DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 11-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20230362917 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zhang, in view of Hui (US 20240147437 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hui.
Regarding claim 1:
Zhang discloses a method (method of transmitting resource conflict indication {RCI}, [00050) comprising:
determining, by a first wireless device, a resource conflict based on a first sidelink control information (SCI) and a second SCI (detecting, by a first terminal device, e.g., first wireless device, a first reserved resource indicated by first sidelink control information {SCI} conflicts with a reserved resource indicated by second SCI [0158]);
determining a service priority value, for a transmission of a conflict information indicating the resource conflict, based on one of the first SCI and the second SCI (determining service priority value for RCI transmission [0418], wherein RCI indicates resources conflict based on first and second SCI [0007]); and
transmitting the conflict information, via a feedback channel, using the service priority value (sending RCI to second terminal, if second service priority is higher than or equal to first, via feedback channel [0418, 0297]).
Furthermore, Zhang discloses the service priority may also be referred to as L1 priority, physical layer priority and a priority carried in the SCI [0254].
Zhang does not explicitly disclose determining a channel access priority class (CAPC) value, for a transmission of a conflict information; and transmitting the conflict information using the CAPC value; which are known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Hui’s disclosure as below.
Hui, from the same field of endeavor, teaches determining a channel access priority class (CAPC) value for transmission of information (determining CAPC values for transport block {TB} transmissions [0502]); and transmitting the information using the CAPC value (or performing TB transmissions by selecting a first CAPC value [0502]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to determine and transmit the conflict information using the service priority information or the CAPC value, that were indicated in SCIs ; thus improving the reliability of sidelink communications – resulting from the resolution of resources conflicts between two devices (Hui [0005]) and from implementing a proper channel access procedure.
Regarding claim 2:
Zhang in view of Hui discloses all limitations of claim 1, and –
Zhang further discloses receiving, by the first wireless device the first SCI from a second wireless device (first SCI sent by second terminal device, e.g., second wireless device [0216]); and the second SCI from a third wireless device (second SCI sent by third terminal device, e.g., third wireless device [0216]).
Regarding claim 3:
Zhang in view of Hui discloses all limitations of claim 1, and –
Zhang further discloses transmitting the conflict information to a second wireless device based on the first wireless device being an intended receiver of the second wireless device for a first reserved resource indicated by the first SCI (sending RCI to second terminal device and/or the third terminal device over reserved resources [0160, lines 16-32]).
Regarding claim 4:
Zhang in view of Hui discloses all limitations of claim 1, and –
Zhang further discloses determining the priority value based on an indication by one of the first SCI or the second SCI (determining service priority value/ level [0040] included in SCI priority field [0238]).
However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose the priority value can be a CAPC value; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Hui’s disclosure as below.
Hui, from the same field of endeavor, discloses the priority value can be a CAPC value (determining CAPC values [0502]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to determine a CAPC value being indicated in SCIs; thus enabling the determination of channel access to allow prioritization of sidelink transmissions (Hui [0220]).
Regarding claim 5:
Zhang in view of Hui discloses all limitations of claim 1, and –
Zhang further discloses determining the CAPC value to be equal to a second CAPC value indicated by the second SCI (determining second service priority value/ level by using the first sidelink control information is equal to first service priority [0040]).
However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose the priority value can be a CAPC value; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Hui’s disclosure as below.
Hui, from the same field of endeavor, discloses the priority value can be a CAPC value (determining CAPC values [0502]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to determine the CAPC value being equal to a second CAPC value indicated by the second SCI; thus enabling the determination of channel access to allow prioritization of sidelink transmissions (Hui [0220]).
Regarding claim 6:
Zhang in view of Hui discloses all limitations of claim 5, and –
Zhang further discloses determining the second SCI indicating a second priority value that is smaller than or equal to a first priority value indicated by the first SCI (determining {second} service priority value/ level by using {second} SCI is lower than or equal to {first} service priority value/ level by using {first} SCI [0040]).
However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose the priority value can be a CAPC value; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Hui’s disclosure as below.
Hui, from the same field of endeavor, discloses the priority value can be a CAPC value (determining CAPC values [0502]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to determine the CAPC value to be equal to the second CAPC value is based on the second SCI indicating a second priority value that is smaller than or equal to a first priority value indicated by the first SCI; thus enabling the determination of channel access to allow prioritization of sidelink transmissions [0220].
Regarding claim 7:
Zhang in view of Hui discloses all limitations of claim 5, and –
Zhang further discloses determining the second CAPC value is lower than or equal to the first CAPC value (determining {second} service priority value/ level is lower than or equal to {first} service priority value/ level [0040]).
However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose the priority value can be a CAPC value; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Hui’s disclosure as below.
Hui, from the same field of endeavor, discloses the priority value can be a CAPC value (determining CAPC values [0502]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to determine the second CAPC value to be equal to the second CACP value is based on the second CAPC value being lower than or equal to first CAPC indicated by the first SCI; thus enabling the determination of channel access to allow prioritization of sidelink transmissions (Hui [0220]).
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 1 above, except that claim 11 is in a device claim format, and wherein Zhang [in claim 11] also discloses a first wireless device (terminal device, Fig. 17 or [0059]) comprising: one or more processors (processor, Fig. 17 or [0059]); and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (memory, Fig. 17 or [0658]), causes the first wireless device to perform claimed functionalities.
Regarding claims 12-17:
Zhang discloses all limitations of claim 11, and –
Claims 12-17 are rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claims 2-7 above, respectively, except that claims 12-17 are in a device claim format.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 1 above, except that claim 20 is in a non-tangible computer medium format (Zhang [0135]).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Hui, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 20250294608 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hwang.
Regarding claim 8:
Zhang in view of Hui discloses all limitations of claim 5, and –
Zhang in view of Hui do not explicitly disclose the determining the CAPC value to be equal to the second CAPC value is based on a second reference signal received power (RSRP) of the second SCI being greater than a RSRP threshold; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Hwang’s disclosure as below.
Hwang, from the same field of endeavor, discloses the CAPC value to be equal to the second CAPC value is based on a second reference signal received power (RSRP) of the second SCI being greater than a RSRP threshold (determining sidelink transmission based on {second} CAPC value and on RSRP measurement value for reserved resource is greater than a first threshold value [0207, lines 1-22]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the CAPC value to be equal to the second CAPC value is based on a second reference signal received power (RSRP) of the second SCI being greater than a RSRP threshold; thus facilitating the congestion control in sidelink transmissions on resources occupied/ reserved by two devices (Hwang [0207]).
Regarding claim 18:
Zhang discloses all limitations of claim 15, and –
Claim 18 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 8 above, respectively, except that claim 18 is in a device claim format.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Hui, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Loehr et al. (US 20200337083 A1), hereinafter referred to as Loehr.
Regarding claim 9:
Zhang in view of Hui discloses all limitations of claim 5, and –
Zhang in view of Hui does not explicitly disclose determining the CAPC value to be equal to the second CAPC value is based on the first wireless device being a destination wireless device of a second transport block (TB) to be transmitted by a second wireless device in a second reserved resource indicated by the second SCI; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Loehr’s disclosure as below.
Loehr, from the same field of endeavor, discloses determining the CAPC value to be equal to the second CAPC value is based on the first wireless device being a destination wireless device of a second transport block (TB) to be transmitted by a second wireless device in a second reserved resource indicated by the second SCI (using a {second} CAPC of “2” for HARQ (re)transmission of TBs [0062]).
Also, Loehr discloses four channel access priority classes may be used for performing uplink and downlink transmissions [0047].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the CAPC value to be equal to the second CAPC value based on a second reference signal received power (RSRP) of the second SCI being greater than a RSRP threshold; thus facilitating TB transmission without causing negative impact quality of service {QoS}, of high priority data by applying a proper CAPC value (Loehr [0051]).
Regarding claim 19:
Zhang discloses all limitations of claim 15, and –
Claim 19 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 9 above, respectively, except that claim 19 is in a device claim format.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20240373460 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zhang60.
Regarding claim 10:
Zhang in view of Hui discloses all limitations of claim 1, and –
Zhang in view of Hui further discloses transmitting the feedback channel with the conflict information based on a listen before talk (LBT) procedure using the CAPC value; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Zhang60 disclosure as below.
Zhang60, from the same field of endeavor, teaches transmitting the feedback channel with the conflict information based on a listen before talk (LBT) procedure using the CAPC value (performing transmission when LBT succeeds [0083] and when CAPC value to be used is known [0069]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to transmit the feedback channel with the conflict information based on a listen before talk (LBT) procedure using the CAPC value; thus enhancing data transmissions by avoiding the application of improper LBT and CAPC value (Zhang60 [0065]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kwak (US 20220039097 A1 [0006]), Lei (US 20230132437 A1 [0048. 0059, 0092]), and
Qi (US 20250159727 A1 [0041, 0042, 0147, 0155, 0204, 0219-0220, 0228-0232]),
are all cited to show that transmitting the conflict information using the service priority information or the CAPC value being indicated in SCIs – would improve the reliability of sidelink communications – resulting from the resolution of resources conflicts between two devices [0005] and from implementing a proper channel access procedure – similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMQUYEN THAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7245. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and videoconferencing 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, Ayman A. Abaza, can be reached at 571-270-0422. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/C.Q.T./
/AYMAN A ABAZA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465