DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on April 15, 2026 after the non-final rejection of the application.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed April 15, 2026 has been entered. Claims 4 and 14 were canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-22 are pending for examination, of which claims 1, 5-7, 10-11, 15-17, and 20 were amended and claims 21-22 were newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/15/26 have been fully considered and entered.
With respect to the applicant’s argument, Applicant states that Zhang or Hui, alone or in combination, neither discloses nor suggests amended claims 1, 11, and 20. Examiner respectfully notes that the rejection(s) of amended claims 1, 11, and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the addition of limitations.
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 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, 15-17, 20, and 22 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, and further in view of Yu (US 20250317967 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yu.
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 transmission of conflict information indicating the resource conflict (determining service priority value for RCI transmission [0418], wherein RCI indicates resources conflict based on first and second SCIs [0007]), based on:
a first priority indicated by the first SCI (first priority value is included in first sidelink transmission [0445]); and
a second priority indicated by the second SCI (second priority value is included in first sidelink transmission [0445]);
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 Layer 1 priority, physical layer priority and a priority carried in the SCI [0254]. It is known in the art that physical layer/ Layer 1 priority is a mechanism used to prioritize different types of traffic.
Zhang does not explicitly disclose determining a channel access priority class (CAPC) value for transmission of conflict information; and transmitting the conflict information using the CAPC value.
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 (and performing TB transmissions by selecting a first CAPC value [0502]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to determine and transmit the conflict information using the service priority information, wherein service access priorities are mapped to CAPC values 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.
Zhang in view of Hui does not specify determining a channel access priority class (CAPC) value for transmission of conflict information based on the first priority indicated by the first SCI and the second priority indicated by the second SCI.
Yu teaches determining a channel access priority class (CAPC) value for transmission of information based on the first priority indicated by the first SCI and the second priority indicated by the second SCI (determining a CAPC value for transmission based on a priority level value [0082] and wherein SCI is transmitted from a transmitting UE {Tx UE} to a receiving UE {Rx UE} [0057], e.g., sidelink transmission).
Also, Yu mentions that UE receives configuration information associated with CAPC [0068], a mapping relationship between traffic priority level values and CAPC values, and relationship between the priority level value and one CAPC value [0070-0074].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to apply the features of determining CAPC value for transmission of information based on the traffic priority – of Yu -- into the method of determining CAPC value for transmission of conflict information based on the first traffic priority indicated by the first SCI and the second priority indicated by the second SCI – of Zhang in view of Hui; thus successfully sending data via sidelink transmissions, while avoiding conflict, by using proper CAPC based on or in response to a corresponding value for a priority of sidelink transmissions.
Regarding claim 2:
Zhang in view of Hui and Yu 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 and Yu 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 5:
Zhang in view of Hui and Yu discloses all limitations of claim 1, and –
Zhang in view of Hui does not, while Yu further teaches:
the second priority is associated with a second CAPC value ({second} priority level is mapped with {second} CAPC value, [0079- Table 2); and
the method further comprises determining the CAPC value to be equal to a second CAPC value (determining CAPC value=1 is equal to {second} CAPC value:1 [0079 – Table 2]).
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; thus enabling the determination of channel access to allow prioritization of sidelink transmissions.
Regarding claim 6:
Zhang in view of Hui and Yu discloses all limitations of claim 5, and –
Zhang in view of Hui does not, while Yu further teaches determining the CAPC value to be equal to the second CAPC value is based on a value of the second priority being smaller than or equal to a value of the first priority ({second} priority level=1 is mapped with {first} CAPC value=1 and {first} priority level=0 is mapped with {first} CAPC value=1 [0079 – Table 2]).
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 a value of the second priority being smaller than or equal to a value of the first priority; thus enabling the determination of channel access to allow prioritization of sidelink transmissions.
Regarding claim 7:
Zhang in view of Hui and Yu discloses all limitations of claim 5, and –
Zhang in view of Hui does not, while Yu further teaches:
the first priority is associated with a first CAPC value ({first} priority level:0 is mapped with {first} CAPC value:1, [0079- Table 2); and
the determining the CAPC value to be equal to a second CAPC value is based on the second CAPC value being lower that than or equal to the first CAPC value (based on {second} CAPC value=1 being lower than {first} CAPC value=2 [0079 – Table 2]).
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 based on the second CAPC value being lower that than or equal to the first CAPC value; thus enabling the determination of channel access to allow prioritization of sidelink transmissions.
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 12-13:
Zhang discloses all limitations of claim 11, and –
Claims 12-13 are rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claims 2-3 above, respectively, except that claims 12-13 are in a device claim format.
Regarding claims 15-17:
Zhang discloses all limitations of claim 11, and –
Claims 15-17 are rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claims 5-7 above, respectively, except that claims 15-17 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]).
Regarding claim 22:
Zhang in view of Hui and Yu discloses all limitations of claim 20, and –
Zhang further discloses the first wireless device to receive:
the first SCI from a second wireless device (first SCI sent by second terminal device [0216, lines 1-9]); and
the second SCI from a third wireless device (first SCI sent by second terminal device [0216, lines 1-9]);
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Hui and Yu, as applied to claims 5 and 15 above, respectively, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 20250294608 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hwang.
Regarding claim 8:
Zhang in view of Hui and Yu discloses all limitations of claim 5, and –
Zhang in view of Hui and Yu 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.
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 in view of Hui and Yu 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 and Yu, as applied to claims 5 and 15 above, respectively, and further in view of Loehr et al. (US 20200337083 A1), hereinafter referred to as Loehr.
Regarding claim 9:
Zhang in view of Hui and Yu discloses all limitations of claim 5, and –
Zhang in view of Hui and Yu 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.
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 in view of Hui and Yu 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.
Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Hui and Yu, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, respectively, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20240373460 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zhang60.
Regarding claim 10:
Zhang in view of Hui and Yu discloses all limitations of claim 1, and –
Zhang in view of Hui and Yu further discloses transmitting the feedback channel with the conflict information based on a listen before talk (LBT) procedure using the CAPC value.
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]).
Regarding claim 21:
Zhang in view of Hui and Yu discloses all limitations of claim 11, and –
Claim 21 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 10 above, except that claim 21 is in a non-tangible computer medium format.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 9:00am-5:00pm. 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 on 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./
Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights