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 .
Claims 1-6 and 20-43 are pending.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 and 20-30, in the reply filed on 12/8/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/8/25.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statements filed to date have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim et al., US 2015/0023267, (“Lim”).
Independent Claims
Regarding claim 1, Lim teaches “An apparatus for wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE) (Fig. 1, UE 110; e.g., the source D2D UE of Fig.4), comprising:
at least one memory (Fig. 1); and
at least one processor (Fig. 1) coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor is configured to cause the first UE to:
receive, from a network entity, an allocation of resources for a sidelink transmission, wherein the allocation of resources includes an indication of a destination identifier (ID) (Fig. 4, step S420 and paragraph no. 0072, “Thus, having performed the initiation for the D2D communication on the cellular network, the D2D user equipment receives information required for performing the D2D from the base station [S410]. The base station transmits D2D information (D2D info message) to the D2D user equipments (i.e., a source D2D user equipment and a target D2D user equipment) performing the D2D [S420]” and paragraph no. 0073, “In this case, the D2D information may include at least one of D2D related informations such as identifiers (IDs) of the source and target D2D user equipments, a D2D identifier (e.g., a D2D user equipment grouping ID, a D2D user equipment pairing ID, a D2D link ID, etc.), a resource allocation information for the D2D communication”; the “destination identifier” reads on the ID of the target D2D user equipment); and
transmit the sidelink transmission to a second UE based on the allocation of resources for the sidelink transmission and the destination ID associated with the second UE” (Fig. 4, step S430 and paragraph no. 0081, “Having received the D2D information from the base station, each of the source D2D user equipment and the target D2D user equipment transmits D2D data using the allocated resource [S430]. Having received the data from the source D2D user equipment through the allocated resource, the target D2D user equipment transmits a presence or non-presence of ACK/NACK for the received D2D data to the base station [S440]”; the “second UE” reads on the target D2D user equipment).
Regarding independent claim 30, this independent claim is a corresponding method claim of the apparatus claim 1 and recites similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 1 applies with equal force to this independent claim.
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.
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) 2 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Fakoorian et al., US 2021/0136783, (“Fakoorian”).
Regarding claims 2 and 31, Lim teaches “wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
receive, from the network entity, the allocation of resources for the sidelink transmission, wherein the allocation of resources include the indication of the destination ID (Fig. 4, step S420; paragraph nos. 0072, 0073, supra); and
transmit the sidelink transmission to the second UE based on the allocation of resources for the sidelink transmission and the destination ID associated with the second UE” (Fig. 4, step S430 and paragraph no. 0081, supra) as recited in claim 2 and similarly recited in claim 31.
Lim does not teach but Fakoorian teaches the “transceiver” limitations (see Fig. 5 which shows a UE including a transceiver 510 coupled to a processor 502) of claims 2 and 31.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Lim by incorporating the teachings of Fakoorian to integrate the receiver and transceiver functions into a single transceiver module, thereby reducing the size of the chip as is well known in the art.
Claim(s) 4 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Sun et al., US 12,089,202, (“Sun”).
Regarding claims 4 and 33, Lim does not teach but Sun teaches “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the first UE to: transmit a request for the allocation of resources for the sidelink transmission with the second UE, wherein the request comprises the destination ID associated with the second UE” (see col. 6, lines 5-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Lim by incorporating the teachings of Sun to enable the base station to allocate resources to the requesting UE based on an explicit request for SL resources from the requesting UE as is well known in the art, e.g., for mode 1 network scheduled resources.
Claim(s) 5 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Ryu et al., US 2022/0006688, (“Ryu”).
Regarding claims 5 and 34, Lim does not teach but Ryu teaches “wherein the sidelink transmission with the second UE that has the destination ID is a beamformed transmission” (see Fig. 7 and paragraph no. 0101 which disclose that a first UE (UE1) transmits to a second UE (UE2) via a beamformed transmission 710).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Lim by incorporating the teachings of Ryu to enable the UE to perform sidelink communications in millimeter wave frequencies, as suggested by Ryu in paragraph no. 0100.
Claim(s) 20, 23, 36-37, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Han et al., US 2024/0188181, (“Han”).
Independent Claims
Regarding independent claim 20, Lim teaches “An apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity (Fig. 1, BS 105; see Fig. 4 for the BS), comprising:
at least one memory (Fig. 1); and
at least one processor (Fig. 1) coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor is configured to cause the network entity to:
schedule an allocation of resources for sidelink transmission based on at least one of a destination identifier (ID) or a sidelink collision report for the sidelink transmission (Fig. 4, step S420 and paragraph no. 0072, “Thus, having performed the initiation for the D2D communication on the cellular network, the D2D user equipment receives information required for performing the D2D from the base station [S410]. The base station transmits D2D information (D2D info message) to the D2D user equipments (i.e., a source D2D user equipment and a target D2D user equipment) performing the D2D [S420]” and paragraph no. 0073, “In this case, the D2D information may include at least one of D2D related informations such as identifiers (IDs) of the source and target D2D user equipments, a D2D identifier (e.g., a D2D user equipment grouping ID, a D2D user equipment pairing ID, a D2D link ID, etc.), a resource allocation information for the D2D communication”; the “destination identifier” reads on the ID of the target D2D user equipment; note that Lim teaches the first alternative limitation “a destination identifier”; since the base station allocates the resources to the source and target D2D UEs, the base station implicitly teaches “schedule an allocation …” (emphasis added) since the scheduling is typically done in mode 1 resource allocation by a base station – however, see below for an explicit teaching of the claimed feature “schedule an allocation …” (emphasis added)); and
provide, to a first user equipment (UE), the allocation of resources for the sidelink transmission” (paragraph no. 0072, “The base station transmits D2D information (D2D info message) to the D2D user equipments (i.e., a source D2D user equipment and a target D2D user equipment) performing the D2D [S420]” and paragraph no. 0073, “In this case, the D2D information may include at least one of D2D related informations such as identifiers (IDs) of the source and target D2D user equipments, a D2D identifier (e.g., a D2D user equipment grouping ID, a D2D user equipment pairing ID, a D2D link ID, etc.), a resource allocation information for the D2D communication”; the “first user equipment” reads on the source D2D user equipment).
Han teaches explicitly the limitation “schedule an allocation of resources …” (paragraph nos. 0036, 0037 and in particular, paragraph no. 0037, “mode 1: base station schedules sidelink resources to be used by the UE for sidelink transmission(s)”) as required by claim 20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Lim by incorporating the teachings of Han to enable the base station to operate in accordance with NR specifications by employing mode 1 sidelink resource allocation mode, as suggested by Han in paragraph no. 0036.
Regarding independent claim 36, this independent claim is a corresponding method claim of the apparatus claim 20 and recites similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 20 applies with equal force to this independent claim.
Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 23 and 39, Lim teaches “wherein the allocation of resources comprises the destination ID of a second UE” (paragraph no. 0073 discloses the ID of a target D2D UE).
Regarding claim 37, Lim teaches “transmitting, to the first UE, the allocation of resources for the sidelink transmission” (paragraph nos. 0072, 0073).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim and Han as applied to claims 20 and 36 above, and further in view of Fakoorian.
Regarding claim 21, Lim teaches “wherein the at least one processor is configured to: transmit, to the first UE, the allocation of resources for the sidelink transmission” (paragraph nos. 0072, 0073).
Lim does not teach but Fakoorian teaches the “transceiver” limitations (see Fig. 5 which shows a UE including a transceiver 510 coupled to a processor 502) of claim 21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Lim and Han by incorporating the teachings of Fakoorian to integrate the receiver and transceiver functions into a single transceiver module, thereby reducing the size of the chip as is well known in the art.
Claim(s) 25-26, 41-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim and Han as applied to claims 20 and 36 above, and further in view of Ma et al., US 2023/0171625, (“Ma”).
Regarding claims 25 and 41, Lim does not teach but Ma teaches “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the network entity to:
receive, from a second UE, the sidelink collision report that indicates measured colliding sidelink transmissions from at least one additional UE” (Fig. 3, steps 325, 335, 340, 345; and paragraph no. 0141; the “at least one additional UE” reads on the first UE 115-c shown in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Lim and Han by incorporating the teachings of Ma to enable the base station to reduce the interference caused at the second UE by the first UE, as suggested by Ma in paragraph no. 0005.
Regarding claims 26 and 42, Lim does not teach but Ma teaches “wherein the sidelink collision report comprises, for each of the at least one additional UE, one or more of: a connection ID associated with colliding sidelink communication, or a level of interference for the colliding sidelink communication (the latter alternative limitation is taught by Ma in paragraph no. 0141).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Lim, Han, and Ma by incorporating the additional teachings of Ma to enable the base station to reduce the interference caused at the second UE by the first UE via interference level measurements, as suggested by Ma in paragraph no. 0005.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 22, 24, 27-29, 32, 35, 38, 40, and 43 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.
Regarding each of these dependent claims, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the claim limitations recited therein such that these claims, when viewed as a whole, recite allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
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