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 .
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 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are in claim 29: means for monitoring at least one; means for selecting; and means for transmitting a sidelink.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: ¶0104,
the apparatus 1402, and in particular the baseband processor 1404, includes means for monitoring at least one resource subset in a set of resource subsets configured for random selection of a sidelink transmission resource. The apparatus 1402, and in particular the baseband processor 1404, may also include means for selecting, based on the monitoring of the at least one resource subset, a resource subset in the set of resource subsets configured for the random selection of the sidelink transmission resource. The apparatus 1402, and in particular the baseband processor 1404, may further include means for transmitting a
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As to claim 30, the claim limitation recites “a computer readable medium storing …”. However, the usage of the phrase “computer readable medium” is broad enough to include both “non-transitory” and “transitory” (carrier wave, for example) media. The specification does not clearly limit the utilization of a non-transitory computer readable medium. Thus, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and taking into account the meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP §2111), the claims as a whole cover both transitory and non-transitory media. A transitory medium does not fall into any of the 4 categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Hence, claims 12-20 do not fall within any statutory category under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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, 2, 6-11, 16, 17, 19-24, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin, Huei-Ming et al (WO 2021/007686 A1), hereinafter “Ming”.
Regarding claim 1, Ming discloses “An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE)” (see Ming figure 1); comprising “a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory” (See Ming Figure 1); configure to : “monitor at least one resource subset in a set of resource subsets” (see Ming ¶ 0038, ¶ 0039; discloses excluding and gathering a subset of resources from the initial candidate resource set of the pool set of resources, the excluded set will be used for final selection, which means the excluded subset will be monitored for final selection ); “configured for random selection of a sidelink transmission resource” (see Ming ¶ 0039; discloses The final selection could be done by random selection of one or more Sidelink resources for the initial and retransmissions); “ select, from the at least one resource subset monitored by the UE, a resource subset in the set of resource subsets configured for the random selection of the sidelink transmission resource” (see Ming ¶ 0038, ¶ 0039; discloses excluding and gathering a subset of resources from the initial candidate resource set of the pool set of resources, the excluded set will be used for final selection, which means the excluded subset will be monitored for final selection, The final selection could be done by random selection of one or more Sidelink resources for the initial and retransmissions) ; “and transmit a sidelink message in a randomly selected transmission resource within the selected resource subset (see Ming ¶ 0041; The final selection could be done by random selection of one or more SL resources for the initial and retransmissions of a packet TB and/or future TBs)
Regarding claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, Ming further discloses “wherein to monitor the at least one resource subset, the memory and the at least one processor are further configured to compare one or more of a reference signal received power (RSRP) or a set of decoding failures to a selection metric”; (see Ming ¶ 0038; based on the measured associated RSSI/RSRP levels, the UE exclude the SL resources).
Regarding claim 6, claim 1 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, Ming further discloses “wherein to monitor the at least one resource subset, the memory and the at least one processor are further configured to measure one or more of a reference signal received power (RSRP), a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), or a channel busy ratio (CBR) for each resource subset in the set of resource subsets configured for the random selection of the sidelink transmission resource.”; (see Ming ¶ 0038; based on the measured associated RSSI/RSRP levels, the UE exclude the SL resources).
Regarding claim 7, claim 6 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, Ming further discloses “wherein the resource subset is selected from a set of candidate resource subsets having a measured RSRP, a measured RSSI, or a measured CBR below a threshold..”; (see Ming ¶ 0038; based on the measured/associated RSSI/RSRP levels for the already allocated/reserved resources from Step 1 and UE’s target Tx power, the Tx-UE excludes all SL resources adjacent to resources 105, 106, 108, 109, 111, and 112 from the initial candidate resource set (S_INITIAL) with a power difference larger than X dB. For an excluded SL resource, it has a size of at least one PRB or one PSCCH/PSSCH sub-channel).
Regarding claim 8, claim 7 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, Ming further discloses “wherein to select the resource subset, the memory and the at least one processor are configured to randomly select one resource subset in the set of candidate resource subsets..”; (see Ming ¶ 0038; based on the measured/associated RSSI/RSRP levels for the already allocated/reserved resources from Step 1 and UE’s target Tx power, the Tx-UE excludes all SL resources adjacent to resources 105, 106, 108, 109, 111, and 112 from the initial candidate resource set (S_INITIAL) with a power difference larger than X dB. For an excluded SL resource, it has a size of at least one PRB or one PSCCH/PSSCH sub-channel).
Regarding claim 9, claim 7 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, Ming further discloses “wherein to select the resource subset, the memory and the at least one processor are configured to select the resource subset with a lowest associated RSRP, a lowest associated RSSI, or a lowest associated CBR from the set of candidate resource subsets”; (see Ming ¶ 0038; based on the measured/associated RSSI/RSRP levels for the already allocated/reserved resources from Step 1 and UE’s target Tx power, the Tx-UE excludes all SL resources adjacent to resources 105, 106, 108, 109, 111, and 112 from the initial candidate resource set (S_INITIAL) with a power difference larger than X dB. For an excluded SL resource, it has a size of at least one PRB or one PSCCH/PSSCH sub-channel).
Regarding claim 10, claim 7 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, Ming further discloses “wherein the memory and the at least one processor are further configured to: rank each resource subset in the set of resource subsets with an order based on the measured RSRP, the measured RSSI, or the measured CBR”; (see Ming ¶ 0039; prioritizing SL resources with the least power difference to the adjacent/neighboring ones).
Regarding claim 11, claim 1 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, Ming further discloses “wherein to monitor the at least one resource subset, the memory and the at least one processor is configured to measure one or more of a reference signal received power (RSRP), a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), or a channel busy ratio (CBR) for a subset of the set of resource subsets in the set of resource subsets associated with sidelink communication.”; (see Ming ¶ 0039; see Ming ¶ 0038; based on the measured associated RSSI/RSRP levels, the UE exclude the SL resources).
Regarding claim 16, claim 1 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, Ming further discloses “at least one antenna coupled to the at least one processor.”; (see Ming figure 1).
Claims 17 and 19- 24 are the method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 1, 6 - 11 that have been rejected above. Applicant attention is directed to the rejection of claims 1, 6 - 11. Claims 17 and 19- 24 are rejected under the same rational as claims 1, 6 - 11.
Claim 29 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the apparatus claims 1 that has been rejected above. Applicant attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1. Claim 29 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Claim 30 is the computer readable medium claim corresponding to the apparatus claims 1 that has been rejected above. Applicant attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1. Claim 30 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 14 and 27 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ming et al (WO 2021/007686 A1).
Most of the limitations of claim 14 have been noted in the rejection of claim 1. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Ming discloses wherein to monitor the at least one resource subset, the memory and the at least one processor are configured to perform a discloses excluding and gathering a subset of resources from the initial candidate resource set of the pool set of resources, the excluded set will be used for final selection, which means the excluded subset will be monitored for final selection).
Ming does not appear to explicitly disclose that the monitoring is periodic. However. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ming before him or her, to modify the invention of Ming to perform periodic monitoring of the resources. The suggestion for doing so would have been to improve the performance of the system by improving the resource allocation and selection.
Claim 27 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claims 14 that has been rejected above. Applicant attention is directed to the rejection of claim 14. Claim 27 is rejected under the same rational as claim 14.
Claims 3-5 and 18 are rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ming et al (WO 2021/007686 A1) in view of Lin et al (US Pub. No. 2023/0028098 A1).
Most of the limitations of claim 3 have been noted in the rejection of claim 2. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 2 above.
Ming does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein to select the resource subset, the memory and the at least one processor are further configured to: switch from a prior resource subset for the random selection of the sidelink transmission resource based on a channel busy ratio (CBR) for the prior resource subset exceeding a threshold. However, Lin discloses wherein to select the resource subset, the memory and the at least one processor are further configured to: switch from a prior resource subset for the random selection of the sidelink transmission resource based on a channel busy ratio (CBR) for the prior resource subset exceeding a threshold; (See Lin ¶ 0051; As such, the Tx-UE can try to (re)select SL resources from the middle or last time-portions of the RSW or the remaining candidate resource set S′.sub.A, for example when the measured channel busy ratio (CBR) or channel occupancy ratio (CR) for a time-portion is less than a certain M %, where M could be 60, 50, or less. Or the Tx-UE can avoid (re)selecting resources from time-portions that have CBR or CR higher than M % ). ”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ming and Lin before him or her, to modify the invention of Ming to switch or reselect different resource subset based on CBR. The suggestion for doing so would have been to improve resource allocation of, which can provide a good communication performance and high reliability (¶ 0002).
Regarding claim 4, claim 3 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, the combination of Ming and Lin further discloses “wherein the resource subset is a randomly selected resource set from the set of resource subsets in response to the prior resource subset having the CBR exceeding the threshold”; (see Lin ¶ 0041, ¶ 0051).
Most of the limitations of claim 5 have been noted in the rejection of claim 1. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1 above.
Ming does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein to monitor the at least one resource subset, the memory and the at least one processor are configured to monitor a current selected resource subset of the set of resource subsets configured for the random selection of the sidelink transmission resource. However, Lin discloses wherein to monitor the at least one resource subset, the memory and the at least one processor are configured to monitor a current selected resource subset of the set of resource subsets configured for the random selection of the sidelink transmission resource; (See Lin ¶ 0066; where the resource sensing/monitoring operation comprises of decoding physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) to extract information on one or more of the time and frequency resource assignments for the current and future intended/reserved resources). ”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ming and Lin before him or her, to modify the invention of Ming to monitor current allocated or selected resources. The suggestion for doing so would have been to improve resource allocation of, which can provide a good communication performance and high reliability (¶ 0002).
Claim 18 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claims 5 that has been rejected above. Applicant attention is directed to the rejection of claim 5. Claim 18 is rejected under the same rational as claim 5.
Claims 12, 13, 15, 25, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ming et al (WO 2021/007686 A1) in view of Samsung “on resource allocation for power saving” 3GPP Draft; R1-2101231 3RD Generation partnership project (3GPP), hereinafter “Samsung” (provided by applicant).
Most of the limitations of claim 12 have been noted in the rejection of claim 11. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 11 above.
Ming does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the subset of the set of resource subsets is based on one of a UE source identifier associated with the UE, a groupcast identifier associated with the UE, or an application identifier associated with the UE, wherein the resource subset is selected from the subset of the set of resource subsets. However, Samsung discloses wherein the subset of the set of resource subsets is based on one of a UE source identifier associated with the UE, a groupcast identifier associated with the UE, or an application identifier associated with the UE, wherein the resource subset is selected from the subset of the set of resource subsets; (See Samsung Section 2.1 ; Resource partitioning is based on UE ID, UE service class, priority of SL data and also discloses sensing window by monitoring periodical subframes corresponding resources selection window). ”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ming and Samsung before him or her, to modify the invention of Ming to select the resources according to one of a UE source identifier associated with the UE, a groupcast identifier associated with the UE, or an application identifier associated with the UE. The suggestion for doing so would have been to improve resource allocation and reduce collision probability (conclusion).
Most of the limitations of claim 13 have been noted in the rejection of claim 1. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1 above.
Ming does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one resource subset is monitored based on at least one of a UE source identifier associated with the UE, a groupcast identifier associated with the UE, or an application identifier associated with the UE. However, Samsung discloses wherein the at least one resource subset is monitored based on at least one of a UE source identifier associated with the UE, a groupcast identifier associated with the UE, or an application identifier associated with the UE.; (See Samsung Section 2.1 ; Resource partitioning is based on UE ID, UE service class, priority of SL data and also discloses sensing window by monitoring periodical subframes corresponding resources selection window). ”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ming and Samsung before him or her, to modify the invention of Ming to select the resources according to one of a UE source identifier associated with the UE, a groupcast identifier associated with the UE, or an application identifier associated with the UE. The suggestion for doing so would have been to improve resource allocation and reduce collision probability (conclusion).
Most of the limitations of claim 15 have been noted in the rejection of claim 14. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 14 above.
Ming does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein a period of the periodic monitoring is based on at least one of a UE source identifier, a groupcast identifier, or an application identifier.. However, Samsung discloses wherein a period of the periodic monitoring is based on at least one of a UE source identifier, a groupcast identifier, or an application identifier.; (See Samsung Section 2.1 ; Resource partitioning is based on UE ID, UE service class, priority of SL data and also discloses sensing window by monitoring periodical subframes corresponding resources selection window). ”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ming and Samsung before him or her, to modify the invention of Ming to select the resources according to one of a UE source identifier associated with the UE, a groupcast identifier associated with the UE, or an application identifier associated with the UE. The suggestion for doing so would have been to improve resource allocation and reduce collision probability (conclusion).
Claims 25, 26 and 28 are the method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 12, 13 and 15 that have been rejected above. Applicant attention is directed to the rejection of claims 12, 13 and 15. Claims 25, 26 and 28 are rejected under the same rational as claims 12, 13 and 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED M KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3770. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 PM.
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.
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.
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475