SNotice 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is response to the application filed 05/22/2025 havingclaims 1-30 pending and presented for examination.
Priority
2. Application filed on 01/24/2024 is a 371 of PCT/CN2021/116613 09/06/2021 are acknowledged.
Drawings
3. The drawings were received on 01/24/2024 and these drawings are accepted.
4. Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/24/2024is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
4. The Oath/Declaration filed on 01/24/2024 is accepted by the examiner.
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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is 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.
As explained in MPEP §2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g.,
“means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 25-30 recites a various means, the examiner is invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
1. 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 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.
2. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10, 10-12, 16-17, 19-20, 23-26,29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by US Publication US 20220303954
A1 HWANG et al. (Hereinafter “HWANG ").
As per claim 1, HWANG teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE), comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to: receive, from multiple UEs including a second UE, multiple sidelink control informations (SCIs) (para 0358-0362], fig 11, receiving from multiple UEs’ sidelink control informations (SCIs) ); select, from multiple resource conflict indications derived from the multiple SCIs, a resource conflict indication based at least in part on a priority scheme ( para 0374-0376], fig 11, selecting from the received information from multiple SCI’s selecting based on the priority scheme such as the measured RSRP); and transmit, to at least one of the multiple UEs including the second UE, the resource conflict indication in accordance with a transmission power level (para 0379- 0380], transmitting to a UE resource conflict indication in accordance with a transmission RSPR information received).
As per claim 2, HWANG teaches apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: select the transmission power level for transmitting the resource conflict indication, wherein the transmission power level is less than a transmission power level associated with a physical sidelink feedback channel carrying a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement feedback configured to be transmitted by the first UE (0011, [0305] 11, selecting from the received information from multiple SCI’s selecting based on the priority scheme such as the measured RSRP and received power values that are equal to or greater than a (pre)set threshold).
As per claim 3, HWANG teaches apparatus of claim 1, wherein a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement feedback is prioritized over the resource conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme (para [0305], hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement feedback is prioritized over the resource conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme).
As per claim 7, HWANG teaches apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to select the resource conflict indication based at least in part on the priority scheme, are configured to select the resource conflict indication from the multiple resource conflict indications irrespective of a packet priority associated with the resource conflict indication (para 0374-0376], fig 11, select the resource conflict indication from the multiple resource conflict indications irrespective of a packet priority associated with the resource conflict indication ).
As per claim 8, HWANG teaches apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to select the resource conflict indication based at least in part on the priority scheme, are configured to select the resource conflict indication from the multiple resource conflict indications based at least in part on a packet priority associated with each of the multiple resource conflict indications, wherein the packet priority is indicated in the multiple SCIs received from the multiple UEs ((para 0374-0376], fig 11, select the resource conflict indication from the multiple resource conflict indications based at least in part on a packet priority associated with each of the multiple resource conflict indications, wherein the packet priority is indicated in the multiple SCIs received from the multiple UEs).
As per claim 10, HWANG teaches method of wireless communication performed by a first user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving, from multiple UEs including a second UE, multiple sidelink control informations (SCIs) (para 0358-0362], fig 11, receiving from multiple UEs’ sidelink control informations (SCIs) ); selecting, from multiple resource conflict indications derived from the multiple SCIs, a resource conflict indication based at least in part on a priority scheme ( para 0374-0376], fig 11, selecting from the received information from multiple SCI’s selecting based on the priority scheme such as the measured RSRP); and transmitting, to at least one of the multiple UEs including the second UE, the resource conflict indication in accordance with a transmission power level (para 0379- 0380], transmitting to a UE resource conflict indication in accordance with a transmission RSPR information received)..
As per claim 11, HWANG teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising: selecting the transmission power level for transmitting the resource conflict indication, wherein the transmission power level is less than a transmission power level associated with a physical sidelink feedback channel carrying a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement feedback configured to be transmitted by the first UE(0011, [0305] 11, selecting from the received information from multiple SCI’s selecting based on the priority scheme such as the measured RSRP and received power values that are equal to or greater than a (pre)set threshold)..
As per claim 12, HWANG teaches the method of claim 10, wherein a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement feedback is prioritized over the resource conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme(para [0305], hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement feedback is prioritized over the resource conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme).
As per claim 16, HWANG teaches the method of claim 10, wherein selecting the resource conflict indication based at least in part on the priority scheme comprises selecting the resource conflict indication from the multiple resource conflict indications irrespective of a packet priority associated with the resource conflict indication (para 0374-0376], fig 11, select the resource conflict indication from the multiple resource conflict indications irrespective of a packet priority associated with the resource conflict indication )..
As per claim 17, HWANG teaches the method of claim 10, wherein selecting the resource conflict indication based at least in part on the priority scheme comprises selecting the resource conflict indication from the multiple resource conflict indications based at least in part on a packet priority associated with each of the multiple resource conflict indications, wherein the packet priority is indicated in the multiple SCIs received from the multiple UEs(para 0374-0376], fig 11, select the resource conflict indication from the multiple resource conflict indications based at least in part on a packet priority associated with each of the multiple resource conflict indications, wherein the packet priority is indicated in the multiple SCIs received from the multiple UEs)..
As per claim 19, HWANG teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a first user equipment (UE), cause the first UE to: receive, from multiple UEs including a second UE, multiple sidelink control informations (SCIs) (para 0358-0362], fig 11, receiving from multiple UEs’ sidelink control informations (SCIs) ); select, from multiple resource conflict indications derived from the multiple SCIs, a resource conflict indication based at least in part on a priority scheme ( para 0374-0376], fig 11, selecting from the received information from multiple SCI’s selecting based on the priority scheme such as the measured RSRP); and transmit, to at least one of the multiple UEs including the second UE, the resource conflict indication in accordance with a transmission power level (para 0379- 0380], transmitting to a UE resource conflict indication in accordance with a transmission RSPR information received)..
As per claim 20, HWANG teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the one or more instructions further cause the first UE to: select the transmission power level for transmitting the resource conflict indication, wherein the transmission power level is less than a transmission power level associated with a physical sidelink feedback channel carrying a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement feedback configured to be transmitted by the first UE (0011, [0305] 11, selecting from the received information from multiple SCI’s selecting based on the priority scheme such as the measured RSRP and received power values that are equal to or greater than a (pre)set threshold)..
As per claim 23, HWANG teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the first UE to select the resource conflict indication based at least in part on the priority scheme, cause the first UE to select the resource conflict indication from the multiple resource conflict indications irrespective of a packet priority associated with the resource conflict indication (para 0374-0376], fig 11, select the resource conflict indication from the multiple resource conflict indications irrespective of a packet priority associated with the resource conflict indication )..
As per claim 24, HWANG teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the first UE to select the resource conflict indication based at least in part on the priority scheme, cause the first UE to select the resource conflict indication from the multiple resource conflict indications based at least in part on a packet priority associated with each of the multiple resource conflict indications, wherein the packet priority is indicated in the multiple SCIs received from the multiple UEs ((para 0374-0376], fig 11, select the resource conflict indication from the multiple resource conflict indications based at least in part on a packet priority associated with each of the multiple resource conflict indications, wherein the packet priority is indicated in the multiple SCIs received from the multiple UEs)..
As per claim 25, HWANG teaches a first apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: means for receiving, from multiple apparatuses including a second apparatus, multiple sidelink control informations (SCIs) (para 0358-0362], fig 11, receiving from multiple UEs’ sidelink control informations (SCIs) ); means for selecting, from multiple resource conflict indications derived from the multiple SCIs, a resource conflict indication based at least in part on a priority scheme ( para 0374-0376], fig 11, selecting from the received information from multiple SCI’s selecting based on the priority scheme such as the measured RSRP); and means for transmitting, to the second apparatus, the resource conflict indication in accordance with a transmission power level (para 0379- 0380], transmitting to a UE resource conflict indication in accordance with a transmission RSPR information received).
As per claim 26, HWANG teaches the first apparatus of claim 25, further comprising: means for selecting the transmission power level for transmitting the resource conflict indication, wherein the transmission power level is less than a transmission power level associated with a physical sidelink feedback channel carrying a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement feedback configured to be transmitted by the first apparatus (0011, [0305] 11, selecting from the received information from multiple SCI’s selecting based on the priority scheme such as the measured RSRP and received power values that are equal to or greater than a (pre)set threshold)..
As per claim 29, HWANG teaches the first apparatus of claim 25, wherein the means for selecting the resource conflict indication based at least in part on the priority scheme comprises means for selecting the resource conflict indication from the multiple resource conflict indications irrespective of a packet priority associated with the resource conflict indication (para 0374-0376], fig 11, select the resource conflict indication from the multiple resource conflict indications irrespective of a packet priority associated with the resource conflict indication )..
As per claim 30, HWANG teaches the first apparatus of claim 25, wherein the means for selecting the resource conflict indication based at least in part on the priority scheme comprises means for selecting the resource conflict indication from the multiple resource conflict indications based at least in part on a packet priority associated with each of the multiple resource conflict indications, wherein the packet priority is indicated in the multiple SCIs received from the multiple apparatuses ((para 0374-0376], fig 11, select the resource conflict indication from the multiple resource conflict indications based at least in part on a packet priority associated with each of the multiple resource conflict indications, wherein the packet priority is indicated in the multiple SCIs received from the multiple UEs)..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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 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.
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
3. 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.
4. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claim(s) 4-6, 9, 13-15, 18, 21-22, 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HWANG further view of US PG Pub US 20240163903 A1 to Sun et al (hereinafter Sun).
As per claim 4, HWANG teaches apparatus of claim 1, Sun teaches wherein the multiple resource conflict indications include an expected or potential conflict indication and a detected conflict indication (para 0036], resource conflicts include include an expected or potential conflict indication and a detected conflict indication).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the combination system of HWANG by wherein the multiple resource conflict indications include an expected or potential conflict indication and a detected conflict indication as suggested by Sun, this modification would benefit HWANG for enabling a better handling prioritization of signaling for sidelink resource conflict in a wireless communication system.
As per claim 5, HWANG teaches apparatus of claim 4, Sun teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to select the expected or potential conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme, wherein the expected or potential conflict indication is prioritized over the detected conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme ((para 0040], to select the expected or potential conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme and it is prioritized over the detected conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 4.
As per claim 6, HWANG teaches apparatus of claim 4, Sun teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to select the detected conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme, wherein the detected conflict indication is prioritized over the expected or potential conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme (((para 0040], detected conflict indication is prioritized over the expected or potential conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 4.
As per claim 9, HWANG teaches apparatus of claim 1, Sun teaches wherein the multiple resource conflict indications are each associated with a same packet priority (para 0110], multiple resource conflict indications are each associated with a same packet priority).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 4.
As per claim 13, HWANG teaches the method of claim 10, Sun teaches wherein the multiple resource conflict indications include an expected or potential conflict indication and a detected conflict indication (para 0036], resource conflicts include include an expected or potential conflict indication and a detected conflict indication).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 4.
As per claim 14, HWANG teaches the method of claim 13, Sun teaches further comprising selecting the expected or potential conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme, wherein the expected or potential conflict indication is prioritized over the detected conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme(para 0040], detected conflict indication is prioritized over the expected or potential conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 4.
As per claim 15, HWANG teaches the method of claim 13, Sun teaches further comprising selecting the detected conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme, wherein the detected conflict indication is prioritized over the expected or potential conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme(para 0110], multiple resource conflict indications are each associated with a same packet priority).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 4.
As per claim 18, HWANG teaches the method of claim 10, Sun teaches wherein the multiple resource conflict indications are each associated with a same packet priority (para 0110], multiple resource conflict indications are each associated with a same packet priority).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 4.
As per claim 21, HWANG teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, Sun teaches wherein a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement feedback is prioritized over the resource conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme, and wherein the multiple resource conflict indications include an expected or potential conflict indication and a detected conflict indication ((para 0040], to select the expected or potential conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme and it is prioritized over the detected conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 4..
As per claim 22, HWANG teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, Sun teaches wherein the one or more instructions further cause the first UE to select the expected or potential conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme, wherein the expected or potential conflict indication is prioritized over the detected conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme, or wherein the detected conflict indication is prioritized over the expected or potential conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme ((para 0040], detected conflict indication is prioritized over the expected or potential conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme)..
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 4.
As per claim 27, HWANG teaches the first apparatus of claim 25, Sun teaches wherein a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement feedback is prioritized over the resource conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme, and wherein the multiple resource conflict indications include an expected or potential conflict indication and a detected conflict indication (para 0040], resource conflicts include include an expected or potential conflict indication and a detected conflict indication)..
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 4.
As per claim 28, HWANG teaches the first apparatus of claim 27, Sun teaches further comprising means for selecting the expected or potential conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme, wherein the expected or potential conflict indication is prioritized over the detected conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme, or wherein the detected conflict indication is prioritized over the expected or potential conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme ((para 0040], to select the expected or potential conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme and it is prioritized over the detected conflict indication in accordance with the priority scheme).
Examiner supplies the same rationale as supplied in claim 4.
Conclusion
Prior arts made of record, not relied upon: US Patent Publication US 20200396747 A1; US Patent Publication US 20220132491 A1, US Patent Publication US 20210022084 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANEZ EBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7153. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM to 5 PM If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on (571) 272-3940. 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.
/ANEZ C EBRAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467