resource collision; and transmit the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs” d1 discloses use of SCI including via decoding (see d1 Fig. 3 para. 0034); determining a potential overlap (i.e. collision) in the resources used between UEs based on SCI information for resources (see d1 Fig. 3 para. 0071, 0076); and transmitting an indication (i.e. pre-collision message) (which infers generation of the indication) of a potential collision (see d1 Fig. 3 para. 0075, 0078, 0106, 0109, 0112);
d1 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations of claim 1, although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, suggests decoding, at a first user equipment (UE), sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by a plurality of second UEs reserving a set of resources for sidelink transmission to the first UE (see d2 para. 0038; Fig. 2 para. 0040-0043); detecting, at the first UE, a potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources based on decoding of the SCI (see d2 para. 0004-0005); generating a pre-collision message that identifies the set of resources that are susceptible to the potential resource collision (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043) which includes transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2 it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve efficiency (see d2 para. 0037, 0108). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
D2 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations of claim 1, although the disclosure of d2 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d3 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, suggests decoding, at a first user equipment (UE), sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by a plurality of second UEs reserving a set of resources for sidelink transmission to the first UE (see d3 section 3.2.2); detecting, at the first UE, a potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources based on decoding of the SCI (see d3 section 3.2.2); generating a pre-collision message that identifies the set of resources that are susceptible to the potential resource collision (see d3 section 3.2.2) which includes transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs (see d3 section 3.2.2).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1, d2 and d3 it is noted that d1 and d3 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve reliability and latency (see d3 section 1). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, as to the limitation “The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: transmit the pre-collision message on a resource set reserved for inter-coordination messages” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 suggests transmission of an indication reflecting the pre-collision message (see d1 Fig. 3, para.0070; d2 para. 0004-0005) and use of a resource set reserved for inter-coordination messages (see d1 para. 0032-0033, 0066, 0071, 0076, 0081, 0103, 0107; d2 para. 0049) which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
d1 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations of claim 1, although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, suggests decoding, at a first user equipment (UE), sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by a plurality of second UEs reserving a set of resources for sidelink transmission to the first UE (see d2 para. 0038; Fig. 2 para. 0040-0043); detecting, at the first UE, a potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources based on decoding of the SCI (see d2 para. 0004-0005); generating a pre-collision message that identifies the set of resources that are susceptible to the potential resource collision (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043) which includes transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1, d2 and d3 it is noted that d1 and d3 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve reliability and latency (see d3 section 1). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19, as to the limitation “The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to: transmit the pre-collision message using orthogonal resource set with inter-coordination messages” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 suggests transmission of an indication which reflects a pre-collision message as set forth above, as well as using orthogonal resource set (see d1 para. 0039, 0078; d2 para. 0078) which applying such to inter- coordination messages is one of a known set of alternatives which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
d1 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations of claim 1, although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, suggests decoding, at a first user equipment (UE), sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by a plurality of second UEs reserving a set of resources for sidelink transmission to the first UE (see d2 para. 0038; Fig. 2 para. 0040-0043); detecting, at the first UE, a potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources based on decoding of the SCI (see d2 para. 0004-0005); generating a pre-collision message that identifies the set of resources that are susceptible to the potential resource collision (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043) which includes transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1, d2 and d3 it is noted that d1 and d3 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve reliability and latency (see d3 section 1). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20, as to the limitation “The apparatus of claim 19, wherein the orthogonal resource set is orthogonal to data transmission or share same resource set as the data transmission” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 suggests using orthogonal resources which is known to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ orthogonality to other data transmission and/or using another known multiplexing transmission technique including allowing sharing the same resource set as the data transmission (see d1 para. 0039, 0078), which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
d1 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations of claim 1, although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, suggests decoding, at a first user equipment (UE), sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by a plurality of second UEs reserving a set of resources for sidelink transmission to the first UE (see d2 para. 0038; Fig. 2 para. 0040-0043); detecting, at the first UE, a potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources based on decoding of the SCI (see d2 para. 0004-0005); generating a pre-collision message that identifies the set of resources that are susceptible to the potential resource collision (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043) which includes transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1, d2 and d3 it is noted that d1 and d3 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve reliability and latency (see d3 section 1). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 21, as to the limitation “The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to detect the potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources are further configured to: detect that the plurality of second UEs are scheduled for sidelink transmission over either overlapping resources or adjacent resources in a frequency domain such that there is a potential for inter-band leakage (IBE)” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 suggests detecting overlapping resources or adjacent resources in a frequency domain (see d1 para. 0071, 0076, Fig. 3; d2 para. 0040, 0041, 0047) which is known to produce inter-band leakage (IBE), to one of ordinary skill in the art, which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
d1 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations of claim 1, although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, suggests decoding, at a first user equipment (UE), sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by a plurality of second UEs reserving a set of resources for sidelink transmission to the first UE (see d2 para. 0038; Fig. 2 para. 0040-0043); detecting, at the first UE, a potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources based on decoding of the SCI (see d2 para. 0004-0005); generating a pre-collision message that identifies the set of resources that are susceptible to the potential resource collision (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043) which includes transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1, d2 and d3 it is noted that d1 and d3 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve reliability and latency (see d3 section 1). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 22, as to the limitation “The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to detect the potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources are further configured to: measure a reference signal received power (RSRP) for a signal between the first UE and at least one of the plurality of second UEs; and calculate that the RSRP measured for the signal between the first UE and at least one of the plurality of second UEs is less than a threshold” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 suggests using RSRP (see d1 para. 0066; d3 section 2) which implies the known use of measuring and calculation with respect to a threshold to one of ordinary skill in the art, which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
d1 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations of claim 1, although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, suggests decoding, at a first user equipment (UE), sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by a plurality of second UEs reserving a set of resources for sidelink transmission to the first UE (see d2 para. 0038; Fig. 2 para. 0040-0043); detecting, at the first UE, a potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources based on decoding of the SCI (see d2 para. 0004-0005); generating a pre-collision message that identifies the set of resources that are susceptible to the potential resource collision (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043) which includes transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1, d2 and d3 it is noted that d1 and d3 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve reliability and latency (see d3 section 1). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 23, as to the limitation “The method of claim 22, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: identify that at least two or more of the plurality of second UEs have reserved adjacent frequency resources in an overlapping time slot” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 suggests identifying that at least two or more of the plurality of second UEs reserved frequency resources including overlapping time slot wherein adjacent frequency resources are obvious from disclosure of identifying resources which potentially collide (see d1 para. 0040, 0042, 0047), which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
d1 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations of claim 1, although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, suggests decoding, at a first user equipment (UE), sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by a plurality of second UEs reserving a set of resources for sidelink transmission to the first UE (see d2 para. 0038; Fig. 2 para. 0040-0043); detecting, at the first UE, a potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources based on decoding of the SCI (see d2 para. 0004-0005); generating a pre-collision message that identifies the set of resources that are susceptible to the potential resource collision (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043) which includes transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1, d2 and d3 it is noted that d1 and d3 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve reliability and latency (see d3 section 1). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 24, as to the limitation “The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to transmit the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs, are further configured to: measure one or both of a reference signal received power (RSRP) or distance between the first UE and at least one of the plurality of second UEs; and calculate that one or both of the RSRP or the distance between the first UE and at least one of the plurality of second UEs is less than a threshold” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 suggests use of RSRP which renders obvious the known techniques regarding RSRP including measuring and calculating with respect to a threshold (see d1 para. 0044; d3 section 2) which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
d1 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations of claim 1, although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, suggests decoding, at a first user equipment (UE), sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by a plurality of second UEs reserving a set of resources for sidelink transmission to the first UE (see d2 para. 0038; Fig. 2 para. 0040-0043); detecting, at the first UE, a potential resource collision from the plurality of second UEs at the set of resources based on decoding of the SCI (see d2 para. 0004-0005); generating a pre-collision message that identifies the set of resources that are susceptible to the potential resource collision (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043) which includes transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs (see d2 Fig. 2 para. 0038-0043).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1, d2 and d3 it is noted that d1 and d3 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve reliability and latency (see d3 section 1). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 9, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 in view of NPL document “Reliability and Latency Enhancements for Mode 2” to 3GPP (hereinafter d4).
Regarding claim 9, as to the limitations “The method of claim 8, further comprising: transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs when the first UE is in non-line of sight (NLOS) of at least of the plurality of second UEs” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 disclose that which is noted above with respect to claims 1-8 and 12, 18-24 which is relevant to the limitations.
d1 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations of claim 1, although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, suggests transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs when the first UE is in non-line of sight (NLOS) of at least of the plurality of second UEs (see d4 Section 2 regarding NLOS communication.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1, d2 and d3 it is noted that d1 and d3 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve reliability and latency (see d4 section 1). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 25, as to the limitations “the apparatus of claim 24, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs when the first UE is in non-line of sight (NLOS) of at least of the plurality of second UEs” d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 disclose that which is noted above with respect to claims 1-8 and 12, 18-24 which is relevant to the limitations.
d1 may not explicitly disclose all the limitations of claim 1, although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, suggests transmitting the pre-collision message from the first UE to the plurality of second UEs when the first UE is in non-line of sight (NLOS) of at least of the plurality of second UEs (see d4 Section 2 regarding NLOS communication.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1, d2 and d3 it is noted that d1 and d3 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (inter UE coordination) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve reliability and latency (see d4 section 1). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (inter-UE coordination) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11, 26-27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN SCOTT TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)270-3189. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs. 9:00-4:00.
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, JINSONG HU can be reached on 5712723965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATHAN S TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643