DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed 28 July 2023 and Information Disclosure Statement filed 28 July 2023.
Claims 1-14 are pending for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 23 July 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered and attached by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 6, lines 5-6 — “the third parameter” lacks an antecedent basis
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless 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 is: "an apparatus configured to process data" in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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)(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 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dutta et al. (US 2023/0370982, hereinafter Dutta).
Regarding Claim 1, Dutta discloses a computer-implemented method for processing data associated with a terminal device configured to use at least a first radio technology for communicating with at least one further terminal device over a sidelink interface based on the first radio technology (Fig. 8 and ¶ 86 disclose a UE detecting a first sidelink (SL) synchronization signal from a first Radio Access Technology (RAT) (e.g., LTE) and a second SL synchronization signal from a second RAT (e.g., NR)), the method comprising the following steps:
determining a first parameter characterizing an activity of devices configured to use the first radio technology associated with predetermined radio resources (¶ 87 discloses the UE determining a priority between the first RAT and the second RAT for a first synchronization source associated with the first RAT and a second synchronization source associated with the second RAT); and
determining a second parameter characterizing an activity of devices configured to use at least one of: a) the first radio technology, b) at least one second radio technology, which is different from the first radio technology, associated with the predetermined radio resources (¶ 88 discloses the UE using (i.e., determining) a timing based on the determination of the priority between the first RAT and the second RAT to transmit data to another UE).
Regarding Claim 2, Dutta discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a) the first radio technology is 5G NR V2X, and/or b) the second radio technology is LTE V2X (¶ 85 discloses the UE (802) as corresponding to UE 104 of Fig. 1 and device 350 of Fig. 3; ¶ 86 discloses the first and second RATs as LTE and NR; ¶¶ 44-45 and 59 disclose UE 104 and UE 350 as performing sidelink communication based on V2X; and ¶ 74 further describes sidelink communication as NR V2X and LTE V2X operating on the same channel or even the same time-frequency resources).
Regarding Claim 3, Dutta discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a) the first radio technology is any 3GPP C-V2X, and/or b) the second radio technology is non-3GPP V2X (¶ 85 discloses the UE (802) as corresponding to UE 104 of Fig. 1 and device 350 of Fig. 3; ¶ 86 discloses the first and second RATs as LTE and NR or any wireless communication network; ¶¶ 44-45 and 59 disclose UE 104 and UE 350 as performing sidelink communication based on V2X (e.g. C-V2X) or D2D; and ¶ 74 further describes sidelink communication as NR V2X and LTE V2X operating on the same channel or even the same time-frequency resources).
Regarding Claim 4, Dutta discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
evaluating the first parameter and the second parameter, including evaluating the first parameter with respect to the second parameter (¶ 88 discloses timing as based on priority between the RATs, further determining priority based on relative signal strength, received signal reference power (RSRP) or based on the source of one or more of the RATs).
Regarding Claim 5, Dutta discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising at least one of:
a) comparing the first parameter with the second parameter (¶ 88 discloses timing as based on priority between the RATs, further determining priority based on relative signal strength, received signal reference power (RSRP) or based on the source of one or more of the RATs),
b) determining a third parameter based on the first parameter and the second parameter, wherein the third parameter is obtained as a ratio of the first parameter and the second parameter (Id.),
c) comparing the third parameter with a predetermined, threshold (Id.),
d) performing an operation of the terminal device, at least temporarily, based on at least one of: d1) the third parameter the comparison of the third parameter with the threshold, d2) the comparison of the first parameter with the second parameter (Id.).
Regarding Claim 6, Dutta discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising at least one of:
a) transmitting, to at least one further device, first information characterizing at least one of: a1) the first parameter, a2) the second parameter, a3) the third parameter, a4) a result of a comparison of the first parameter with the second parameter (Fig. 8 and ¶¶ 90-91 disclose the UE transmitting the first or second SL synchronization signal to the other UE based on RSRP of the first synchronization signal, timing of the second synchronization signal, a previous timing of the first synchronization or whether the UE is a synchronization source for the other UE),
b) receiving, from at least one further device, second information characterizing an activity of at least one device configured to use at least the second radio technology associated with the predetermined radio resources (while considered, this alternative limitation need not be disclosed by the prior art for the claim to be disclosed by the prior art — see MPEP § 2117(II)(A), 2nd ¶),
c) performing an operation of the terminal device, at least temporarily, based on at least one of: c1) the first information, c2) the second information (Fig. 8 and ¶¶ 90-91 disclose the UE transmitting the first or second SL synchronization signal to the other UE based on RSRP of the first synchronization signal, timing of the second synchronization signal, a previous timing of the first synchronization or whether the UE is a synchronization source for the other UE).
Regarding Claim 7, Dutta discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein the performing of the operation of the terminal device includes at least one of:
a) altering a channel occupancy ratio,
b) enabling direct blocking,
c) postponing at least one transmission,
d) changing radio resources,
e) reducing a transmit power,
f) reducing a transmission time,
g) increasing a transmission periodicity,
h) change at least one radio beam to avoid a direction of at least one device using the second radio technology,
i) transmit third information based on at least one of the first information and the second information, as inter-terminal device coordination information, to inform at least one further terminal device using at least the first radio technology,
j) considering a quality of service,
k) prioritizing transmissions (¶¶ 88 discloses determining a priority between the RATs).
Regarding Claims 9-13, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 9-13 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 1, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 14, Dutta discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method is used for at least one of:
a) determining an activity of devices using at least one of the first radio technology and the second radio technology within the predetermined radio resources (¶¶ 88 and 90-91 disclose the UE determining priority between the RATs according to signal strength, RSRP, or synchronization source for determining timing for transmitting data via sidelink and transmitting the first or second synchronization signal to the other UE),
b) controlling an operation of the terminal device (Id.),
c) enabling the terminal device to decide how to operate with respect to a sidelink communication based on the first radio technology, based on an activity of at least one device using the second radio technology (Id.),
d) supporting at least one further device with respect to an activity of devices configured to use the first radio technology associated with the predetermined radio resources and/or with respect to an activity of devices configured to use at least one of the first radio technology and the at least one further second radio technology (Id.).
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 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.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2023/0032174, hereinafter Li).
Regarding Claim 8, Dutta discloses the method according to claim 1.
Dutta may not explicitly disclose using the first radio technology to detect an activity of the second radio technology in a configured shared channel.
However, in analogous art, Li discloses using the first radio technology to detect an activity of the second radio technology in a configured shared channel (Fig. 4 and ¶ 108 discloses a UE monitoring NR communications and determining an LTE penetration rate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Li to modify Dutta in order to detect LTE activity by monitoring NR communication. One would have been motivated to do this, because such a capability may help improve wideband operations for V2X applications when the UE supports multiple radio access technologies, such as 4G LTE and 5G NR, enabling dynamic support of system resource utilization on sidelink when the UE supports both NR V2X and LTE V2X operations. (Li ¶ 38).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patel et al. (US 2018/0242163), at Fig. 4 and associated description, discloses determining diminished quality of communications on a shared communication spectrum with one or more served UEs;
Gomes Baltar et al. (US 2022/0287083), at Figs. 1, 9-11 and associated description, discloses V2X RAT1 and V2X RAT2 sharing resources, determining current usage of the resources, determining allocation of a shared channel, and performing V2X communication accordingly;
Zhao (US 2025/031484), at Figs. 2-8 and associated description, discloses performing channel sensing on a sidelink communication of a first RAT and alternatively performing various operations with regards to sidelink communication of a second RAT;
Huang et al. (US 2024/0389119), at Figs. 9-12 and 14-16 and associated description, discloses inter-RAT coordination by using a first communications protocol for configuring control information that is transmitted according to another communications protocol;
Yang et al. (US 2022/0232430), at Fig. 19 and associated description, discloses performing SL communication on a first RAT, switching to a second RAT, and performing SL communication on the second RAT;
Faerber et al. (US 2016/0255613), at Fig. 7 and associated description, discloses radio resources being assigned to resource blocks of various link types and allocating resources for a non-cellular link and a cellular link;
Hwang et al. (US 2024/0251386), at Fig. 12 and associated description, discloses a resource selection operation using sensing; and
Martin (US 2017/0280330), at Fig. 5 and associated description, discloses a UE receiving radio bearer configuration information, determining there’s a conflict between LTE and WLAN resources within the UE and reporting the conflict to a base station.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R CAIRNS whose telephone number is (571)270-0487. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM ET M-F.
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, MARCUS SMITH can be reached at (571) 270-1096. 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.
/Thomas R Cairns/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468