DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted June 8, 2026. Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on June 8, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-18, and 20-23 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the prior art of record fails to teach determining a conflict resource. The Examiner notes that this conflict resource can take, i.e. “comprises,” one of four forms: (1) “physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) resource(s), reserved by two second terminals, that overlap”; (2) “a conflict between PSSCH TX and PSSCH RX”; (3) “a conflict between UL TX and PSSCH RX; or (4) “a conflict between UL TX and PSSCH TX.” (Remarks, pp. 12-15).
The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments, but respectfully disagrees. For instance, Levitsky teaches detecting colliding allocations on the sidelink (e.g. [0029]-[0030]; note also that reservation and scheduling information is determined). Further, with respect to an interpretation of an overlap occurring between two other sidelink resources, this features is at least taught by Sarkis (e.g. [0098]). Still further, Applicant’s arguments are rendered moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection set forth below. The Examiner notes that the reference Hosseini set forth below, which was first cited in the Office action mailed November 26, 2025 (p. 4), teaches recognizing conflicts between uplink and a sidelink communications ([0006]-[0011], [0050], [0051], [0074]-[0080]).
Applicant also argues that the prior art of record fails to teach the step of conflict handling, or not, depending on if “the first terminal needs to receive a transport block” (Remarks, pp. 15-16). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. At the least, Levitsky teaches rescheduling for future transmissions ([0076]).
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1, 16, 20, and all dependent thereon, 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.
Regarding claims 1, 16, and 20: the claims specify “(PSSCH) resource(s), reserved by two second terminals, that overlap…” (claim 1, line 4; emphasis added by Examiner), and “…a duplex conflict exists between the first terminal and the PSSCH resource(s) reserved by the second terminal” (claim 1, lines 5-6; emphasis added by Examiner). It is unclear if the reference to “the second terminal” (at line 6) is referring to both second terminals (introduced at line 4), or just one of the terminals introduced. For purposes of examination, reference to this term is interpreted as either one or both of the terminals.
The claim is separately indefinite because it is unclear if the term “physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) resource(s)… that overlap” (claim 1, lines 3-4; emphasis added by Examiner) should be interpreted as one or more resource or a plurality of resource. For purposes of examination, the said limitation is interpreted as either one or more resources; and further, that these one or more resources are reserved by one or two respective second terminals. The Examiner also notes that the overlapping of these resources (line 4) is interpreted as either an overlapping of the two resources with each other, or an overlapping with another resource.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 1 is applicable to the terminal and medium of claims 1, 16, and 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2022/0167414 A1 (hereinafter “Levitsky”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Levitsky, in view of either U.S. Publication No. 2022/0225160 (hereinafter “Sarkis”) or U.S. Publication No. 2021/0022184 (hereinafter “Hosseini”).
Regarding claims 1, 16, and 20: Levitsky teaches resource processing method, comprising:
determining, by a first terminal, a conflict resource, wherein the conflict resource is determined by the first terminal through detection, the conflict resource comprises physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) resource(s), reserved by two second terminals, that overlap, or a duplex conflict exists between the first terminal and the PSSCH resource(s) reserved by the second terminal, wherein the duplex conflict comprises one of the following: a conflict between PSSCH TX and PSSCH RX, a conflict between UL TX and PSSCH RX, and a conflict between UL TX and PSSCH TX (see, e.g., [0043], [0074], [0076], [0082], [0099], [0101]; UEs detect and/or are notified of collisions);
in a case that the first terminal needs to receive a transport block (TB) on the conflict resource, if the first terminal determines that a transmission conflict exist on the conflict resource, a conflict handling operation for the conflict resource is performed, if the first terminal determines that a transmission conflict does not exist on the conflict resource, the conflict handling operation for the conflict resource is not performed (see, e.g., [0076], [0102]; post-conflict determination operations include sidelink resource selection).
Levitsky does not explicitly state the feature “the conflict resource comprises physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) resource(s) reserved by a second terminal, wherein the PSSCH resources reserved by two second terminals overlap, or a duplex conflict exists between the first terminal and the PSSCH resource(s) reserved by the second terminal.” To the extent this feature is not inherent to Levitsky, and/or because of the alternative language in the claim, the said feature is nevertheless taught in Sarkis (see, e.g., figures 2-4, [0094]-[0098], [0120], [0121]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Sarkis, such as the other UEs’ conflict and/or duplex recognition functionality, within the system of Levitsky, in order to improve conflict resolution in the sidelink.
Alternatively to Sarkis, the said feature is taught in Hosseini (see, e.g., [0006]-[0011], [0050], [0051]. [0074]-[0080]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Hosseini, such as the resource conflict detection and/or notification functionality, within the system of Levitsky, in order to handle collisions between an access link and a sidelink.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 1 is applicable to the terminal and medium of claims 16 and 20, respectively.
Regarding claims 2 and 17: Levitsky alternatively modified by Sarkis or Hosseini further teaches wherein the determining, by the first terminal, a conflict resource comprises: determining, by the first terminal, the conflict resource based on resource information; wherein the resource information is used to represent at least one of the following: a resource of the first terminal and a resource of at least one second terminal (see, e.g., Levitsky [0043], [0074], [0076], [0082], [0099], [0101]; collisions are detected with respect to indicated resources for UEs in the sidelink). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 2.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 2 is applicable to the terminal of claim 17.
Regarding claims 3 and 18: Levitsky alternatively modified by Sarkis or Hosseini further teaches wherein the conflict handling operation comprises: reselecting a resource (see, e.g., Levitsky [0102]; note reselecting functionality). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 3.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 3 is applicable to the terminal of claim 18.
Regarding claims 5 and 6: Levitsky alternatively modified by Sarkis or Hosseini further teaches wherein the determining a transmission conflict exists on the conflict resource further comprises: determining presence of the transmission conflict in a case of at least one of the following: the first terminal needs to send a TB on the conflict resource; the first terminal needs to receive a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback on the conflict resource; and the first terminal needs to send a HARQ feedback on the conflict resource; wherein the TB is a TB corresponding to the conflict resource, and the HARQ feedback is a HARQ feedback corresponding to the conflict resource (i.e. claim 5); and wherein absence of the transmission conflict is determined in a case of at least one of the following: the first terminal has successfully demodulated the TB before the conflict resource; the first terminal is able to successfully send the TB before the conflict resource; the first terminal does not need to receive a HARQ feedback on the conflict resource; and the first terminal does not need to send a HARQ feedback on the conflict resource; wherein the TB is a TB corresponding to the conflict resource, and the HARQ feedback is a HARQ feedback corresponding to the conflict resource (i.e. claim 6). (See, e.g., Levitsky [0052]-[0056]; Sarkis [0089]; and/or Hosseini [0051], [0073], [0074], [0085]; note TB reception/transmission and/or HARQ applicability; note also Levitsky [0043], [0074], [0076], [0082], [0099], [0101]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claims 5 and 6.
Regarding claim 7: Levitsky alternatively modified by Sarkis or Hosseini further teaches wherein the method further comprises: detecting, by the first terminal, whether a last transmission of a TB corresponding to the conflict resource before the conflict resource is successful (See, e.g., Levitsky [0084]; Sarkis [0089]; and/or Hosseini [0051], [0073], [0074], [0085]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8: Levitsky alternatively modified by Sarkis or Hosseini further teaches wherein the performing a conflict handling operation for the conflict resource comprises: performing a conflict handling operation for the conflict resource in a case that at least one of the following is satisfied: a transmission type corresponding to the conflict resource is a target transmission type; quality of service (QoS) of transmission information corresponding to the conflict resource is target QoS; no transmission resource for a TB corresponding to the conflict resource is present after the conflict resource; and the first terminal is unable to send a plurality of physical sidelink feedback channels (PSFCHs) on the conflict resource, or a transmit power of at least one PSFCH of the first terminal on the conflict resource is lower than or equal to a threshold (See, e.g., Levitsky [0041], [0064], [0065], [0071], [0072], [0101]; Sarkis [0094]-[0098]; and/or Hosseini [0047], [0049], [0085], [0089], [0095]; note functionalities teaching each alternative limitation). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9: Levitsky alternatively modified by Sarkis or Hosseini further teaches wherein the performing a conflict handling operation for the conflict resource comprises: in a case that the conflict resource is being indicated as an SL resource of the first terminal for the first time, performing the conflict handling operation for the conflict resource under a first condition; or in a case that the conflict resource is not being indicated as an SL resource of the first terminal for the first time, performing the conflict handling operation for the conflict resource under a second condition; wherein the first condition comprises at least one of the following: a transmission type corresponding to the conflict resource is a target transmission type; QoS of transmission information corresponding to the conflict resource is target QoS; no transmission resource for a TB corresponding to the conflict resource is present after the conflict resource; and the first terminal is unable to send a plurality of PSFCHs on the conflict resource, or a transmit power of at least one PSFCH of the first terminal on the conflict resource is lower than or equal to a threshold; wherein the second condition comprises at least one of the following: a transmission type corresponding to the conflict resource is a target transmission type; QoS of transmission information corresponding to the conflict resource is target QoS; no transmission resource for a TB corresponding to the conflict resource is present after the conflict resource; and the first terminal is unable to send a plurality of PSFCHs on the conflict resource, or a transmit power of at least one PSFCH of the first terminal on the conflict resource is lower than or equal to a threshold; wherein content contained in the first condition is different from that in the second condition (See, e.g., Levitsky [0052]-[0056], [0076], [0102]; Sarkis [0094]-[0098]; and/or Hosseini [0051], [0073], [0074], [0085]; note conflict handling operations). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10: Levitsky alternatively modified by Sarkis or Hosseini further teaches wherein the conflict handling operation comprises at least one of the following: reselecting a resource; discarding the conflict resource; feeding back HARQ information; and notifying a second terminal, wherein the second terminal is a peer end of the first terminal on a physical sidelink channel (See, e.g., Levitsky [0052], [0076], [0102]; Sarkis [0094]-[0098]; and/or Hosseini [0073], [0074], [0076]; note conflict handling operations). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11: Levitsky alternatively modified by Sarkis or Hosseini further teaches wherein the performing a conflict handling operation for the conflict resource comprises: performing the conflict handling operation for the conflict resource based on a detection result at a target time point, wherein the detection result at the target time point is used to indicate at least one of the following: the conflict resource; whether there is a transmission conflict; a transmission type of the conflict resource; a priority of transmission information of the conflict resource; after the conflict resource, whether there is a transmission resource for a TB corresponding to the conflict resource; and whether the first terminal is able to send a plurality of PSFCHs on the conflict resource, or whether a transmit power of at least one PSFCH of the first terminal on the conflict resource is lower than or equal to a threshold (See, e.g., Levitsky [0043], [0072], [0075], [0085], [0089], [0093], [0109], [0114]; and/or Sarkis [0094]-[0098]; and/or Hosseini [0006], [0089]; note conflict handling operations). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12: Levitsky alternatively modified by Sarkis or Hosseini further teaches wherein the determining a conflict resource comprises: determining a conflict resource at a target time point; or determining a conflict resource at multiple time points comprising the target time point(See, e.g., Levitsky [0085], [0089], [0109], [0114]; note target timing).
Regarding claims 13 and 14: Levitsky alternatively modified by Sarkis or Hosseini further teaches wherein the target time point comprises at least one of the following: a time point T1 before resource indication being performed on an SL resource of the first terminal; a time point prior to the time point T1 before resource indication being performed on the SL resource of the first terminal; a time point T1 before reservation of the SL resource of the first terminal; a time point prior to the time point T1 before reservation of the SL resource of the first terminal; a time point T2 before the SL resource of the first terminal; a time point prior to the time point T2 before the SL resource of the first terminal; a time point T3 before an SL resource of the second terminal; a time point prior to the time point T3 before the SL resource of the second terminal; a time point T3 after sending of reservation indication signaling for the SL resource of the second terminal; a time point being after sending of the reservation indication signaling for the SL resource of the second terminal and being within the time point T3 after sending of the reservation indication signaling for the SL resource of the second terminal; a time point T4 before sending of conflict indication signaling associated with the SL resource of the second terminal; and a time point prior to the time point T4 before sending of the conflict indication signaling associated with the SL resource of the second terminal; wherein the SL resource of the second terminal is a resource used by the second terminal for SL transmission to the first terminal, and the T1, T2, T3 and T4 represent same or different time resources(i.e. claim 13); and wherein the performing resource indication on the SL resource of the first terminal comprises: performing the i-th resource indication on the SL resource of the first terminal, wherein i is an integer greater than or equal to 1 (i.e. claim 14) (See, e.g., Levitsky [0085], [0089], [0109], [0114]; see also Levitsky [0043], [0074], [0076], [0082], [0099], [0101]; note target timing and resource indication).
Regarding claims 21-23: Levitsky alternatively modified by Sarkis or Hosseini further teaches wherein the conflict handling operation comprises: notifying the second terminal of the conflict resource (see, e.g., Levitsky [0043], [0074], [0076], [0082], [0099], [0101]; UEs detect and/or are notified of collisions).
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 21 is applicable to the terminal and medium of claims 22 and 23, respectively.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights