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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been considered for examination.
With regard to the objections to Specification, Applicant’s arguments filed 05/18/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are partially persuasive. Thus, the objections to Specification other than what is set forth below have been withdrawn.
With regard to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 05/18/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are not persuasive at least in view of reasons set forth below.
On page 9 of Remarks, Applicant argued:
Guo fails to remedy the deficiencies of Zhou and Cano with respect to claim 1. The Office Action alleges that Guo discloses an "index of the at least one sub-slot" in paragraph [0126] by disclosing that "each indication may be a two-tuple parameter (T, F), wherein T indicates the index of a sub-slot and F indicates the position in the frequency domain which is in terms of sub-channels and calculated from the lowest position of all sub-channels included in the first set of resources allocated to the UE." Id. However, Guo fails to disclose the above-quoted features of claim 1, namely generating "sidelink control information comprising an index of the at least one sub-slot of the slot for communication of the side link positioning reference signal," as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). Further, none of Zhou, Cano, and Guo disclose that "the index is indicated by at least one bit reserved for demodulation reference signal pattern in the side link control information," as recited in claim 1. Such features are simply absent from Zhou, Cano, and Guo. Thus, even if the references were combined as suggested in the Office Action, the claimed invention would not result. The rejection should therefore be withdrawn.
In response to the above Applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In order to establish prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, Guo is only applied to cure deficiencies of Zhou and Cano for “an index of at the least one sub-slot of the slot for communication”, not for “sidelink control information comprising an indication of the at least one sub-slot of the slot for communication of the sidelink positioning reference signals” which is taught by Zhou. See paragraph [202] of Zhou, “an alternative for transmitting the SL-PRS across the full bandwidth is to include an indication in the SCI of the presence of SL-PRS either in this slot or in future slots (i.e., a future reservation), and then send the SL-PRS in the REs configured to carry RS within the slot and the subchannels indicated by the SCI.” The slot/even slots within which the SL-PRS is sent” of Zhou can be interpreted as the claimed “at least one sub-slot for communication of the sidelink positioning reference signal (SL-PRS)” since the claimed at least one sub-slot is read as a “partial time interval” (i.e., event slots of Zhou) being a part of a longer time time interval (i.e., event and odd slots of Zhou) under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Zhou in view of Cano discloses, the indication is indicated by at least one bit reserved for demodulation reference signal pattern in the side link control information, as discussed in pages 5-6 of the non-final office action.
On page 10 of Remarks, Applicant argued:
Accordingly, for at least these reasons, claims 1, 7, and 13 distinguish over Zhou, Cano, and Guo, alone or in any combination, and represent allowable subject matter. Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 11 represent allowable subject matter at least because they depend from an allowable base claim. Without conceding to the rejections, to expedite prosecution, claims 3 and 8 are canceled, thereby rendering the rejection thereof moot.
In response to the above Applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Since claims 7 and 13 recite similar features to claim 1 without further patentable features, claims 7 and 13 are unpatentable in view of the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1. Further, since claims 1, 7 and 13 are unpatentable over the cited references of record as set forth above, patentability of other dependent claims should be determined based on the claimed limitations recited thereon, rather than their respective independent claims. The dependent claims are also unpatentable in view of the corresponding cited references of records as set forth below.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of following informalities:
The abstract contains phrases, “By efficient usage of SCI, the resource allocation at sub-slot level can be enabled for sidelink positioning. In this way, sidelink positioning sensing is improved in term of resource reservation. In addition, the sidelink positioning reference signal interference can be reduced.” (lines 6-9), which refer to purported merits of the invention. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11, 13-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (US Publication No. 2023/0319857 A1) in view of Cano et al (US Publication No. 2025/0286675 A1)1 and further in view of Guo et al (US Publication No. 2025/0031224 A1)2.
Regarding claim 1, Zhou discloses, a first apparatus [FIG. 1; its related descriptions; ¶0045, user equipment (UE) 106], comprising:
at least one processor [FIGS. 1 and 24; their related descriptions; ¶0213, main processor 2421; note that every communication device has at least one processor]; and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the first apparatus at least to [FIGS. 1 and 24; their related descriptions; ¶0215, memory 2430; further see ¶0010, storage medium storing instructions cause the processor to perform action(s); note that every communication device has at least one memory]:
select, from a resource pool, at least one sub-slot of a slot in time domain for communication of a sidelink positioning reference signal [¶0202, select, from a resource pool, even slots (i.e., at least one sub-slot of the odd slots and the even slots) for communication of SL-PRS; note that given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed at least one sub-slot is considered as a “partial time interval” which corresponds to the event slots of the odd slots and the even slots of Zhou); further see “an alternative for transmitting the SL-PRS across the full bandwidth is to include an indication in the SCI of the presence of SL-PRS either in this slot or in future slots (i.e., a future reservation), and then send the SL-PRS (i.e., communication of SL-PRS) in the REs configured to carry RS within the slot and the subchannels indicated by the SCI . . . it may share the same field of the SL CSI request based on pre-configuration. In particular, RRC configuration may be used to indicate whether the CSI-RS or the SL-PRS will be indicated by the CSI-RS 1-bit field currently present in the second stage SCI in 3GPP Rel-16 (i.e., the “CSI request” 1-bit field). This configuration may also be done such that in some slots only CSI-RS may be triggered (e.g., odd slots) and in other slots (e.g., even slots) SL-PRS may be indicated by the CSI-RS 1-bit field in the second stage SCI; note that including an indication in the SCI of such presence of SL-PRS requires selecting the corresponding slot(s) for the communication of SL-PRS];
generate sidelink control information (SCI) comprising an indication3 of the at least one sub-slot of the slot for communication of sidelink positioning reference signal [¶0202, generate the SCI comprising an indication of the odd slots of the slot(s); further see “send the SL-PRS in the REs configured to carry RS within the slot”], wherein the indication2 is indicated by at least one bit reserved for . . RS pattern in the sidelink control information [¶0202, the indication is indicated by CSI-RS 1-bit field in the SCI; see “[t]his configuration may also be done such that in some slots only CSI-RS may be triggered (e.g., odd slots) and in other slots (e.g., even slots) SL-PRS may be indicated by the CSI-RS 1-bit field in the second stage SCI];
transmit the sidelink control information to a terminal device [¶0202, transmit the SCI to Rx UE]; and
transmit the sidelink positioning reference signal to the terminal device in the at least one sub-slot [¶0202, generate the SCI comprising an indication of the odd slots of the slot(s); further see “send the SL-PRS in the REs configured to carry RS within the slot”].
Although Zhou discloses, wherein the indication is indicated by at least one bit reserved for . . . RS pattern in the SCI” as set forth above, Zhou does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), the RS pattern in the SCI is modified to be “demodulation reference signal (DMRS)” pattern in the SCI.
However, Cano discloses, wherein the indication is indicated by at least one bit reserved for demodulation reference signal (DMRS) pattern [FIG. 3; its related descriptions; ¶0134, codepoint of DMRS-related fields is reused to indicate SMP ports (i.e., a part of spatial resources)] see also, e.g., ¶0142 of US Provisional App. No. 63/394,808.
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Zhou with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Cano to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Cano into the system of Zhou would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to support flexible sideling scheduling and improve resource utilization, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Further, although Zhou in view of Cano discloses, “generate sidelink control information (SCI) comprising an indication of the at least one sub-slot of the slot for communication of sidelink positioning reference signal, wherein the indication is indicated by at least one bit reserved for demodulation reference signa pattern in the sidelink control information” as set forth above, Zhou in view of Cano does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), the indication of the at least one sub-slot is modified to be an “index” of the at least one sub-slot.
However, Guo discloses, an index indicating at least one sub-slot [FIG. 6; its related descriptions; ¶0135, at least one of SS#1 through SS#5; further ¶0126, each indication may be a two-tuple parameter (T, F), wherein T indicates the index of a sub-slot, further see ¶0126, each indication may be a two-tuple parameter (T, F), wherein T indicates the index of a sub-slot].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Zhou in view of Cano with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Guo to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Guo into the system of Zhou in view of Cano would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling compact singling and precisely identifying time resources without extra control overhead, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 2, Zhou in view of Cano and Guo discloses, the first apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
Zhou discloses discloses, wherein the first apparatus is further caused to: determine a sub-slot structure of the slot to be used for communication of the sidelink positioning reference signal [¶0202, an alternative for transmitting the SL-PRS across the full bandwidth is to include an indication in the SCI of the presence of SL-PRS either in this slot or in future slots (i.e., a future reservation), and then send the SL-PRS (i.e., communication of SL-PRS) in the REs configured to carry RS within the slot and the subchannels indicated by the SCI; note that configuring the indication for the SL-RPS and sending the SL-PRS within the slot based on the indication require determining a structure of the slots], the sub-slot structure comprising a plurality of sub-slots [see ¶0202, [t]his configuration may also be done such that in some slots only CSI-RS may be triggered (e.g., odd slots) and in other slots (e.g., even slots) SL-PRS may be indicated by the CSI-RS 1-bit field in the second stage SCI; note that the structure includes the odd slots and the even slots].
Regarding claim 4, Zhou in view of Cano and Guo discloses, the first apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
Zhou discloses, wherein the number of the at least one bit [¶0202, CSI-RS 1-bit field (i.e., one)] is associated with the number of a plurality of sub-slots in the slot [¶0202, the number of even slots (i.e., more than one) of the odd slots and the event slots].
Regarding claim 6, Zhou in view of Cano and Guo discloses, the first apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
Zhou in view of Cano discloses, wherein the sidelink control information further comprises an indicator indicating whether the at least one bit reserved for demodulation reference signal pattern4 is set for indicating the at least one sub-slot of the slot [¶0202, the SCI comprises a CSI-RS 1-bit field indicating whether the the CSI request field is set for indicating the even slots for communication of SL PRS; see, “[t]his configuration may also be done such that in some slots only CSI-RS may be triggered (e.g., odd slots) and in other slots (e.g., even slots) SL-PRS may be indicated by the CSI-RS 1-bit field in the second stage SCI”; note that since the CSI-RS 1-bit field is used to indicate that the SL-PRS is triggered in the even slots, the CSI-RS field is an indicator itself whether the field is set for indicating even slots for communication of SL PRS as well as an indicator indicating resources/even slots via which the SL PRS is communicated].
Regarding claim 7, Zhou discloses, a second apparatus [FIG. 1; its related descriptions; user equipment (UE) 108; further see ¶0202, Rx UE], comprising:
at least one processor [FIGS. 1 and 24; their related descriptions; ¶0213, main processor 2421; note that every communication device has at least one processor]; and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the first apparatus at least to [FIGS. 1 and 24; their related descriptions; ¶0215, memory 2430; further see ¶0010, storage medium storing instructions cause the processor to perform action(s); note that every communication device has at least one memory]: . . .
determine, based on the indication, a potential communication of the sidelink positioning reference signal on the at least one sub-slot of the slot [¶0202, receiving of the SL PRS by the Rx UE is implicit from “an alternative for transmitting the SL-PRS across the full bandwidth is to include an indication in the SCI of the presence of SL-PRS either in this slot or in future slots (i.e., a future reservation), and then send the SL-PRS (i.e., communication of SL-PRS) in the REs”; further see ¶0208, if the conditions do not indicate SL-CSI-RS, the UE may determine that SL-PRS is present, at 2310. The UE may perform measurements on the SL-PRS, at 2312].
Since claim 7 is merely different from claim 1 in that it recites claimed features from the perspective of a second apparatus, but recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features. Thus, claim 7 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 6.
Regarding claim 13, since claim 13 recites similar features to claim 1 without additional features, claim 13 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, since claim 17 recites similar features to claim 1 or 13 without additional features, claim 17 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1 or 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 10, 12 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm (M-T).
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.f attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 Cano claims priority of US Provisional Application No. 63/394,808 filed on 08/03/2022, thus Cano is qualified as a prior art under 102(a)(2) for the instant application with the effective filing date 02/14/2023.
2 Since Guo is relying on PCT publication (WO 2023/092592) (see attached) to claim a priority date 11/29/2021, Guo is qualified as a prior art under 102(a)(2) for the instant application with the effective filing date 02/14/2023.
3 Since the term “an indication” is introduced by the examiner as a generic term for “an index” (originally claimed) for the sake of discussion purpose on how the cited reference(s) is mapped to the claimed invention, there is no alternation or change on the claimed scope or features due to the generic term.
4 DMRS pattern is taught by Cano as set forth regarding claim 1.
Prosecution Insights