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 .
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 7/1/26.
Claims 11 and 20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al., US 2022/0322359, (“Ye”), in view of Xiang et al., US 2023/0039093, (“Xiang”), newly cited.
Regarding independent claim 11, Ye teaches “A user device, UE, for a wireless communication network, the wireless communication network comprising a plurality of user devices, UEs (see Fig. 1; see Fig. 2, UE 106 or second UE, infra),
wherein the UE is to communicate with one or more network entities of the wireless communication network (Fig. 2),
wherein, responsive to a trigger for a transmission, the UE is to acquire resources for the transmission (paragraph no. 0141, “At 1002, triggering conditions for transmitting an inter-UE coordination message may be negotiated between a first UE and a second UE … whether the second UE will send a triggering signal (e.g., such as a sidelink coordination request message) to the first UE”; note that the sidelink coordination request message is a request for resources for SL transmission to the first UE – see Fig. 9, steps 902, 904, 906 which is performed by the first UE in response to receiving the sidelink coordination request message),
wherein the UE is to receive from one or more further UEs one or more reports or assistance information messages, AIMs, the report or AIM comprising resource allocation related assistance information (paragraph no. 0144, “At 1008, the first UE may send an inter-UE coordination message to the second UE. The inter-UE coordination message may include an indication of a set of resources for sidelink communications”; the “one or more … AIMs” reads on the inter-UE coordination message), and
wherein, the type of resource allocation related assistance information comprises a set of available or preferred resources within a selection window of the further UE, the set of available or preferred resources being a received candidate resource set (paragraph no. 0006, “the set of resources may be indicated via one or more bitmaps, e.g., included in the inter-UE coordination message. In some embodiments, a bit within a bitmap may indicate availability of a resource within the set of resources as available or unavailable”; paragraph no. 0150, “In some embodiments, an inter-UE coordination message may include a resource map indicating a set of resources for a receiving UE (e.g., such as a UE 106) to use for sidelink communications. For example, a coordinating UE, e.g., a first UE (such as a UE 106), may detect available and unavailable resources within a resource selection window”),
responsive to the trigger, the UE is to perform a resource selection process to acquire an own candidate resource set for the transmission” (paragraph no. 0165, “when the sidelink coordination request message is a multi-bit message …The multi-bit sidelink coordination request message may include a list of pre-candidate resources for the first UE to recommend to the second UE. The list of pre-candidate resources may include resources based on the second UE's resource selection”; the “own candidate resource set” reads on the pre-candidate resources which the second UE selected based on its own resource selection).
Ye does not teach but Xiang teaches “the UE is to combine the resources from the own candidate resource set and from the received candidate resource set as follows:
if a resource is indicated in the received candidate resource set but not in the own candidate resource set, the UE is to include the resource into the combined candidate resource set (paragraph nos. 0119, 0121, 0122, 0130, 0132; in particular, see paragraph no. 0132, “If the first sidelink candidate resource and the at least one second sidelink candidate resource do not overlap, the first terminal device may use the first sidelink candidate resource as the available sidelink resource, or use the at least one second sidelink candidate resource as the available sidelink resource, or use a union set of the first sidelink candidate resource and the at least one second candidate sidelink resource as the available sidelink resource”) as recited in claim 11.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Ye by incorporating the teachings of Xiang to facilitate selecting a suitable resource for sidelink transmission by the transmitting UE, as suggested by Xiang in paragraph no. 0004.
Regarding independent claim 20, this independent claim is a corresponding method claim of the apparatus claim 11 and recites similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 11 applies with equal force to this independent claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON TAE C. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/WON TAE C KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights