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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/8/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US Publication 2022/0201654).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 20, Lee teaches a method and an apparatus comprising at least one processor, and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, (i.e. fig. 1b shows a WTRU comprising a processor, transceiver and memory for wireless communications and executing programmed instructions; see paragraphs 34 - 36) cause the apparatus at least to:
determine whether one or more physical sidelink feedback channel symbols are allocated in at least one time slot; (i.e. Lee discloses a WTRU may determine a set of shared PSFCH resources, including symbols, slot; see paragraph 146) and
transmit, based on the determination, a signal on one or more co-channel resources in the at least one time slot. (i.e. Lee discloses upon determination of the shared PSFCH resources, the WTRU may select among the PSFCH resources to transmit HARQ information; see paragraph 147)
(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.
Claim(s) 1 , 14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US Publication 2023/0354270) disclosed 10-2023-0015670 (KR)(machine translation).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 20, Lee teaches a method and an apparatus comprising at least one processor, and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, (i.e. fig. 2 shows a communication node comprising a processor, transceiver and memory for wireless communications and executing programmed instructions; see paragraphs 65 - 67) cause the apparatus at least to:
determine whether one or more physical sidelink feedback channel symbols are allocated in at least one time slot; (i.e. Lee discloses a first wireless terminal may co-exist with a second on the same channel determine, the first device may detect a set of shared PSFCH resources; see paragraph 238) and
transmit, based on the determination, a signal on one or more co-channel resources in the at least one time slot. (i.e. Lee discloses upon determination of the shared PSFCH resources, the wireless terminal may transmit information indicative of disabling the symbols or may transmit HARQ ack/nack information on the shared resources; see paragraph 147)
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.
Claims 2 – 5, 8 -10, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Lee et al. (US Publication 2023/0354270) in view of Lei et al. (US Publication 2026/0006625).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses all the recited limitations of claim 1 as described previously from which claim 2 depends. Lee does not teach wherein the transmission of the signal causes a user equipment monitoring received energy on the one or more co-channel resources to less likely select the one or more co-channel resources for a communication.
However, Lei discloses wherein the transmission of the signal causes a user equipment monitoring received energy on the one or more co-channel resources to less likely select the one or more co-channel resources for a communication. (i.e. Lei discloses in figure 5 that a UE may detect co-channel resources allocated to a PSFCH, and in response perform a continuous signal in the detected resources, the signal for power detection or energy monitoring by the receiving UE; see paragraphs 200 - 202)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed transmit a continuous signal of Lei into the detected PSFCH symbols of Lee. Both Lee and Lei teach sidelink communications in co-existence networks supporting both LTE and NR.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Luo to improve network performance by increasing the reliability of sidelink communications by managing interference and reducing collision probability.
Regarding claim 3 and 15, Lee discloses all the recited limitations of claim 2 and 14 as described previously from which claim 3 and 15 depends. Lee does not teach wherein the signal is transmitted such that a probability of received energy on the one or more co-channel resources at the user equipment being above or equal to a threshold is increased.
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed because in 5G-NR V2X, UEs already use energy detection (RSRP) to exclude candidate resources. If a UE detects another UE's signal is above a certain threshold, it marks that resource as occupied and avoids selecting it for its own transmission. Therefore, Claim 3 merely describes explicitly ensuring the energy level is higher than the threshold to guarantee that the resource exclusion, described in Claim 2, occurs. It is a predictable consequence of transmitting a signal in a crowded, energy-based selection environment.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Luo to improve network performance by increasing the reliability of sidelink communications by managing interference and reducing collision probability.
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses all the recited limitations of claim 2 as described previously from which claim 4 depends. Lee teaches wherein the apparatus comprises a user equipment associated with a first radio access technology, and wherein the user equipment monitoring the received energy is associated with a second radio access technology different to the first radio access technology. (i.e. Lee discloses coexistence between LTE and NR sidelink (SL) communications, either through separate devices or existing on the same device; see paragraphs 5 – 7, 26, 163, 164)
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses all the recited limitations of claim 4 as described previously from which claim 5 depends. Lee teaches wherein the user equipment is associated with both the first radio access technology and the second radio access technology. (i.e. Lee discloses coexistence between LTE and NR sidelink (SL) communications, either through separate devices or existing on the same device; see paragraphs 5 – 7, 26, 163, 164)
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses all the recited limitations of claim 4 as described previously from which claim 8 depends. Lee teaches wherein the signal and the one or more co-channel resources are based on a pre-defined configuration shared between a plurality of user equipment associated with the first radio access technology. (i.e. Lee discloses co-channel coexistence between LTE SL terminal and NR SL terminal, NR SL resources may be configured in consideration of LTE SL resource configuration. The NR SL resources may be configured according to an LTE SL resource grid in consideration of a ratio between the LTE SL SCS and the NR SL SCS; see paragraphs 196 - 198)
Regarding claim 9 and 18, Lee discloses all the recited limitations of claim 1 as described previously from which claim 9 and 18 depends. Lee does not teach wherein the signal comprises a sequence that comprises information other than feedback information, wherein the sequence is transmitted on the one or more physical sidelink feedback channel symbols.
However, Lei discloses wherein the signal comprises a sequence that comprises information other than feedback information, wherein the sequence is transmitted on the one or more physical sidelink feedback channel symbols. (i.e. Lei discloses in figure 2 that a UE may detect co-channel resources allocated to a PSFCH, and in response perform a continuous signal in the detected resources, the signal for power detection or energy monitoring by the receiving UE; see paragraphs 200 - 202)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed transmit a continuous signal of Lei into the detected PSFCH symbols of Lee. Both Lee and Lei teach sidelink communications in co-existence networks supporting both LTE and NR.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Luo to improve network performance by increasing the reliability of sidelink communications by managing interference and reducing collision probability.
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses all the recited limitations of claim 1 as described previously from which claim 10 depends. Lee teaches wherein the one or more co-channel resources comprise at least one of: at least a part of a guard symbol in the at least one time slot, or at least a part of the one or more physical sidelink feedback channel symbols in the at least one time slot. (i.e. Lee discloses wherein co-channel resources shared by terminals may comprise guard symbols present in the slot; see paragraphs 212)
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses all the recited limitations of claim 1 as described previously from which claim 13 depends. Lee does not teach transmit at least one of: physical sidelink shared channel information or physical sidelink control channel information; and determine whether feedback information needs to be transmitted or received in the at least one time slot for the physical sidelink shared channel information or the physical sidelink control channel information, wherein the signal is transmitted based on determining that the feedback information does not need to be transmitted or received in the at least one time slot.
However, Lei discloses transmit at least one of: physical sidelink shared channel information or physical sidelink control channel information; and determine whether feedback information needs to be transmitted or received in the at least one time slot for the physical sidelink shared channel information or the physical sidelink control channel information, wherein the signal is transmitted based on determining that the feedback information does not need to be transmitted or received in the at least one time slot. (i.e. Lei discloses in figure 5 that upon determining the HARQ feedback is not required for a PSSCH transmission the terminal may perform a continuous signal transmission in the shared slot of the PSFCH; see paragraphs 201 - 202)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed transmit a continuous signal of Lei into the detected PSFCH symbols of Lee. Both Lee and Lei teach sidelink communications in co-existence networks supporting both LTE and NR.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Luo to improve network performance by increasing the reliability of sidelink communications by managing interference and reducing collision probability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 and 16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 and 17 objected to as being dependent upon an objected claim which would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J LOPATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-7 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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. 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.
ROBERT J. LOPATA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2471
/ROBERT J LOPATA/
February 11, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471