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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species III in the reply filed on 12-26-2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction did not state why there is no single general inventive concept. This is not found persuasive because as seen in figures 1-8 of the present invention and indicated in the restriction of record, the application includes different embodiments; thereby, there is no single general inventive concept. Regarding the arguments that claim 2 should not had been part of species II, the claim has been moved to their own species group VI.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Newly submitted claim 38 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim belong to an already restricted species.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 38 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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, 8, 12, 35-37 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) calculating cbr and determinations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the calculation nor determination are been used for anything; thereby, the calculation can be performed mentally; even adding the generically recited terminal and its elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic device. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the terminal and its elements are making calculation and determination which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
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, 12, 35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee 20240080805.
As to claim 1, Lee discloses a method of calculating a channel busy ratio, comprising: calculating a channel busy ratio of a target slot according to a first measurement result by a terminal performing partial sensing or periodic sensing [A UE performing partial sensing can efficiently measure the channel busy ratio (CBR)] (see abstract; par. 0015), wherein the first measurement result comprises:
measurement results of M partial sensing occasions or periodic sensing occasions, wherein M is an integer greater than or equal to 1 [measured at least one] (see par. 0188); wherein calculating the channel busy ratio of the target slot according to the first measurement result by the terminal performing partial sensing or periodic sensing comprises:
determining a sidelink received signal strength indicator SL-RSSI of each sub-channel according to the measurement results of the M partial sensing occasions or periodic sensing occasions [the slot/subchannel on which the SL RSSI measurement for deriving/calculating the CBR value is performed may include a slot/subchannel on which partial sensing is performed.] (see par. 0201);
determining that the channel busy ratio of the target slot is a ratio of a quantity of sub-channels of which SL-RSSIs exceed a first threshold to a quantity of all sub-channels in a resource pool [the slot/subchannel on which the SL RSSI measurement for deriving/calculating the CBR value is performed may include a slot/subchannel on which partial sensing is actually performed] (see par. 0199-202, 0222).
Regarding claims 12 and 37, they are the corresponding terminal claims of method claims 1 and 35, Thereby, claims 12 and 37 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above and fig. 18 and 21 shows the processor, memory and transceiver.
As to claim 35, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first measurement result further comprises a measurement result of re-evaluation or short-term sensing within a second time period [in absence of any detail of the time period, the limitation becomes inherent] (see par. 0188).
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) 8 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
As to claims 8 and 36, Lee discloses the method/terminal according to claim 1/12, wherein determining the sidelink received signal strength indicator SL-RSSI of each sub- channel according to the measurement results of the M partial sensing occasions or periodic sensing occasions comprises:
using the SL-RSSI of the sub-channel is an average value of the measurement results of the M partial sensing occasions or periodic sensing occasions [multiplying the average value of at least one of the SL RSSI measurement value] (see par. 0196); or, using the SL-RSSI of the sub-channel is a maximum value of the measurement results of the M partial sensing occasions or periodic sensing occasions [multiplying the maximum value of at least one of the SL RSSI measurement value] (see par. 0197); wherein a measurement result of a partial sensing occasion or a periodic sensing occasion is: a SL-RSSI obtained through measurement by the terminal within the partial sensing occasion or the periodic sensing occasion (see par. 0199-202, 0222). Although Lee does not explicitly disclose determining the max or average SL-RSSI; is clearly required to determine the max or average SL-RSSI, before been able to use it. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that Lee determined the max and average SL-RSSI before using the values in other for the system to be enabled and work correctly.
Claim(s) 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hoang 20230084593.
As to claim 39, Lee discloses the terminal according to claim 12, wherein the first measurement result further comprises a measurement result of sensing within a first time period (see par. 0015, 0188). Lee fails to disclose continuous sensing. In an analogous art, Hoang discloses continuous sensing (see par. 0186-0187). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that to add continuous sensing to Lee for the simple purpose of a faster response.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647