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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 2/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15, 17, 19-22 and 28-30 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are other than black and white line drawings. For example, figures 2 and 8 have lines and shadings that are not solid black lines. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it should not repeat information given in the title. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The title of the invention on page 1 of the specification is different than the title indicated on the application data sheet. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Sending and receiving coordination request.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15, 17, 19-22 and 28-30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 22, it is unclear whether it is an apparatus claim or a method claim. It appears to be an apparatus claim directed to a second terminal device because the preamble recites “A second terminal device, comprising…”; however, it also appears to be a method claim because it is a dependent claim further narrowing the method claim 11. Examiner suggest explicitly reciting the steps of claim 11 in claim 22 so it is clear it is an apparatus claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 28, having an “or” after every element is grammatically incorrect. The listing of elements should only have one conjunction before the last element.
Regarding claim 1, the list of wherein clauses is missing a conjunction before the last wherein clause. This issue is in numerous other claims such as claim 29. It is assumed that the missing conjunction in the claims are “or” and the limitations are claimed in the alternative.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "The device" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "The device" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "The device" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 10-11, 13, 20-22 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112291743 (hereinafter Wang) in view of R1-2100352 (hereinafter CATT).
Regarding Claims 1, 11 and 21-22, Wang teaches a method for sending a coordination request, performed by a first terminal device, comprising: (Wang, Abstract, UE, terminal equipment which is being interpreted as first terminal device, Abstract details sending resource coordination request); and sending the coordination request to a second terminal device according to the trigger condition of the coordination request (Wang, Abstract, coordinated UE is being interpreted as a second terminal device, paragraph [0020] the sending module is used to send direct link resource coordination request information), wherein the coordination request is configured to request the second terminal device to send coordination information to the first terminal device, the coordination information is configured to indicate a coordination resource set (Wang, Abstract, UE, terminal equipment which is being interpreted as first terminal device, coordinated UE is being interpreted as a second terminal device, paragraph [0020] the sending module is used to send direct link resource coordination request information), and the first terminal device selects resources from a resource set sensed by the first terminal device and the coordination resource set (Wang, Abstract, UE, terminal equipment which is being interpreted as first terminal device, paragraph [0013], paragraph [0022] the selection module is used to select resources for the direct link based on the direct link resource coordination information, Fig. 1, paragraph [0047] Step 103: select resources for the direct link based on the direct link resource coordination information), wherein the trigger condition is associated with least one of: (Wang, paragraph [0010] when the coordinated UE receives “0”, it triggers the UE to reselect resources, Fig. 4, paragraph [0082] triggered at time n, Fig. 1, paragraph [0043] Step 101: discloses coordination request message) a number of received continuous HARQ NACK feedbacks; a packet delay budget (PDB) of a data packet to be sent (Wang, paragraph [0069] details PDB); a channel occupancy ratio (CR) of a data packet to be sent; a measured channel busy ratio (CBR); an arrival of a data packet to be sent of the first terminal device (Wang, paragraph [0005] service packet to be sent; Wang, Abstract, UE, terminal equipment which is being interpreted as first terminal device); or a priority of a data packet to be sent.
Wang does not explicitly teach determining a trigger condition of the coordination request.
However, CATT teaches determining a trigger condition (Document CATT, section 3.2, the Document CATT in section 3.2 details Inter-UE coordination triggering… Option 1: Request based coordination, and Option 2: Periodic/condition based coordination)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to combine the teachings of Wang before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with that of Document CATT so that determining a trigger condition be included in a method for sending a coordination request, performed by a first terminal device. The motivation to combine the teachings of Document CATT would support the request-based coordination (option 1), periodically/condition based coordination (option 2) need further study, including the trigger condition(s) and correlated type of resource set. In Rel-17 enhancements are motivated for enhanced reliability and reduced latency. (Document CATT, whole document, emphasis: section 1, section 2, section 3.1, section 3.2, and section 5).
Regarding Claims 3, 13 and 28, Wang teaches, wherein the trigger condition of the coordination request (Wang, Fig. 1, paragraph [0043] Step 101: details coordination request message) comprises at least one of: (Wang, paragraph [0010] when the coordinated UE receives “0”, it triggers the UE to reselect resources, Fig. 4, paragraph [0082] triggered at time n, Fig. 1, paragraph [0043] Step 101: details coordination request message) the number of received continuous HARQ NACK feedbacks is greater than a configured number threshold; the PDB of the data packet to be sent (Wang, paragraph [0005] service packet to be sent) is greater than a configured PDB threshold; (Wang, paragraph [0069] details PDB) or the CR of the data packet to be sent is less than or equal to a pre-configured CR threshold; or the CBR is less than or equal to a pre-configured CBR threshold; the arrival of the first data packet to be sent of the first terminal device (Wang, paragraph [0005] service packet to be sent; Wang, Abstract, UE, terminal equipment which is being interpreted as first terminal device); or the priority of the data packet to be sent is less than or equal to a configured priority threshold.
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Wang teaches wherein the configured priority threshold is pre-configured by an RRC message (Wang, paragraph [0117] pre-configured by a higher layer).
Claims 5, 7, 9, 15, 17, 19, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang on view of CATT, further in view of WO 2020/033088 (hereinafter LI).
Regarding Claims 5, 15, and 29, The combination of Wang, CATT, and LI teach wherein the CR is a ratio of a number of first subchannels (Wang, paragraph [0059], the number of sub-channels, LI, paragraph [00152] subchannel k1, subchannel k2, paragraph [00153] subchannel 0 – subchannel N) within a specified slot range to a total number of subchannels (Wang, paragraph [0059], the number of sub-channels, LI, paragraph [00152] subchannel k1, subchannel k2, paragraph [00153] subchannel 0 – subchannel N) belonging to a resource pool (LI, paragraph [00171] resource pool) within the specified slot range; (LI, paragraph [00135] details channel occupancy ratio (CR)) wherein the number of first subchannels (Wang, paragraph [0059], the number of sub-channels, LI, paragraph [00152] subchannel k1, subchannel k2, paragraph [00153] subchannel 0 – subchannel N) is a sum of a number of subchannels (Wang, paragraph [0059], the number of sub-channels, LI, paragraph [00152] subchannel k1, subchannel k2, paragraph [00153] subchannel 0 – subchannel N) used to send the data packet within the specified slot range (LI, Fig. 9A, [00249] time resource pool/mini-slot pools; intended use so no patentable weight) and reserved subchannels to be used to send the data packet (Wang, paragraph [0005] service packet to be sent; intended use so no patentable weight); the CR threshold is a CR limit value corresponding to a configured priority k, and the CR threshold is pre-configured by an RRC message (Wang, paragraph [0117] pre-configured by a higher layer. The higher layer is an RRC layer, LI, paragraph [0123] details RRC messages, paragraph [00135] discloses channel occupancy ratio (CR)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to combine the teachings of Wang, and Document CATT before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with that of LI so that wherein the CR is a ratio of a number of first subchannels within a specified slot range to a total number of subchannels belonging to a resource pool within the specified slot range; wherein the number of first subchannels is a sum of a number of subchannels used to send the data packet within the specified slot range and reserved subchannels to be used to send the data packet; the CR threshold is a CR limit value corresponding to a configured priority k, and the CR threshold is pre-configured by an RRC message. The motivation to combine the teachings of LI would improve coordination. (LI, paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [00135], [00139],[00414], [00429], [00431], [0433], [00466], [00470]-[00471], and [00486]-[00487])
Regarding Claims 7, 17 and 29, The combination of Wang, CATT, and LI teach wherein the CBR is a ratio of a number of second subchannels (Wang, paragraph [0059], the number of sub-channels, LI, paragraph [00152] subchannel k1, subchannel k2, paragraph [00153] subchannel 0 – subchannel N) within a specified slot range to a total number of subchannels (Wang, paragraph [0059], the number of sub-channels, LI, paragraph [00152] subchannel k1, subchannel k2, paragraph [00153] subchannel 0 – subchannel N) in a resource pool (LI, paragraph [00171] resource pool, Fig. 9A, paragraph [00250] step 2B, select resource pool/resource pool), and the CBR threshold is pre-configured by an RRC message (Wang, paragraph [0117] pre-configured by a higher layer. The higher layer is an RRC layer, LI, paragraph [0123] details RRC messages, paragraph [00135] details channel busy ratio (CBR)); wherein a second subchannel is a subchannel (Wang, paragraph [0059], the number of sub-channels, LI, paragraph [00152] subchannel k1, subchannel k2, paragraph [00153] subchannel 0 – subchannel N) with a corresponding received signal strength indicator RSSI greater than a configured RSSI threshold. (LI, paragraph [00135] details sidelink received signal strength indicator (SL-RSSI), [0137] RS-RSSI to a threshold, Fig. 9A, paragraph [0256] step 3 Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI) measurement)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to combine the teachings of Wang, and Document CATT before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with that of LI so that wherein the CBR is a ratio of a number of second subchannels within a specified slot range to a total number of subchannels in a resource pool, and the CBR threshold is pre-configured by an RRC message; wherein a second subchannel is a subchannel with a corresponding received signal strength indicator RSSI greater than a configured RSSI threshold. The motivation to combine the teachings of LI would improve coordination. (LI, paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [00135], [00139],[00414], [00429], [00431], [0433], [00466], [00470]-[00471], and [00486]-[00487])
Regarding Claim 9, 19 and 30, The combination of Wang, CATT, and LI teach wherein sending the coordination request (Wang, Fig. 1, paragraph [0043] Step 101: details coordination request message) to the second terminal device comprises (Wang, Abstract, coordinated UE is being interpreted as a second terminal device): sending a coordination request (Wang, Fig. 1, paragraph [0043] Step 101: discloses coordination request message) carrying a periodic feedback flag to the second terminal device (Wang, Abstract, coordinated UE is being interpreted as a second terminal device, LI, paragraph [00418]-[00419] parameter periodic “1”); wherein the periodic feedback flag is configured to instruct the second terminal device to periodically send the coordination information (Wang, Abstract, coordinated UE is being interpreted as a second terminal device, , LI, paragraph [00418]-[00419] parameter periodic “1”, Wang, Fig. 1, paragraph [0043] Step 101: discloses coordination request message).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to combine the teachings of Wang, and Document CATT before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with that of LI so that wherein sending the coordination request to the second terminal device comprises: sending a coordination request carrying a periodic feedback flag to the second terminal device; wherein the periodic feedback flag is configured to instruct the second terminal device to periodically send the coordination information. The motivation to combine the teachings of LI would improve coordination. (LI, paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [00135], [00139],[00414], [00429], [00431], [0433], [00466], [00470]-[00471], and [00486]-[00487])
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that none of the cited references teach trigger condition is determined by the first terminal sending the coordination request. The claims do not explicitly recite any specific terminal that performs the determining. For example, claim 1 merely recites “determining a trigger condition of the coordination request” so does not require the trigger condition to be determined by the first terminal sending the coordination request.
Applicant also alleges that PDB of Wang is not associated with the trigger condition because it is used to determine the end time. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The phrase “is associated with” is a broad term such that any relationship would read on it. Even in paragraphs included in the arguments of the Applicant, there are relationships such as being utilized in the same apparatus/method. Thus, there is an association. Examiner suggests explicitly reciting the functional relationship between the trigger condition and PDB that distinguishes from the prior art.
Applicant also alleges that Wang does not take into account the arrival of the packet and whether it is the first. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Packets to be sent as taught by Wang implies arrival so the condition as claimed “is associated with” arrival as claimed. Also, first is a relative term and there is no recitation of second so any data packet can be interpreted to be the first because there is no recitation of any limitation of how to determine which packet is the first. Examiner suggests explicitly reciting the functional relationship between the trigger condition and the arrival as well as which packet is the first to distinguish from the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasper Kwoh whose telephone number is (408)918-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Friday, 10am to 4pm Pacific.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/JASPER KWOH/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights