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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/21/24, 2/12/25. 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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without reciting significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 1–18: Method claims (statutory).
Claim 19: Apparatus (terminal) comprising a processor, memory, and program/instructions (statutory).
Claim 20: Non-transitory computer-readable medium (statutory).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial Exception (Abstract Idea)
The claims recite steps such as:
- Determining, by a terminal (via a processor NOT IN ORIGINAL CLAIM), a mode of resource selection or reselection (e.g., based on sensing or random selection), when a resource quantity is below a threshold,
- Performing resource selection/reselection according to the mode and preset parameters,
- Optionally, performing further steps (resource evaluation, discarding, pre-emption, etc.) when certain conditions are met,
- Using a variety of preset parameters and conditional logic to select among modes.
These steps amount to organizing and processing information, making decisions based on rules or conditions, and selecting among alternatives. These are mental processes—concepts that can be performed in the human mind or by a person using pen and paper (e.g., evaluating resources, making selections based on thresholds and conditions)—which are abstract ideas under USPTO guidance (see 2019 PEG, MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integration into a Practical Application
Although the claims are implemented on a “terminal” with a “processor” or recite a computer-readable medium, there are no additional elements or meaningful limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims do not recite a specific improvement to another technology or technical field, nor do they require a particular machine or transform an article to a different state or thing. The recited steps are generic and could be performed by any general-purpose computer or processor.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The recitation of a “terminal,” “processor,” or “memory” performing these steps is merely a generic computer implementation and does not add any meaningful limitation. The claims do not recite any unconventional technical solution or improvement to computer functionality or network technology.
Accordingly, claims 1–20 are directed to an abstract idea (mental processes and organizing human activity) and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 1–20 are **ineligible** under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claims recite various conditions (e.g., "in a case that X is met, determining ..."), but do not clearly explain the relationship between the conditions and the actions. For example, it is unclear what triggers a switch between different selection modes, how the "preset parameter" is set or determined, or how the selection/reselection is actually performed. Additionally, there is no indication of what happens if the conditions are not met making the scope of the claims ambiguous and unclear.
The use of "at least one of the following" for example, in claims 2, 4 and 5, with large, overlapping lists of conditions and actions makes it unclear which combinations are covered and what the boundaries of the claims are.
The claims do not provide sufficient guidance for one skilled in the art to determine whether a given process or apparatus falls within the scope of the claims, especially regarding:
- How to distinguish between the various "modes" of selection,
- What constitutes a "resource" for selection or reselection,
- What it means for "resource selection or resource reselection ... to not match" or to be "different from previous resource selection."
In claim 18, the phrase "every N third objects, wherein ... N is an integer less than or equal to 1" is unclear, as it is not evident what is meant by "every N third objects" when N may be 0 or 1.
Claims 19 and 20 recite a terminal and a non-transitory storage medium, respectively, but rely on the same unclear and indefinite functional language as the method claims, failing to provide structural or operational clarity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892 for cited references and the prior art made of record.
Ye et al. (US 20240057137) discloses:
Systems and methods for sidelink (SL) resource pool resource use by a user equipment (UE) are disclosed herein. In some embodiments, when the UE performs contiguous partial sensing in addition to periodic partial sensing, the UE performs one of resource selection and resource re-evaluation based a size of a time gap between a slot where the UE has SL data and a first slot of periodic-based candidate slots within a resource selection window. In other embodiments, the UE performs contiguous partial sensing without additional periodic partial sensing in the case where a packet delay budget (PDB) for the SL data is greater than a threshold. In some embodiments, the UE performs periodic partial sensing for resource re-evaluation and/or resource pre-emption according to a set of periodicity values P.sub.reserve,rs-ev (and optionally period definition data K.sub.re-ev). Restrictions on the use of random resource selection by the UE are also described.
Lee et al. (US 20210400638) discloses:
Disclosed are a V2X (vehicle-to-everything) transmission resource selecting method implemented by a terminal in a wireless communication system and a terminal using the method. The method is characterized by: receiving type information for indicating the type of a resource pool; and executing a resource selection, on the basis of partial sensing, and/or a random selection from the resource pool on the basis of the type information.
Li et al. (US 20190174545) discloses:
Embodiments of the present disclosure provide a method for transmitting data, including: sensing, by a first device, a scheduling assignment (SA) of another device; measuring a received power of the other device, and measuring a total received energy of a subframe/sub band; determining a received power reference value and a total received energy reference value of the other device according to the SA; e selecting resources; and transmitting data using the selected resources. According to the method of the present disclosure, the performance of the method which avoids collision based on SA is improved, and measurement accuracy of the total received energy of the sub band is increased. Thus, resource selection/re-selection can be performed better. As such, interferences between devices can be avoided effectively.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARAD RAMPURIA whose telephone number is (571)272-7870 and e-mail address is sharad.rampuria@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs.: 8 AM-6 PM.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904. 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.
/SHARAD RAMPURIA/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights