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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/26 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, starting on page 15, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7,9-11,14-21,23-24 and 27-30 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Yoshioka does not disclose “in relation to a first RSRP threshold when the one or more single slot resources are in a non-first-RAT PSFCH slot, or a second RSRP threshold when the one or more single slot resources are in a first RAT PSFCH slot.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 158 of Yoshioka discloses the exclusion of resources when LTE overlaps with NR PSFCH. Paragraph of Yoshioka discloses that the exclusion may occur on the basis of an RSRP threshold. Paragraph 151 of Yoshioka discloses that the RSRP threshold may be different based on whether the exclusion is occurring on and NR resource or LTE resource. In combination, Examiner believes that one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably interpret the teachings of Yoshioka as corresponding to the cited feature of the instant claim. Thus, Yoshioka does teach all the features of the instant claim.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 19, 29, and 30 are based on their similarity to claim 1 and are respectfully disagreed with for similar reasons. Applicant’s arguments regarding the remaining claims are based on their dependence to claims 1, 19, 29, and 30 and are respectfully disagreed with for similar reasons.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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)(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) 1-7, 9-10, 17-18, 19-20, 23-24, 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoshioka (US 20250097719 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshioka discloses:
“An apparatus for wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, based at least in part on information stored in the one or more memories, are configured to:” ([para 0225]: “Each of the above-described base station 10 and the terminal 20 may be physically a computer device including a processor 1001, a storage device 1002…”)
“receive, by a first radio access technology (RAT) sidelink module of the first UE from a second RAT sidelink module of the first UE, second RAT sidelink reservation information indicating a reference signal received power (RSRP) value associated with reservation information of a second UE operating on the second RAT;” ([para 0144]: “As illustrated in FIG. 21, the terminal 20 that includes a transmission and reception mechanism (module) of LTE-SL and a transmission and reception mechanism (module) of NR-SL may obtain information related to resource reservation that is received from another terminal 20 from the module of LTE-SL… For example, the obtained information may be RSRP detected in one or more resources in LTE-SL.”)
“perform, using the first RAT sidelink module, a first RAT sidelink resource selection, to exclude or include one or more single slot resources in a non-first-RAT physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) slot or in a first RAT PSFCH slot, based at least in part on the RSRP value in relation to a first RSRP threshold when the one or more single slot resources are in the non-first-RAT PSFCH slot or a second RSRP threshold associated with the second RAT reservation, wherein the first RAT sidelink resource selection is based at least in part on an exclusion or an inclusion of one or more single slot resources in a non-first-RAT-PSFCH slot using the first RSRP threshold or in a first RAT physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) slot using the second RSRP threshold; and” ([para 0161]: “According to the above-described operation, the NR-SL terminal can perform resource selection in a manner in which a collision with LTE-SL transmission does not occur.” ; [para 0158]: “As illustrated in FIG. 23, in a case where resources reserved in LTE-SL overlap at least partially with resources of NR-SL PSFCH, the PSCCH/PSSCH resources associated with the PSFCH may be excluded from the set SA of the available resource candidates.” ; [para 0102]: “In a case where an SCI is detected in the sensing window and the RSRP (Reference Signal Received Power) exceeds a threshold value, the resource in the resource selection window corresponding to the SCI is excluded.” ; [para 0097]: “PSFCH resources may be located at the last symbol of a slot or a plurality of last symbols of a slot.”; [para 0151]: “The RSRP threshold value related to resource exclusion based on the LTE-SL resource reservation may be the same as an RSRP threshold value related to NR-SL resource exclusion, or a different value may be configured or pre-configured.”)
“transmit, by the first RAT sidelink module and to a third UE, a first RAT sidelink transmission based at least in part on the first RAT sidelink resource selection.” ([para 0105]: “The lower layer of the terminal 20 may report the SA to the higher layer. The higher layer of the terminal 20 may perform random selection for the SA to determine a resource to be used. The terminal 20 may perform sidelink transmission using the determined resource.”)
Regarding claim 2, Yoshioka discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yoshioka further discloses “wherein the first RAT is a New Radio (NR) RAT, and the second RAT is a Long Term Evolution (LTE) RAT.”
Regarding claim 3, Yoshioka discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yoshioka further discloses “determine, based at least in part on the RSRP value indicated in the second RAT sidelink reservation information, that the second RAT reservation collides with the one or more single slot resources in the non-first-RAT-PSFCH slot.” ([para 0158]: “ As illustrated in FIG. 23, in a case where resources reserved in LTE-SL overlap at least partially with resources of NR-SL PSFCH, the PSCCH/PSSCH resources associated with the PSFCH may be excluded from the set S.sub.A of the available resource candidates. The priority of NR-SL may be a priority related to the transmission data. In other words, the priority may be determined by the same method as that of the exclusion related to the PSCCH/PSSCH resource overlapping… The RSRP threshold value of NR-SL may be the same value as that of exclusion related to the PSCCH/PSSCH resource overlapping.”)
Regarding claim 4, Yoshioka discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yoshioka further discloses “wherein the one or more processors, to perform the first RAT sidelink resource selection, are configured to: include the one or more single slot resources in the non-first-RAT-PSFCH slot for the first RAT sidelink transmission based at least in part on the RSRP value being less than the first RSRP threshold associated with the second RAT reservation.” ([para 0102]: “In a case where an SCI is detected in the sensing window and the RSRP (Reference Signal Received Power) exceeds a threshold value, the resource in the resource selection window corresponding to the SCI is excluded. In addition, in a case where an SCI is detected in the sensing window and the RSRP is less than the threshold value, the resource in the resource selection window corresponding to the SCI is not excluded.”)
Regarding claim 5, Yoshioka discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yoshioka further discloses “wherein the one or more processors, to perform the first RAT sidelink resource selection, are configured to: include the one or more single slot resources in the non-first-RAT-PSFCH slot for the first RAT sidelink transmission based at least in part on the RSRP value being less than the first RSRP threshold associated with the second RAT reservation.” ([para 0102]: “In a case where an SCI is detected in the sensing window and the RSRP (Reference Signal Received Power) exceeds a threshold value, the resource in the resource selection window corresponding to the SCI is excluded. In addition, in a case where an SCI is detected in the sensing window and the RSRP is less than the threshold value, the resource in the resource selection window corresponding to the SCI is not excluded.”)
Regarding claim 6, Yoshioka discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yoshioka further discloses “determine, based at least in part on the RSRP value indicated in the second RAT sidelink reservation information, that the second RAT reservation collides with the one or more single slot resources in the first RAT PSFCH slot.” ([para 0158]: “ As illustrated in FIG. 23, in a case where resources reserved in LTE-SL overlap at least partially with resources of NR-SL PSFCH, the PSCCH/PSSCH resources associated with the PSFCH may be excluded from the set S.sub.A of the available resource candidates. The priority of NR-SL may be a priority related to the transmission data. In other words, the priority may be determined by the same method as that of the exclusion related to the PSCCH/PSSCH resource overlapping… The RSRP threshold value of NR-SL may be the same value as that of exclusion related to the PSCCH/PSSCH resource overlapping.”)
Regarding claim 7, Yoshioka discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yoshioka further discloses “include the one or more single slot resources in the first RAT PSFCH slot for the first RAT sidelink transmission based at least in part on the RSRP value being less than the second RSRP threshold associated with the second RAT reservation.” ([para 0102]: “In a case where an SCI is detected in the sensing window and the RSRP (Reference Signal Received Power) exceeds a threshold value, the resource in the resource selection window corresponding to the SCI is excluded. In addition, in a case where an SCI is detected in the sensing window and the RSRP is less than the threshold value, the resource in the resource selection window corresponding to the SCI is not excluded.”)
Regarding claim 9, Yoshioka discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yoshioka further discloses “wherein the second RSRP threshold associated with the second RAT reservation is greater than the first RSRP threshold associated with the second RAT reservation” in that the parent claim can be interpreted such that only one of the first and second RSRP thresholds are used, in which case this would be a design choice with no effect on the overall invention.
Regarding claim 10, Yoshioka discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yoshioka further discloses “exclude the one or more single slot resources in the first RAT PSFCH slot or in the non-first-RAT-PSFCH slot based at least in part on a first RAT sidelink sensing.” ([para 0192]: “As illustrated in FIG. 24, the terminal 20 that includes a transmission and reception mechanism (module) of NR-SL may have a sensing function related to LTE-SL signals to obtain information related to resource reservation of other LTE-SL terminals.”)
Regarding claim 17, Yoshioka discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yoshioka further discloses “wherein the first UE is a dual mode UE that supports the first RAT sidelink module and the second RAT sidelink module, and wherein the first RAT sidelink module is collocated with the second RAT sidelink module.” ([para 0219]: “The above-described transmission and reception mechanism (module) of LTE-SL and the above-described transmission and reception mechanism (module) of NR-SL may each include the transmission unit 210, the reception unit 220, the configuration unit 230, and the control unit 240.”)
Regarding claim 18, Yoshioka discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yoshioka further discloses “wherein the first UE is an out-of-coverage UE.” ([para 0071]: “However, the operation in an embodiment of the present invention embodiment can be applied to a case where the terminal 20B is outside the coverage.”)
Claims 19-20, 23-24, and 27-28 are substantially similar to claims 1-2, 9-10, and 17-18, with the differences amounting to that claims 1-2, 9-10, and 17-18 are directed towards an apparatus while claims 19-20, 23-24, and 27-28 are directed towards a method. Thus, claim 19-20, 23-24, and 27-28 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 1-2, 9-10, and 17-18.
Regarding claim 21, Yoshioka discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yoshioka further discloses “determining, based at least in part on the RSRP value indicated in the second RAT sidelink reservation information, that the second RAT reservation collides with the one or more single slot resources in the non-first-RAT-PSFCH slot; including the one or more single slot resources in the non-first-RAT-PSFCH slot for the first RAT sidelink transmission based at least in part on the RSRP value being less than the first RSRP threshold associated with the second RAT reservation; excluding a plurality of single slot resources in the non-first-RAT-PSFCH slot based at least in part on a presence of a second RAT sidelink transmission from the second RAT sidelink module in the non-first-RAT-PSFCH slot; or determining, based at least in part on the RSRP value indicated in the second RAT sidelink reservation information, that the second RAT reservation collides with the one or more single slot resources in the first RAT PSFCH slot.” ([para 0158]: “ As illustrated in FIG. 23, in a case where resources reserved in LTE-SL overlap at least partially with resources of NR-SL PSFCH, the PSCCH/PSSCH resources associated with the PSFCH may be excluded from the set S.sub.A of the available resource candidates. The priority of NR-SL may be a priority related to the transmission data. In other words, the priority may be determined by the same method as that of the exclusion related to the PSCCH/PSSCH resource overlapping… The RSRP threshold value of NR-SL may be the same value as that of exclusion related to the PSCCH/PSSCH resource overlapping.” ; [para 0102]: “In a case where an SCI is detected in the sensing window and the RSRP (Reference Signal Received Power) exceeds a threshold value, the resource in the resource selection window corresponding to the SCI is excluded. In addition, in a case where an SCI is detected in the sensing window and the RSRP is less than the threshold value, the resource in the resource selection window corresponding to the SCI is not excluded.”)
Claims 29-30 are substantially similar to claim 1, with the differences amounting to that claim 1 is directed towards an apparatus while claims 29-30 are directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium and an apparatus invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Thus, claim 29-30 are rejected for similar reasons to claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka (US 20250097719 A1) in view of Kang (US 20250097959 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshioka discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yoshioka does not explicitly disclose “wherein the RSRP value indicated in the second RAT sidelink reservation information is associated with a first iteration of a resource selection procedure.”
However, Kang discloses the missing feature “wherein the RSRP value indicated in the second RAT sidelink reservation information is associated with a first iteration of a resource selection procedure.” ([para 0160]: “In accordance with the present disclosure, an optimal solution of resource restriction is provided by classifying the candidate resources with different priorities (e.g., into “best quality”, “second best quality” and so on) for resource reporting to MAC layer. When making priorities of including candidate recourses indicated active time from RX UEs using RSRP thresholds increments, maximum RSRP thresholds and maximum number of iterations.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Yoshioka and Kang, to modify the technique as disclosed by Yoshioka, be iterative as disclosed by Kang. The motivation for doing so is that it improves technique accuracy, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoshioka with Kang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 14-16 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka (US 20250097719 A1) in view of Lyu (US 20250317942 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Yoshioka discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yoshioka does not explicitly disclose “determine a conflict between a first RAT sidelink transmission associated with the first RAT sidelink module and a second RAT sidelink transmission associated with the second RAT sidelink module, wherein the first RAT sidelink transmission and the second RAT sidelink transmission are associated with an equal traffic priority.”
However, Lyu discloses the missing feature “determine a conflict between a first RAT sidelink transmission associated with the first RAT sidelink module and a second RAT sidelink transmission associated with the second RAT sidelink module, wherein the first RAT sidelink transmission and the second RAT sidelink transmission are associated with an equal traffic priority.” ([para 0160-0161]: “In some embodiments, a priority of transmit (Tx) traffic may be higher than a priority of receive (Rx) traffic… In some embodiments, collisions may also be resolved by prioritizing the NR PSSCH transmit traffic over the LTE PSSCH receive traffic. In some embodiments, for different RATs, resources in the shared transmission resource may be preferentially allocated and/or assigned to an RAT with the PSFCH. For example, in the case where the NR SL PSFCH and the LTE SL PSSCH have equal transmission priorities, transmission collisions are resolved by prioritizing NR PSFCH Tx/Rx traffic over LTE SL Tx/Rx traffic. For example, in the presence of PSFCH collisions, LTE SL transmission and reception are discarded. For collisions between NR SL Tx and LTE SL Tx, the PSFCH ensures reliable communication over NR since PSFCH transmission and reception are essential features of the NR SL.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Yoshioka and Lyu, to modify the technique as disclosed by Yoshioka, for an equal priority traffic conflict as disclosed by Lyu. The motivation for doing so is that it improves technique flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoshioka with Lyu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 15, Yoshioka discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yoshioka does not explicitly disclose “drop the first RAT sidelink transmission based at least in part on the conflict occurring in the non-first-RAT-PSFCH slot.”
However, Lyu discloses the missing feature “drop the first RAT sidelink transmission based at least in part on the conflict occurring in the non-first-RAT-PSFCH slot.” ([para 0160-0161]: “In some embodiments, a priority of transmit (Tx) traffic may be higher than a priority of receive (Rx) traffic… In some embodiments, collisions may also be resolved by prioritizing the NR PSSCH transmit traffic over the LTE PSSCH receive traffic. In some embodiments, for different RATs, resources in the shared transmission resource may be preferentially allocated and/or assigned to an RAT with the PSFCH. For example, in the case where the NR SL PSFCH and the LTE SL PSSCH have equal transmission priorities, transmission collisions are resolved by prioritizing NR PSFCH Tx/Rx traffic over LTE SL Tx/Rx traffic. For example, in the presence of PSFCH collisions, LTE SL transmission and reception are discarded. For collisions between NR SL Tx and LTE SL Tx, the PSFCH ensures reliable communication over NR since PSFCH transmission and reception are essential features of the NR SL.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Yoshioka and Lyu, to modify the technique as disclosed by Yoshioka, to prioritize the RAT with the PSFCH as disclosed by Lyu. The motivation for doing so is that it decreases miscommunications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoshioka with Lyu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 16, Yoshioka discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yoshioka does not explicitly disclose “drop the second RAT sidelink transmission based at least in part on the conflict occurring in the first RAT PSFCH slot.”
However, Lyu discloses the missing feature “drop the second RAT sidelink transmission based at least in part on the conflict occurring in the first RAT PSFCH slot.” ([para 0160-0161]: “In some embodiments, a priority of transmit (Tx) traffic may be higher than a priority of receive (Rx) traffic… In some embodiments, collisions may also be resolved by prioritizing the NR PSSCH transmit traffic over the LTE PSSCH receive traffic. In some embodiments, for different RATs, resources in the shared transmission resource may be preferentially allocated and/or assigned to an RAT with the PSFCH. For example, in the case where the NR SL PSFCH and the LTE SL PSSCH have equal transmission priorities, transmission collisions are resolved by prioritizing NR PSFCH Tx/Rx traffic over LTE SL Tx/Rx traffic. For example, in the presence of PSFCH collisions, LTE SL transmission and reception are discarded. For collisions between NR SL Tx and LTE SL Tx, the PSFCH ensures reliable communication over NR since PSFCH transmission and reception are essential features of the NR SL.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Yoshioka and Lyu, to modify the technique as disclosed by Yoshioka, to prioritize the RAT with the PSFCH as disclosed by Lyu. The motivation for doing so is that it decreases miscommunications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoshioka with Lyu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 26, Yoshioka discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yoshioka does not explicitly disclose “determining a conflict between a first RAT sidelink transmission associated with the first RAT sidelink module and a second RAT sidelink transmission associated with the second RAT sidelink module, wherein the first RAT sidelink transmission and the second RAT sidelink transmission are associated with an equal traffic priority; dropping the first RAT sidelink transmission based at least in part on the conflict occurring in the non-first-RAT-PSFCH slot; or dropping the second RAT sidelink transmission based at least in part on the conflict occurring in the first RAT PSFCH slot.”
However, Lyu discloses the missing feature “determining a conflict between a first RAT sidelink transmission associated with the first RAT sidelink module and a second RAT sidelink transmission associated with the second RAT sidelink module, wherein the first RAT sidelink transmission and the second RAT sidelink transmission are associated with an equal traffic priority; dropping the first RAT sidelink transmission based at least in part on the conflict occurring in the non-first-RAT-PSFCH slot; or dropping the second RAT sidelink transmission based at least in part on the conflict occurring in the first RAT PSFCH slot.” ([para 0160-0161]: “In some embodiments, a priority of transmit (Tx) traffic may be higher than a priority of receive (Rx) traffic… In some embodiments, collisions may also be resolved by prioritizing the NR PSSCH transmit traffic over the LTE PSSCH receive traffic. In some embodiments, for different RATs, resources in the shared transmission resource may be preferentially allocated and/or assigned to an RAT with the PSFCH. For example, in the case where the NR SL PSFCH and the LTE SL PSSCH have equal transmission priorities, transmission collisions are resolved by prioritizing NR PSFCH Tx/Rx traffic over LTE SL Tx/Rx traffic. For example, in the presence of PSFCH collisions, LTE SL transmission and reception are discarded. For collisions between NR SL Tx and LTE SL Tx, the PSFCH ensures reliable communication over NR since PSFCH transmission and reception are essential features of the NR SL.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Yoshioka and Lyu, to modify the technique as disclosed by Yoshioka, to prioritize the RAT with the PSFCH as disclosed by Lyu. The motivation for doing so is that it decreases miscommunications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoshioka with Lyu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8, 12-13, 22, 25, and 26 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, of the closest prior arts Yoshioka (US 20250097719 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Yoshioka does not disclose “refrain from excluding the one or more single slot resources in the first RAT PSFCH slot based at least in part on the second RAT reservation being for a transmission from the second RAT sidelink module.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 8 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claims 22 contains similar subject matter to claim 8 and contains allowable subject matter for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 12, of the closest prior arts Yoshioka (US 20250097719 A1) in view of Kang (US 20250097959 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Yoshioka in view of Kang does not disclose “determine that a quantity associated with the one or more single slot resources in a selection window after the first iteration is less than a threshold; increment the first RSRP threshold associated with the second RAT reservation by a first increment value; and increment the second RSRP threshold associated with the second RAT reservation by a second increment value.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 12 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claim 13 depends on claim 12 and contains allowable subject matter based on its dependence. Claims 25 contains similar subject matter to claim 12 and contains allowable subject matter for similar reasons.
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 SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412