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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: para. 43 of the published specification states ‘…Referring to FIG. 5, it is assumed that the UE sends a PSSCH on a carrier and/or CC #1, then sends a PSSCH on a carrier and/or CC #2, and then returns to the carrier and/or CC #1 to send a PSSCH…’ That is not what fig. 5 shows. Fig. 5 shows returning to CC#1 to transmit PSFCH not PSSCH. Please proof read all of your specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings are faint and blurry and consequently difficult to read. Please submit new drawings for all figures. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1-20 are very difficult to read. That is, Applicant has submitted blurry and faint text. This makes the claims difficult to interpret. Going forward, Applicant should be submitting claims that are clear and easy to read. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, and 18 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 claim 2, claim 2 recites ‘…wherein that transmission of a target transmission object that needs to be performed by the first UE exceeds the target limit comprises: second transmission currently performed by the first UE does not exceed the target limit, and third transmission performed by the first UE exceeds the target limit,
wherein: the second transmission is at least a part of the transmission of the target transmission object; the third transmission is at least a part of the transmission of the target transmission object…’ These limitations are unclear. According to claim 1, if the limit is exceeded, the transmission is dropped. So it is unclear how the third transmission is both dropped and then also performed. That is, it is unclear if the 1st transmission is the third transmission. Second, claim 2 says ‘…wherein that transmission of a target transmission object that needs to be performed by the first UE exceeds the target limit comprises: second transmission currently performed by the first UE does not exceed the target limit...’ What is ‘that transmission of a transmission object’? Is Applicant claiming ‘the transmission of the transmission object’ or some other transmission that occurs? Please proof read you claims.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites ‘…the third transmission comprises any one of the following: the second transmission and additional transmission based on the second transmission, or transmission obtained by adjusting the second transmission…’ These limitations are unclear. The claim defines the third transmission as the second transmission and additional transmission based on the second transmission or adjusting the second transmission. While these words are in the specification at para. 230-232, the meaning is unclear. It is not clear how or what the third transmission is based upon what is claimed. The specification provides no examples or clarity as to what Applicant is attempting to claim. Therefore, the claim is unclear. Please proof read all of your claims.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites ‘…when a switching condition is met, dropping the first transmission and performing fourth transmission; and when at least one of the switching condition is not met, dropping the first transmission, wherein the switching condition comprises at least one of the following: that the target transmission object meets the corresponding target time limit; or that a preset parameter associated with the target transmission object meets a preset condition…’ This limitation is unclear that is. Either way the first transmission is dropped so it is unclear what the switching condition does. Further, performing the fourth transmission can occur whether the switching condition is met or not. Therefore, it is not clear the metes and bounds of this claim. Please review all of your claims.
Regarding claims 4-5, claim 4 recites ‘…wherein the target transmission object comprises a first transmission object or a second transmission object, wherein a transmission manner corresponding to the first transmission object is sending, and a transmission manner corresponding to the second transmission object is receiving…’ and ‘…the reception corresponding to the second transmission object does not exceed the corresponding target limit, and the expected transmission associated with the second transmission object exceeds the corresponding target limit…’ These limitations are unclear. The ordinary and customary of transmission is the act or process of transmitting. That is, it is unclear how in claim 4 applicant attempts to redefine the word transmitting to actually mean receiving. The words are opposite. For example, if you put in a GPS system for directions to a destination and the GPS gave a direction as make a left and then said by left I mean left, right, or straight, you would not have any idea as to where to go. Similarly, the metes and bounds of a patent must be defined. While Applicant can be his or her own lexicographer, the terms must clearly be defined in the specification. In the instant Application, no definition exists. Rather Applicant is taking a word which has a definition and attempting to redefine it as meaning anything. This is the definition of unclear. Claim 5 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 4 and is rejected for similar reasons. Applicant should review all of the claims.
Regarding claims 4-5, claim 4 recites ‘one of the following’ four different times. However, it is unclear if these ‘one of the following’ are nested in that they may not occur because they are one of the options of the previous ‘one of the following’ or if they are independent of the previous ‘one of the following’ and are additional limitations. The claims, as noted above are difficult to read, and Examiner cannot reasonable determine based upon indentations whether these limitations are nested or independent. Please clarify. Claim 5 depends upon claim 4 and adds an additional four more ‘one of the followings’ which again, are unclear as to whether these are nested or independent of each other. Please review all of your claims.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites ‘the fifth transmission comprises at least one of the following: first target transmission, second target transmission, or first target transmission and second target transmission; the sixth transmission comprises at least one of the following: third target transmission, fourth target transmission, or third target transmission and fourth target transmission; and the seventh transmission comprises at least one of the following: third target transmission, first target transmission, or third target transmission and first target transmission…’ These limitations are unclear. That is, the plain meaning of what is claimed here is Applicant has renamed for example the first target transmission to the fifth transmission. That is, the first, second, or third target transmission is not mentioned before this claim. Therefore, it is not clear what these are referring to and claim 5 just renames these transmissions to a fifth transmission. That is it is unclear if these are retransmissions, or combinations of transmissions of previously mentioned transmissions or something else. Please proof read all of your claims.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites ‘…the first target transmission is the fourth expected transmission, the second target transmission is the third expected transmission, the third target transmission is the second sending, and the fourth target transmission is the second receiving; or the first target transmission is the third expected transmission, the second target transmission is the fourth expected transmission, the third target transmission is the second receiving, and the fourth target transmission is the second sending; or the first target transmission is the second receiving, the second target transmission is the third expected transmission, the third target transmission is the second sending, and the fourth target transmission is the fourth expected transmission; or the first target transmission is the fourth expected transmission, the second target transmission is the second sending, the third target transmission is the third expected transmission, and the fourth target transmission is the second receiving…’ As outlined above, these limitations may not occur due to the nesting of ‘one of the following’ and it follows that all of these limitations lack antecedent basis if the ‘one of the following’ is nested. Further, Applicant is again taking terms and just renaming them in the claim. That is it is unclear if these are retransmissions, or combinations of transmissions of previously mentioned transmissions or something else. Please proof read all of your claims.
Regarding claims 7-9, claim 7 recites ‘comprises at least one of the following’. However, claim 8 recites a limitation which according to claim 7 does not necessarily occur ‘…wherein the information about the target object associated with the target transmission object comprises…’ Claim 9 has similar issues. That is, these limitations are contingent and optional according to claim 7 and if rolled into claim 7 would not necessarily limit the claim because another ‘one of the following’ could be chosen. Therefore, the scope of claims 8 and 9 is unclear. Please proof read all of your claims.
Regarding claims 11-14, claim 11 recites ‘…before the dropping, by the first device, first transmission…’ It is unclear what first transmission is referring to. Is this ‘the’ first transmission or is it another first transmission. Claims 12-14 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 11 and are rejected for similar reasons. Please proof read all of your claims.
Regarding claims 11-14, claim 11 recites ‘…determining, in a third time, whether to drop the first transmission…’ Claim 1 already has dropped the first transmission. Therefore, it is unclear what this whether statement would be considering since it will always be dropping the packet. Claims 12-14 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 11 and are rejected for similar reasons. Please proof read all of your claims.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites ‘the third time’ It is unclear if this is the same or different ‘the third time’ recited in claim 12 because claim 14 also recites ‘a third time’. Therefore, it is not clear what Applicant is attempting to claim. Please proof read all of your claims.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites ‘…transmission on a plurality of bearer objects at the same time or within a fourth preset time is supported only in a target frequency domain…’ This limitation is unclear. That is it is unclear what are the two elements that are ‘or’ed here. Is it ‘transmission on a plurality of bearer objects at the same time’ or ‘transmission…within a fourth preset time…’ or ‘…transmission on a plurality of bearer objects wherein the transmission is at the same time or within a further preset time…’? Proof read all of your claims.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites ‘…the first transmission limit comprises at least one of the following a first receive limit, a first transmit limit, or a first transmit and receive limit…’ These limitations are unclear. It is unclear how a transmission actually means receiving. Please proof read your claims.
After fully reviewing the claims, it appears that there is translation and grammatical issues. It is recommended that you review all of your claims to speed up prosecution.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (2019/0045465), and further in view of Yi (2021/0212099).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a transmission method, comprising:
determining, by a first device, a target limit of a first User Equipment (UE); and (See Lee para. 168; UE determines a count (e.g. a target limit) of simultaneous transmission reaches capability of UE)
wherein:
the first transmission is at least a part of the transmission of the target transmission object; (See Lee para. 172; fig. 8; 1-6 are transmission objects)
the transmission of the target transmission object is Sidelink (SL) transmission; (See Lee para. 5; sidelink; para. 25, fig. 8; CA in sidelink)
the target limit comprises at least one of the following, a target transmission limit or a target time limit; (See Lee para. 170; simultaneously on two carriers at same time (e.g. a target transmission limit); see also para. 168)
the first device comprises at least one of the following: the first UE, a second UE, or a control node; and
the second UE is a UE related to sidelink transmission of the first UE. (See Lee fig. 4; part c shows UE, E-UTRAN (e.g. control node) or vehicle (e.g. second UE); vehicle is related to sidelink transmission of UE in that it transmits to or receives from)
Lee discloses that a device has a limit to the amount of simultaneous transmissions that may occur at the same time. Lee does not explicitly disclose dropping, by the first device, communication when the communication object that needs to be performed exceed the UE’s capabilities. However, Yi does disclose dropping, by the first device, communication when the communication object that needs to be performed exceed the UE’s capabilities. (See Yi fig. 23; drop PSSCH; para. 293, fig. 28; drop sidelink communication) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Lee to include the teaching of dropping, by the first device, communication when the communication object that needs to be performed exceed the UE’s capabilities of Yi with the motivation being it is common sense (a UE is not capable of performing actions beyond its capabilities) and further to allow devices that may not have all of the capabilities of another device to still communication and participate on the network which increase connectivity and further to reduce costs by not creating rigid networks which can only support certain capabilities which may require hundreds of different networks and further to allow for flexibility in network operation and ensuring an inclusive networking environment which allows for different UEs of differing capabilities.
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Yi discloses the transmission method according to claim 1, wherein the dropping, by the first device, first transmission comprises:
when a switching condition is met, dropping the first transmission and performing fourth transmission; and
when at least one of the switching condition is not met, dropping the first transmission, wherein the switching condition comprises at least one of the following:
that the target transmission object meets the corresponding target time limit; or
that a preset parameter associated with the target transmission object meets a preset condition. (See Yi fig. 23; drop PSSCH if BWP switching latency (e.g. preset condition and/or target time limit) is not met/or it is met; other transmissions are performed (e.g. fourth transmission); para. 293, fig. 28; drop sidelink communication) The motivation being it is common sense (a UE is not capable of performing actions beyond its capabilities) and further to allow devices that may not have all of the capabilities of another device to still communication and participate on the network which increase connectivity and further to reduce costs by not creating rigid networks which can only support certain capabilities which may require hundreds of different networks and further to allow for flexibility in network operation and ensuring an inclusive networking environment which allows for different UEs of differing capabilities.
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Yi discloses the transmission method according to claim 1, wherein the target transmission object comprises a first transmission object or a second transmission object, wherein a transmission manner corresponding to the first transmission object is sending, and a transmission manner corresponding to the second transmission object is receiving, wherein: (See Lee para. 172; fig. 8; 1-6 are transmission objects (they are transmitted by one device and received by another); see also 112)
when the target transmission object comprises at least the first transmission object, the exceeding the target limit comprises one of the following:
the transmission corresponding to the first transmission object exceeds the corresponding target limit; (See Lee para. 170; simultaneously on two carriers at same time (e.g. a target transmission limit); see also para. 168; no more than two so exceeding is trying for more than 2)
expected transmission associated with the first transmission object exceeds the corresponding target limit; or
the transmission corresponding to the first transmission object does not exceed the corresponding target limit, and the expected transmission associated with the first transmission object exceeds the corresponding target limit,
wherein: the first transmission comprises first sending or first expected transmission, the first sending is a transmission corresponding to at least a part of the first transmission object, and the first expected transmission is expected transmission associated with the transmission corresponding to at least a part of the first transmission object; (See Lee para. 172; fig. 8; 1-6 are transmission objects (they are transmitted by one device and received by another); see also 112)
when the target transmission object comprises at least the second transmission object, the exceeding the target limit comprises one of the following:
the reception corresponding to the second transmission object exceeds the corresponding target limit; (See Lee para. 170; simultaneously on two carriers at same time (e.g. a target transmission limit); see also para. 168; no more than two so exceeding is trying for more than 2)
expected transmission associated with the second transmission object exceeds the corresponding target limit; or
the reception corresponding to the second transmission object does not exceed the corresponding target limit, and the expected transmission associated with the second transmission object exceeds the corresponding target limit,
wherein: the first transmission comprises first reception or second expected transmission, the first reception is a reception corresponding to at least a part of the second transmission object, and the second expected transmission is expected transmission associated with the reception corresponding to at least a part of the second transmission object, (See Lee para. 170; simultaneously on two carriers at same time (e.g. a target transmission limit); see also para. 168; no more than two so exceeding is trying for more than 2)
when the target transmission object comprises the first transmission object and the second transmission object, the exceeding the target limit comprises at least one of the following:
the transmission corresponding to the first transmission object and the receiving corresponding to the second transmission object exceed the corresponding target limit; (See Lee para. 170; simultaneously on two carriers at same time (e.g. a target transmission limit); see also para. 168; no more than two so exceeding is trying for more than 2) (See Lee para. 172; fig. 8; 1-6 are transmission objects (they are transmitted by one device and received by another); see also 112)
the transmission corresponding to the first transmission object and expected transmission associated with the second transmission object exceed the corresponding target limit;
expected transmission associated with the first transmission object and the expected transmission associated with the second transmission object exceed the corresponding target limit; or
the receiving corresponding to the second transmission object and the expected transmission associated with the first transmission object exceed the corresponding target limit, wherein the first transmission comprises at least one of the following:
second sending, third expected transmission, second receiving, or fourth expected transmission, wherein:
the second sending is a transmission corresponding to at least a part of the first transmission object;
the third expected transmission is expected transmission associated with the transmission corresponding to at least a part of the first transmission object;
the second receiving is receiving corresponding to at least a part of the second transmission object; and
the fourth expected transmission is expected transmission associated with receiving corresponding to at least a part of the second transmission object. (This is nested ‘one of the following’ and does not necessarily occur because of previous ‘one of the following’; see 112 rejection above)
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Yi discloses the transmission method according to claim 4, wherein
the dropping first transmission comprises at least one of the following:
the number of remaining first sending is not greater than a first predetermined quantity; (See Lee para. 170; simultaneously on two carriers at same time (e.g. a target transmission limit); see also para. 168)
Yi does disclose dropping, by the first device, communication when the communication object that needs to be performed exceed the UE’s capabilities. (See Yi fig. 23; drop PSSCH; para. 293, fig. 28; drop sidelink communication) The motivation being it is common sense (a UE is not capable of performing actions beyond its capabilities) and further to allow devices that may not have all of the capabilities of another device to still communication and participate on the network which increase connectivity and further to reduce costs by not creating rigid networks which can only support certain capabilities which may require hundreds of different networks and further to allow for flexibility in network operation and ensuring an inclusive networking environment which allows for different UEs of differing capabilities.
performing dropping until the number of remaining first expected transmission is not greater than a second predetermined quantity;
performing dropping until the number of the remaining first reception is not greater than a third predetermined quantity;
performing dropping until the number of the remaining second expected transmission is not greater than a fourth predetermined quantity;
performing dropping until the number of remaining fifth transmission is not greater than a fifth predetermined quantity;
performing dropping until the number of remaining sixth transmission is not greater than a sixth predetermined quantity; or
performing dropping until the number of remaining seventh transmission is not greater than a seventh predetermined quantity;
wherein:
the fifth transmission comprises at least one of the following: first target transmission, second target transmission, or first target transmission and second target transmission;
the sixth transmission comprises at least one of the following: third target transmission, fourth target transmission, or third target transmission and fourth target transmission; and
the seventh transmission comprises at least one of the following: third target transmission, first target transmission, or third target transmission and first target transmission, (None of these options are required to occur because of the ‘one of the following clauses above; see also 112)
wherein:
the first target transmission is the fourth expected transmission, the second target transmission is the third expected transmission, the third target transmission is the second sending, and the fourth target transmission is the second receiving; or
the first target transmission is the third expected transmission, the second target transmission is the fourth expected transmission, the third target transmission is the second receiving, and the fourth target transmission is the second sending; or
the first target transmission is the second receiving, the second target transmission is the third expected transmission, the third target transmission is the second sending, and the fourth target transmission is the fourth expected transmission; or
the first target transmission is the fourth expected transmission, the second target transmission is the second sending, the third target transmission is the third expected transmission, and the fourth target transmission is the second receiving. (None of these options are required to occur because of the ‘one of the following clauses above; see also 112)
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Yi discloses the transmission method according to claim 1, wherein the dropping first transmission comprises:
dropping the first transmission according to a first predetermined rule, wherein
the first predetermined rule comprises at least one of the following: (See Yi fig. 23, para. 260; drop PSSCH based upon switching latency (e.g. a predetermined rule); para. 293, fig. 28; drop sidelink communication) the motivation being it is common sense (a UE is not capable of performing actions beyond its capabilities) and further to allow devices that may not have all of the capabilities of another device to still communication and participate on the network which increase connectivity and further to reduce costs by not creating rigid networks which can only support certain capabilities which may require hundreds of different networks and further to allow for flexibility in network operation and ensuring an inclusive networking environment which allows for different UEs of differing capabilities.
according to a priority order of the target transmission object;
according to a priority order of a transmission type of the transmission of the target transmission object;
according to a priority order of the transmission of the target transmission object;
according to information about the target transmission object; (See Yi fig. 23, para. 260; drop PSSCH based upon switching latency which is an amount of time needed to switch (e.g. information about the transmission object)); para. 293, fig. 28; drop sidelink communication) the motivation being it is common sense (a UE is not capable of performing actions beyond its capabilities) and further to allow devices that may not have all of the capabilities of another device to still communication and participate on the network which increase connectivity and further to reduce costs by not creating rigid networks which can only support certain capabilities which may require hundreds of different networks and further to allow for flexibility in network operation and ensuring an inclusive networking environment which allows for different UEs of differing capabilities.
according to a frequency domain location of the transmission of the target transmission object;
according to a time domain location of the transmission of the target transmission object; (See Yi fig. 23, para. 260; drop PSSCH based upon switching latency which is an amount of time needed to switch (e.g. in time domain)); para. 293, fig. 28; drop sidelink communication) the motivation being it is common sense (a UE is not capable of performing actions beyond its capabilities) and further to allow devices that may not have all of the capabilities of another device to still communication and participate on the network which increase connectivity and further to reduce costs by not creating rigid networks which can only support certain capabilities which may require hundreds of different networks and further to allow for flexibility in network operation and ensuring an inclusive networking environment which allows for different UEs of differing capabilities.
according to duration of the transmission of the target transmission object;
according to a Subcarrier Spacing (SCS) of the transmission of the target transmission object; or
according to content or a transmission object type of the transmission of the target transmission object.
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Yi discloses the transmission method according to claim 6, wherein the information about the target transmission object comprises at least one of the following:
coding of the target transmission object, an identifier of the target transmission object, or information about a target object associated with the target transmission object, wherein(See Lee para. 172; fig. 8; 1-6 are transmission objects and are coded according to the 3GPP suite of standards Sidelink; para. 64; 3GPP standards)
the target object comprises at least one of the following:
a Logical Channel (LCH), a Logical Channel Group (LCG), Quality of Service (QOS),
a HARQ process, a Transport Block (TB),
a data packet, or (See Lee para. 172; fig. 8; 1-6 are transmission objects (e.g. packets of data) and are coded according to the 3GPP suite of standards Sidelink; para. 64; 3GPP standards)
a Protocol Data Unit (PDU).
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Yi discloses the transmission method according to claim 7, wherein the information about the target object associated with the target transmission object comprises:
a quantity of target objects or (See Lee para. 168; UE determines a count (e.g. a target limit) of simultaneous transmission reaches capability of UE) (See Lee para. 170; simultaneously on two carriers at same time (e.g. a target transmission limit); see also para. 168)
whether at least a part of same target objects are associated.
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Yi discloses the transmission method according to claim 1, wherein
the target transmission object comprises a third transmission object; and (See Lee para. 172; fig. 8; 1-6 are transmission objects)
before the dropping, by the first device, first transmission, the method further comprises:
determining, in a first time, whether transmission of the third transmission object within a second time exceeds the target transmission limit; or
determining, in a third time, whether to drop the first transmission, (See Yi fig. 23; drop PSSCH because BWP switching latency exceeds limit; determination to drop is done before it is dropped; para. 293, fig. 28; drop sidelink communication) the motivation being it is common sense (a UE is not capable of performing actions beyond its capabilities) and further to allow devices that may not have all of the capabilities of another device to still communication and participate on the network which increase connectivity and further to reduce costs by not creating rigid networks which can only support certain capabilities which may require hundreds of different networks and further to allow for flexibility in network operation and ensuring an inclusive networking environment which allows for different UEs of differing capabilities.
wherein:
the first time or the third time is before the second time, or (See Yi fig. 23; drop PSSCH because BWP switching latency exceeds limit; determination to drop is done before it is dropped; para. 293, fig. 28; drop sidelink communication) the motivation being it is common sense (a UE is not capable of performing actions beyond its capabilities) and further to allow devices that may not have all of the capabilities of another device to still communication and participate on the network which increase connectivity and further to reduce costs by not creating rigid networks which can only support certain capabilities which may require hundreds of different networks and further to allow for flexibility in network operation and ensuring an inclusive networking environment which allows for different UEs of differing capabilities.
duration of a time interval between the second time and the first time comprises at least duration corresponding to at least one time limit in the target time limit, or
duration of a time interval between the second time and the third time comprises at least duration corresponding to at least one time limit in the target time limit.
Regarding claim 12, Lee in view of Yi discloses transmission method according to claim 11, wherein before the dropping, by the first device, first transmission, the method further comprises:
determining, in a fourth time, whether transmission of a fourth transmission object associated with the third transmission object exceeds the target transmission limit, wherein the transmission of the fourth transmission object is within a fifth time. (See Yi fig. 23; drop PSSCH because BWP switching latency exceeds limit; determination to drop is done before it is dropped; para. 293, fig. 28; drop sidelink communication; that is, performing the dropping sequence again for multiple switching ) the motivation being it is common sense (a UE is not capable of performing actions beyond its capabilities and performing the steps again depending upon how many times the UE needs to switch) and further to allow devices that may not have all of the capabilities of another device to still communication and participate on the network which increase connectivity and further to reduce costs by not creating rigid networks which can only support certain capabilities which may require hundreds of different networks and further to allow for flexibility in network operation and ensuring an inclusive networking environment which allows for different UEs of differing capabilities and further it is a duplication of parts under MPEP 2144.04 (e.g. performing the steps of Yi again depending upon how many switches are required).
Regarding claim 13, Lee in view of Yi discloses transmission method according to claim 12, wherein
the fourth time or the third time is before the fifth time, or
duration of a time interval between the fifth time and the fourth time comprises at least duration corresponding to at least one time limit in the target time limit, or
duration of a time interval between the fifth time and the third time comprises at least duration corresponding to at least one time limit in the target time limit. (See Yi fig. 23; drop PSSCH because BWP switching latency exceeds limit; determination to drop is done before it is dropped; para. 293, fig. 28; drop sidelink communication; that is, performing the dropping sequence again for multiple switching ) the motivation being it is common sense (a UE is not capable of performing actions beyond its capabilities and performing the steps again depending upon how many times the UE needs to switch) and further to allow devices that may not have all of the capabilities of another device to still communication and participate on the network which increase connectivity and further to reduce costs by not creating rigid networks which can only support certain capabilities which may require hundreds of different networks and further to allow for flexibility in network operation and ensuring an inclusive networking environment which allows for different UEs of differing capabilities and further it is a duplication of parts under MPEP 2144.04 (e.g. performing the steps of Yi again depending upon how many switches are required).
Regarding claim 14, Lee in view of Yi discloses the transmission method according to claim 12, wherein the determining, in a third time, whether to drop the first transmission comprises at least one of the following:
when a first predetermined condition is met, determining, in the third time, whether to drop at least a part of transmission of the third transmission object; and
when a second predetermined condition is met, determining, in the third time, whether to drop at least a part of transmission of the fourth transmission object,
wherein:
the first predetermined condition comprises at least one of the following:
the first time or the third time is before the second time,
duration of a time interval between the second time and the first time comprises at least duration corresponding to at least one time limit in the target time limit, or
duration of a time interval between the second time and the third time comprises at least duration corresponding to at least one time limit in the target time limit; and
the second predetermined condition comprises at least one of the following:
the fourth time or the third time is before the fifth time;
duration of a time interval between the fifth time and the fourth time comprises at least duration corresponding to at least one time limit in the target time limit, or
duration of a time interval between the fifth time and the third time comprises at least duration corresponding to at least one time limit in the target time limit. (See Yi fig. 23; drop PSSCH because BWP switching latency exceeds limit; determination to drop is done before it is dropped; para. 293, fig. 28; drop sidelink communication; that is, performing the dropping sequence again for multiple switching ) the motivation being it is common sense (a UE is not capable of performing actions beyond its capabilities and performing the steps again depending upon how many times the UE needs to switch) and further to allow devices that may not have all of the capabilities of another device to still communication and participate on the network which increase connectivity and further to reduce costs by not creating rigid networks which can only support certain capabilities which may require hundreds of different networks and further to allow for flexibility in network operation and ensuring an inclusive networking environment which allows for different UEs of differing capabilities and further it is a duplication of parts under MPEP 2144.04 (e.g. performing the steps of Yi again depending upon how many switches are required).
Regarding claim 15, Lee in view of Yi discloses the transmission method according to claim 1, wherein the target transmission limit comprises at least one of the following:
a quantity N1 of transmit antennas;
a quantity N2 of receive antennas;
a quantity N3 of transmit antennas and receive antennas;
a quantity N4 of transmit chains;
a quantity N5 of receive chains;
a quantity N6 of transmit chains and receive chains;
a maximum quantity of carrier objects for receiving or sending target transmission objects at the same time or within a first preset time; (See Lee para. 170; simultaneously on two carriers at same time (e.g. a target transmission limit); see also para. 168)
Lee does not explicitly disclose bearers. However, Yi does disclose bearers (See Yi para. 66) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Lee to include the teaching of bearers of Yi with the motivation being to meet QoS requirements for flows (See Yi para. 66) and further to allow for service differential with differing performance to meet end user requirements and further for flexibility in allocation and creation of specialized paths and resource optimization.
a maximum quantity of target transmission objects received or sent at the same time or within a second preset time; or
a maximum quantity of target transmission objects received or sent at the same time or within a third preset time on X bearer objects, wherein X is a positive integer.
Regarding claim 16, Lee in view of Yi discloses the transmission method according to claim 1. Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the target time limit comprises at least one of the following: a minimum time limit for switching a bearer object; a maximum time limit for switching a bearer object; a minimum time limit for power adjustment; a maximum time limit for power adjustment; a minimum time limit for adjusting a transmission chain; a maximum time limit for adjusting a transmission chain; a time limit for preparing the target transmission object; a time limit for preparing candidate resource reporting; or a time limit required for determining a candidate resource, wherein the transmission chain comprises a transmit chain or a receive chain. However, Yi does disclose wherein the target time limit comprises at least one of the following: a minimum time limit for switching a bearer object; a maximum time limit for switching a bearer object; a minimum time limit for power adjustment; a maximum time limit for power adjustment; a minimum time limit for adjusting a transmission chain; a maximum time limit for adjusting a transmission chain; a time limit for preparing the target transmission object; a time limit for preparing candidate resource reporting; or a time limit required for determining a candidate resource, wherein the transmission chain comprises a transmit chain or a receive chain. (See Yi para. 66; fig. 23; drop pssch based upon BWP switching latency (e.g. max/min)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Lee to include the teaching of wherein the target time limit comprises at least one of the following: a minimum time limit for switching a bearer object; a maximum time limit for switching a bearer object; a minimum time limit for power adjustment; a maximum time limit for power adjustment; a minimum time limit for adjusting a transmission chain; a maximum time limit for adjusting a transmission chain; a time limit for preparing the target transmission object; a time limit for preparing candidate resource reporting; or a time limit required for determining a candidate resource, wherein the transmission chain comprises a transmit chain or a receive chain of Yi with the motivation being the motivation being it is common sense (a UE is not capable of performing actions beyond its capabilities) and further to allow devices that may not have all of the capabilities of another device to still communication and participate on the network which increase connectivity and further to reduce costs by not creating rigid networks which can only support certain capabilities which may require hundreds of different networks and further to allow for flexibility in network operation and ensuring an inclusive networking environment which allows for different UEs of differing capabilities and further the motivation being to meet QoS requirements for flows (See Yi para. 66) and further to allow for service differential with differing performance to meet end user requirements and further for flexibility in allocation and creation of specialized paths and resource optimization.
Regarding claim 17, Lee in view of Yi discloses the transmission method according to claim 1, wherein
transmission on a plurality of carrier objects at the same time or within a fourth preset time is supported only in a target frequency domain, and (See Lee para. 170; simultaneously on two carriers (Frequency) at same time (e.g. a target transmission limit); see also para. 168; no more than two so exceeding is trying for more than 2)
different frequency domains respectively have corresponding target limits.
Lee does not explicitly disclose bearers. However, Yi does disclose bearers (See Yi para. 66) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Lee to include the teaching of bearers of Yi with the motivation being to meet QoS requirements for flows (See Yi para. 66) and further to allow for service differential with differing performance to meet end user requirements and further for flexibility in allocation and creation of specialized paths and resource optimization.
Regarding claim 18, Lee in view of Yi discloses the transmission method according to claim 1, wherein the target limit comprises an actual limit or a first limit of the first UE, wherein the actual limit is determined based on the first limit, wherein(See Lee para. 168; UE determines a count (e.g. a target limit) of simultaneous transmission reaches capability of UE)
the first limit comprises a first transmission limit;
the actual limit comprises an actual transmission limit; and (See Yi fig. 23; drop pssch; para. 293; fig. 28; drop sidelink communication; BWP switching latency (e.g. a limit)) The motivation being it is common sense (a UE is not capable of performing actions beyond its capabilities) and further to allow devices that may not have all of the capabilities of another device to still communication and participate on the network which increase connectivity and further to reduce costs by not creating rigid networks which can only support certain capabilities which may require hundreds of different networks and further to allow for flexibility in network operation and ensuring an inclusive networking environment which allows for different UEs of differing capabilities.
the target transmission limit comprises the first transmission limit or the actual transmission limit, wherein:
the first transmission limit comprises at least one of the following a first receive limit, a first transmit limit, or a first transmit and receive limit; and(See Lee para. 168; UE determines a count (e.g. a target limit) of simultaneous transmission reaches capability of UE)
the actual transmission limit comprises at least one of the following, an actual receive limit, an actual transmit limit, or an actual transmit and receive limit. (See Yi fig. 23; drop pssch; para. 293; fig. 28; drop sidelink communication; BWP switching latency (e.g. a limit)) The motivation being it is common sense (a UE is not capable of performing actions beyond its capabilities) and further to allow devices that may not have all of the capabilities of another device to still communication and participate on the network which increase connectivity and further to reduce costs by not creating rigid networks which can only support certain capabilities which may require hundreds of different networks and further to allow for flexibility in network operation and ensuring an inclusive networking environment which allows for different UEs of differing capabilities.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (2019/0045465), and further in view of Yi (2021/0212099) and further in view of Xiong (2019/0261361).
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Yi discloses the transmission method according to claim 1, wherein that transmission of a target transmission object that needs to be performed by the first UE exceeds the target limit comprises:
second transmission currently performed by the first UE does not exceed the target limit, and third transmission performed by the first UE exceeds the target limit,
wherein:
the second transmission is at least a part of the transmission of the target transmission object;
the third transmission is at least a part of the transmission of the target transmission object; and (See Lee para. 170; simultaneously on two carriers at same time (e.g. a target transmission limit); see also para. 168; that is no matter how much data the UE wants to transmit across many different carriers or resources Lee states it can only simultaneously transmit on two; 2nd transmission is part that does not exceed limit; 3rd transmission exceeds these limits)
Li in view of Yi does not explicitly disclose the third transmission comprises any one of the following: the second transmission and additional transmission based on the second transmission, or transmission obtained by adjusting the second transmission. However, Xiong does disclose the third transmission comprises any one of the following: the second transmission and additional transmission based on the second transmission, or transmission obtained by adjusting the second transmission. (See Xiong fig. 4, para. 45-46; overlapping transmissions can be combined (e.g. transmission obtained by adjusting the 2nd transmission)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Li in view of Yi to include the teaching of the third transmission comprises any one of the following: the second transmission and additional transmission based on the second transmission, or transmission obtained by adjusting the second transmission of Xiong with the motivation being to reduce delay of important transmissions and further to meet UE capabilities which does not waste resources by sending/receiving information that cannot be received/sent and further to maximize scheduling of limited wireless resources which reduce delay and increases throughput.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (2019/0045465), and further in view of Yi (2021/0212099) and further in view of Freda (2021/0385694).
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Yi discloses the transmission method according to claim 7, wherein the dropping first transmission according to information about a target object associated with the target transmission object comprises: same target object or different target objects. (See Yi fig. 23; drop PSSCH of multiple PSSCHs (e.g. same target object) but also at different times (e.g. different target objects); para. 293, fig. 28; drop sidelink communication) the motivation being it is common sense (a UE is not capable of performing actions beyond its capabilities) and further to allow devices that may not have all of the capabilities of another device to still communication and participate on the network which increase connectivity and further to reduce costs by not creating rigid networks which can only support certain capabilities which may require hundreds of different networks and further to allow for flexibility in network operation and ensuring an inclusive networking environment which allows for different UEs of differing capabilities.
Lee in view of Yi do not explicitly disclose reserving bearers. However, Freda does disclose reserving bearers. (See Freda para. 82 and 88; reserving bearers for sidelink) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Lee in view of Yi to include the teaching of reserving bearers of Freda with the motivation being to prevent collisions and further to prevent interference and further to maximize limited wireless resources by reduce the possibility of collisions and interference.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (2019/0045465), and further in view of Yi (2021/0212099) and further in view of Xiong (2019/0261361) and further in view of Freda (2021/0385694).
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Yi discloses the transmission method according to claim 1. Lee in view of Yi do not explicitly disclose wherein when transmission on a target object exceeds the target limit, the method further comprises: multiplexing transmission on at least a part of objects in the target object to another bearer object in the target object, wherein the at least a part of objects in the target object and the another bearer object are associated with a same target object. However, Xiong does disclose wherein when transmission on a target object exceeds the target limit, the method further comprises: multiplexing transmission on at least a part of objects in the target object to another bearer object in the target object, wherein the at least a part of objects in the target object and the another bearer object are associated with a same target object. (See Xiong fig. 4, para. 45-46; overlapping transmissions can be combined (e.g. transmission obtained by adjusting the 2nd transmission)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Li in view of Yi to include the teaching of wherein when transmission on a target object exceeds the target limit, the method further comprises: multiplexing transmission on at least a part of objects in the target object to another bearer object in the target object, wherein the at least a part of objects in the target object and the another bearer object are associated with a same target object of Xiong with the motivation being to reduce delay of important transmissions and further to meet UE capabilities which does not waste resources by sending/receiving information that cannot be received/sent and further to maximize scheduling of limited wireless resources which reduce delay and increases throughput.
Lee in view of Yi do not explicitly disclose bearers. However, Freda does disclose bearers. (See Freda para. 82 and 88; reserving bearers for sidelink) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Lee in view of Yi to include the teaching of bearers of Freda with the motivation being to prevent collisions and further to prevent interference and further to maximize limited wireless resources by reduce the possibility of collisions and interference and further to allow for differing QoS requirements and further to differentiate between different data types (with different requirements, possibly control data vs user data, etc.).
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (2019/0045465), and further in view of Yi (2021/0212099).
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses a transmission device, comprising a processor; and a memory having a computer program or an instruction stored thereon, wherein the computer program or the instruction, when executed by the processor, causes to implement operations comprising: (See Lee fig. 9 UE with a processor executing an algorithm stored in memory)
determining a target limit of a first User Equipment (UE); and(See Lee para. 168; UE determines a count (e.g. a target limit) of simultaneous transmission reaches capability of UE)
wherein:
the first transmission is at least a part of the transmission of the target transmission object; (See Lee para. 172; fig. 8; 1-6 are transmission objects)
the transmission of the target transmission object is Sidelink (SL) transmission; (See Lee para. 5; sidelink; para. 25, fig. 8; CA in sidelink)
the target limit comprises at least one of the following: a target transmission limit or a target time limit; (See Lee para. 170; simultaneously on two carriers at same time (e.g. a target transmission limit); see also para. 168)
the transmission device comprises at least one of the following the first UE, a second UE, or a control node; and
the second UE is a UE related to sidelink transmission of the first UE. (See Lee fig. 4; part c shows UE, E-UTRAN (e.g. control node) or vehicle (e.g. second UE); vehicle is related to sidelink transmission of UE in that it transmits to or receives from)
Lee discloses that a device has a limit to the amount of simultaneous transmissions that may occur at the same time. Lee does not explicitly disclose dropping, by the first device, communication when the communication object that needs to be performed exceed the UE’s capabilities. However, Yi does disclose dropping, by the first device, communication when the communication object that needs to be performed exceed the UE’s capabilities. (See Yi fig. 23; drop PSSCH; para. 293, fig. 28; drop sidelink communication) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Lee to include the teaching of dropping, by the first device, communication when the communication object that needs to be performed exceed the UE’s capabilities of Yi with the motivation being it is common sense (a UE is not capable of performing actions beyond its capabilities) and further to allow devices that may not have all of the capabilities of another device to still communication and participate on the network which increase connectivity and further to reduce costs by not creating rigid networks which can only support certain capabilities which may require hundreds of different networks and further to allow for flexibility in network operation and ensuring an inclusive networking environment which allows for different UEs of differing capabilities.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (2019/0045465), and further in view of Yi (2021/0212099).
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program or an instruction that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to implement operations comprising: (See Lee fig. 9 UE with a processor executing an algorithm stored in memory)
determining a target limit of a first User Equipment (UE); and (See Lee para. 168; UE determines a count (e.g. a target limit) of simultaneous transmission reaches capability of UE)
wherein:
the first transmission is at least a part of the transmission of the target transmission object; (See Lee para. 172; fig. 8; 1-6 are transmission objects)
the transmission of the target transmission object is Sidelink (SL) transmission; and (See Lee para. 5; sidelink; para. 25, fig. 8; CA in sidelink)
the target limit comprises at least one of the following: a target transmission limit or a target time limit. . (See Lee fig. 4; part c shows UE, E-UTRAN (e.g. control node) or vehicle (e.g. second UE); vehicle is related to sidelink transmission of UE in that it transmits to or receives from)
Lee discloses that a device has a limit to the amount of simultaneous transmissions that may occur at the same time. Lee does not explicitly disclose dropping, by the first device, communication when the communication object that needs to be performed exceed the UE’s capabilities. However, Yi does disclose dropping, by the first device, communication when the communication object that needs to be performed exceed the UE’s capabilities. (See Yi fig. 23; drop PSSCH; para. 293, fig. 28; drop sidelink communication) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Lee to include the teaching of dropping, by the first device, communication when the communication object that needs to be performed exceed the UE’s capabilities of Yi with the motivation being it is common sense (a UE is not capable of performing actions beyond its capabilities) and further to allow devices that may not have all of the capabilities of another device to still communication and participate on the network which increase connectivity and further to reduce costs by not creating rigid networks which can only support certain capabilities which may require hundreds of different networks and further to allow for flexibility in network operation and ensuring an inclusive networking environment which allows for different UEs of differing capabilities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CLAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm 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, Huy D Vu can be reached at (571) 272-3155. 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.
/Stephen J Clawson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461