Detailed Action
1. The Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication, preliminary amendment, filed on 07/01/2026. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-30 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
2. In Remarks, on pages 10-12, applicant presents the arguments for amended claim limitations for claims 1 and 28. However, the amended claim limitations are considered obvious by the rationales explained in the claim rejection section set forth below.
3. On pages 12-13, applicant argues for the limitations in claims 23 and 30: “transmit an indication of a capability to receive an expected conflict indication” and “receive, based on the transmitted SL reservation and the indication of the capability to receive the expected conflict indication, the expected conflict indication from a first user equipment (UE)”.
Initially, it’s to note that claim does not specifically define what are involved in “the indication of a capability” and what are required to be “indication”, “capability” and “conflict”. See MPEP 2111.
3.1. Let’s address the argument for the claim limitation “transmit an indication of a capability to receive an expected conflict indication”. Indeed, Cao discloses structure to relay a sidelink control information between UEs (par. 0078, 0181-0183). Does claimed feature “capability” exclude sidelink control information? Claim does not. Hence, communicating on the sidelink can be assumed capability. In particular, Huang teaches sending assistance information, as to capability, (par. 0068, assistance information is the resource conflict, conflict occurs on periodic resource in par. 0076) to indicate the resource conflict as explained in par. 0337-0345. See fig. 11 of Huang in view of fig. 10A-B. It means that the argued limitation is rendered by Huang.
3.2. Regarding to the claim limitations “receive, based on the transmitted SL reservation and the indication of the capability to receive the expected conflict indication”, the limitation could have been rendered by Cao in view of Huang. Because, Cao in view of Huang discloses the first terminal device for receiving its SCI conflict with one or more resources indicated by the third SCI (fig. 10 A-B & 11 of Huang). To advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided. In particular, Chen teaches sending the auxiliary information indicating the same reserved resource from the sender UE and the interfere UE or IBE or RSRP or priority information (see fig. 6-11), i.e., a conflict between the reserved resource of the interferer UE and the reserved resource of the sender UE (3-4 in fig. 4, see par. 0113-0115 for representing the conflict and fig. 5-11 depict that priority or hidden node problem or IBE problem as to the collision parameter).
3.3 For the above reasons, rejections to claims 23-27 and 30 are sustained because the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, or suggestion to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Concerns for Restriction/Election Requirement And Compact Prosecution
4. Currently, applicant amended the independent claims 1 and 28 different from the independent claims 23 and 30. It’s suggested that applicant may want to keep all the independent claims reciting the same scope of the claimed invention because restriction requirement could have delayed the compact prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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 nonobviousness.
7. Claims 1-14 and 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. Pub. No.: US 2021/0105104 A1 in view of Huang et al. Pub. No.: US 2023/0362973 A1 and Chen Pub. No.: US 2023/0092944 A1.
Claim 1
Cao discloses an apparatus (UE1-8 in fig. 1-9 and see 654a-b UE in fig. 6) for wireless communication comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
690
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a memory (memory 678a-b of UE 654a-b in fig. 6); and
at least one processor (processor 767a-b in fig. 6) coupled to the memory (see fig. 6 for processor and memory coupling with communication subsystem) and configured to:
PNG
media_image2.png
446
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
receive, from a second user equipment (UE) (UE2 in fig. 1-10 and 654b in fig. 6), a first reservation of a sidelink (SL) resource for a first SL transmission (assume UE2 reservation for resource in fig. 1-3 is sensed by UE 1 as depicted in 405-4103 in fig. 4; see par. 0077-0078 for reserving the resource and par. 0283-0284);
receive, from a third UE, a second reservation of the SL resource for a second SL transmission (assume UE2 reservation for resource in fig. 1-3 is sensed by UE 1 as depicted in 405-4103 in fig. 4; see par. 0077-0078 for reserving the resource, par. 0283-0284 & 0286, resource may be colliding or have conflict with other UE’s potential transmission).
Although Cao does not disclose: “within a threshold amount of time following the reception of the first reservation and with a relative power compared to the first reservation; and transmit a collision indication based on a collision parameter and the relative power, wherein the collision parameter includes a relative power threshold range that is selected from a plurality of relative power threshold ranges for reservations of a same SL resource based on the reception of the second reservation within the threshold amount of time following the reception of the first reservation, wherein the relative power threshold range includes the relative power”, the amended claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Firstly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitations “within a threshold amount of time following the reception of the first reservation and with a relative power compared to the first reservation”, initially, it’s to note that claim does not specifically define what are required to be “the relative power compared to the first reservation”. What’s more, Cao explains that conflict of, overlapping, resource reservation could be the same time slot (par. 0319-0320) and a selection or sensing window is variable, threshold and may be excluded for selecting (par. 0080-0081, 0271 & 0352). In particular, Huang teaches determining a resource selection window overlapping (par. 0185) that the threshold could be preconfigured or configured by the network device (par. 0186), and a reference signal received power RSRP measurement value corresponding to the first SCI is greater than an RSRP threshold (par. 0066, RSRP is a relative power compared to the first SCI; additionally, see par. 0071-0072 for the first SCI compared to RSRP threshold and RSSI threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify resource selection and reservation in sidelink transmission of Cao by providing a sidelink control information SCI as taught in Huang. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment to select sidelink resources so that the resource conflict could be avoided as suggested in par. 0003-0006 of Huang.
PNG
media_image3.png
250
446
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Secondly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitations “transmit a collision indication based on a collision parameter and the relative power, wherein the collision parameter includes a relative power threshold range that is selected from a plurality of relative power threshold ranges for reservations of a same SL resource based on the reception of the second reservation within the threshold amount of time following the reception of the first reservation, wherein the relative power threshold range includes the relative power”, let’s address first the amended claim limitations “wherein the collision parameter includes a relative power threshold range that is selected from a plurality of relative power threshold ranges for reservations of a same SL resource based on the reception of the second reservation within the threshold amount of time following the reception of the first reservation, wherein the relative power threshold range includes the relative power”. Recall that Cao discloses sidelink reservation and measurement for the sidelink reference signal received power compared to the threshold (par. 0080-0081 & 0286). In addition, Huang discloses sending assistance information (fig. 11 and par. 0076 that the assistance information indicates conflicts occurring on the periodic resource), overlapping resource (time-frequency resource power overlapping conflict in par. 0274), selection window (par. 0185-0186) and RSRP measurement value for sidelink reservation signal compared to RSRP threshold (par. 0066), or RSSI compared RSSI threshold (par. 0072, see par. 0261 for RSSI). If the addressing claim limitations are compared to the teaching from Cao and Huang, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art Cao and Huang to perform equally well to the addressing claim limitations because discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
To consider the obviousness of the claim limitations “transmit a collision indication based on a collision parameter and the relative power”, recall that Cao and Huang discloses sending assistance information that indicates a conflict (par. 0076 in Huang). In particular, Chen teaches sending a conflict between the reserved resource of the interferer UE and the reserved resource of the sender UE (3 in fig. 4) based on the auxiliary information (4 in fig. 4 and see par. 0113-0115 for representing the conflict and fig. 5-11 depict that priority or hidden node problem or IBE problem as to the collision parameter, see fig. 1-3 for hidden node problem or IBE problem with emission power value, the distance, i.e., emission power range; par. 0192, reservation period of the reserved resource).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify resource selection and reservation in sidelink transmission of Cao in view of Huang by providing resource allocation in V2X communication as taught in Chen to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment to select resource for performing V2V communication so that continuous collision and conflict could be avoided from resulting in low latency in communication as suggested in par. 0014-0015 of Chen.
Claim 2
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the relative power threshold range is associated with the reception of the first reservation and the reception of the second reservation being within the threshold amount of time (Cao, slot in fig. 3 & 7-9 and par. 0319-0320 and RSRP in par. 0066 and RSSI in par. 0279; Huang, RSSI, RSRP in par. 0071), and
the collision indication includes an expected conflict indication based on a relative power between the received first reservation and the received second reservation being within the relative power threshold range (Cao, RSRP threshold in par. 0066, RSSI threshold in par. 0279 and distance in par. 0266, communication distance means transmit power range; Huang, RSSI, RSRP in par. 0071 and distance; Chen, 23 dBm power range in fig. 3 and see par. 0008 for explaining relative between distance and transmission power as explained in fig. 1-3; for these reasons, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious, alternatively, comparing to threshold can be considered as optimum value and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 CCPA 1980).
Claim 3
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the threshold amount of time is within a range of times associated with the relative power threshold range (Cao, maximum gap of 2 slots or 7 slots or 1 slot as explained in par. 0163, distance in par. 0072 and RSSI in par. 0279 could be relative to transmit power range such as RSRP and RSSI; Huang, RSSI, RSRP and distance threshold in par. 0071; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 CCPA 1980).
Claim 4
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein each relative power threshold range in the plurality of relative power threshold ranges is associated with a distinct range of times between different reservations for the same SL resource (Cao, RSRP threshold in par. 0066, RSSI threshold in par. 0279 and distance in par. 0266, communication distance means transmit power range; Huang, RSSI, RSRP in par. 0071 and distance; Chen, 10 dBm and 23 dBm power range and distance in fig. 1-3; fig. 4-7; for these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim).
Claim 5
PNG
media_image4.png
386
1048
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the relative power threshold range is associated with a first range of times including the threshold amount of time and comprises a larger range of relative powers than another relative power threshold range associated with a second range of times that are greater than the times included in the first range of times (Cao, RSRP threshold in par. 0066, RSSI threshold in par. 0279 and distance in par. 0266, communication distance means transmit power range; Huang, RSSI, RSRP in par. 0071 and distance; Chen, 10 dBm and 23 dBm power range and distance in fig. 1-3, fig. 4-7and consider, 1st range for 50m, 2nd range 300m; for these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Claim 6
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 2 wherein each relative power threshold range in the plurality of relative power threshold ranges is determined based on at least one of a first ability to decode data on the reserved SL resource, a second ability to decode a first type of sidelink control information (SCI), or a third ability to decode a second type of SCI (Cao, fig. 2-4 & 7-9; Huang, first SCI and second SCI in fig. 8-11; Chen, distance for power ranges in fig. 1-3 and see fig. 10 for acquiring auxiliary information including SCI of fig. 9 is decoding SCI; and thus, the combined prior art would read on the claim).
Claim 7
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
PNG
media_image5.png
262
704
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the collision parameter comprises a relative power threshold associated with the reception of the first reservation and the reception of the second reservation being within the threshold amount of time (Cao, collision SL-RSRP in par. 0080, and par. 0230, RSRP above threshold or mapping table for RSRP in par. 0229, and time gap in par. 0163, and see sensing window is time as well; Huang, the resource indicated in SCI overlapping in time domain in par. 0051, 0058 & 0062; Chen, fig. 1-12), and
the collision indication comprises an expected conflict indication based on a relative power between the received first reservation and the received second reservation being less than relative power threshold (Cao, the indication signal for reservation indication, the reservation type and priority identifier in par. 0117, see thresholds for UE sensing in Table 1 in par. 0291; Huang, RSRP and threshold to the first SCI in par. 0066 and assistance information; Chen, auxiliary information in fig. 4-112; for these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale G).
Claim 8
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the relative power threshold is one of a first relative power threshold associated with first different reservations for a same time-and- frequency SL resource (Cao, time-frequency resource specified in SCI in par. 0083) or a second relative power threshold associated with second different reservations for different SL frequency resources that overlap in time (Cao, overlapping time-frequency resource patter in fig. 8-11; Huang, fig. 8-11 for detecting the overlapping resource indicated by SCI in par. 0085; Chen, fig. 4-12; for these reasons, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 9
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein transmitting the collision indication comprises transmitting the collision indication to the second UE (Huang, S804 in fig. 8A, S1003 in fig. 10A, 1013 in fig. 10B, S1103 in fig. 11 and see resource conflict indication in par. 0068; Chen, the auxiliary information sent to the sender UE in fig. 4 & 11-12; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the indication from the combined prior art in the same to obtain the claimed invention, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale C).
Claim 10
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the collision indication is transmitted to the second UE based on a priority associated with the second SL transmission (Huang, S804 in fig. 8A, S1003 in fig. 10A, 1013 in fig. 10B, S1103 in fig. 11 and see a priority value in par. 0064; Chen, the auxiliary information sent to the sender UE in fig. 4 & 11-12 and the auxiliary information includes apriority transmission data in par. 0124-0125; accordingly, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 11
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 9, the at least one processor further configured to:
receive an indication of a collision indication reception capability of the second UE (Huang, capability information in par. 0362; S804 in fig. 8A, S1003 in fig. 10A, 1013 in fig. 10B, S1103 in fig. 11 and see a priority value in par. 0064; Chen, the auxiliary information sent to the sender UE in fig. 4 & 11-12; and thus, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 12
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the indication of the collision indication reception capability of the second UE is received via a reserved bit in sidelink control information (Cao, reserved bit in par. 0078, 0181-0183; Huang, indicated information in par. 0227, capability information in par. 0362; S804 in fig. 8A, S1003 in fig. 10A, 1013 in fig. 10B, S1103 in fig. 11 and see a reserved bit in par. 0078, 0182-0183; Chen, the auxiliary information sent to the sender UE in fig. 4 & 11-12; and thus, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 13
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the collision is a first collision (Huang, fig. 11; fig. 4 of Chen), wherein the collision indication is a first collision indication (auxiliary information in fig. 4 of Chen; unless claim further recites what are involved in the indication, see MPEP 2111, collision indication could be encoded in the same way for first or second or third or fourth) and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive, from a fourth UE, a third reservation of an additional SL resource for a third SL transmission (Cao, UE4 reserves resource at T4 & F0);
receive, from a fifth UE, a fourth reservation of the additional SL resource for a fourth SL transmission within a particular time before the additional SL resource (Cao, UE4 reserves resource at T5 & F0); and
PNG
media_image6.png
594
704
media_image6.png
Greyscale
skip transmission of a second collision indication based on a second collision of the third reservation and the fourth reservation based on an occurrence of a condition for not transmitting the second collision indication (Cao, as depicted in steps 405-410 in fig. 4, resource reservation for T4, T5 at F0 of fig. 8 would exclude the resources or select the excluded candidate resources to avoid collision; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Claim 14
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the condition for not transmitting the second collision indication (Cao, fig. 4) is at least one of (1) a distance to at least one of the third UE or the fourth UE being below a threshold distance (Cao, distance threshold in par. 0072 & 0266; Huang, distance threshold in par. 0071), (2) a measured power of at least one of the third reservation and the fourth reservation being within a range of powers indicating that the second collision indication may interfere with sidelink feedback (Cao, RSRP threshold in par. 0066 & 0256, RSSI in par. 0279; Huang, RSSI & RSRP in par. 0071), or (3) both the third reservation and the fourth reservation being for a SL communication having been transmitted at least a threshold number of times (Chen, 312 in fig. 6); for these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim because claim requires one condition).
Claim 16
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the collision indication is an expected conflict indication (Huang, S804 in fig. 8A, S1003 in fig. 10A, 1013 in fig. 10B, S1103 in fig. 11 and see resource conflict indication in par. 0068; Chen, the auxiliary information sent to the sender UE in fig. 4 & 11-12), and the apparatus transmits the expected conflict indication in a first slot having expected conflict indication resources of a resource pool and being at least a minimum time gap after a last slot in which a colliding reservation is received (Cao, time gap could be 2 slots, 1 slot in par. 0163 and see fig. 1, 3 & 7-9 and par. 0163 and see HARQ ACK or NACK in par. 0067 & 0086-0087 & 0144; Huang, feedback enable/disable field in par. 0181-0182; Chen, feedback in fig. 9 and see feedback module in fig. 13; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 17
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein a periodicity of the expected conflict indication resource is a same periodicity as a feedback resource periodicity (Cao, time gap could be 2 slots, 1 slot in par. 0163 and see fig. 1, 3 & 7-9 and par. 0163 and see HARQ ACK or NACK in par. 0067 & 0086-0087 & 0144; Huang, feedback enable/disable field in par. 0181-0182; Chen, feedback in fig. 9 and see feedback module in fig. 13; and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim).
Claim 18
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein a periodicity of the expected conflict indication resource is different from a periodicity of a feedback resource periodicity (Cao, time gap could be 2 slots, 1 slot in par. 0163 and see fig. 1, 3 & 7-9 and par. 0163 and see HARQ ACK or NACK in par. 0067 & 0086-0087 & 0144; Huang, feedback enable/disable field in par. 0181-0182; Chen, feedback in fig. 9 and see feedback module in fig. 13; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to obtain the claim, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale G).
Claim 19
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein a first minimum time gap for the expected conflict indication is less than a second minimum time gap for feedback (Cao, time gap between adjacent transmission as 2 slots, 1 slot and 2 slots in see fig. 1, 3 & 7-9; thus, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 20
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 19, wherein the expected conflict indication resource following the received reservation for the SL resource by at least the first minimum time gap precedes a SL feedback resource following the reservation for the SL resource by at least the second minimum time gap for feedback (Cao, time gap could be 2 slots, 1 slot in par. 0163 and see fig. 1, 3 & 7-9 and par. 0163 and see HARQ ACK or NACK in par. 0067 & 0086-0087 & 0144; Huang, feedback enable/disable field in par. 0181-0182; Chen, feedback in fig. 9 and see feedback module in fig. 13; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 21
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the minimum time gap for an expected conflict indication is less than one slot (Cao, time gap between adjacent transmission as 2 slots, 1 slot and 2 slots in see fig. 1, 3 & 7-9; thus, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 22
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising at least one transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (Cao, communication subsystem 670a or 670b is coupled to the processor and the memory in fig. 6 and thus, the combined prior art anticipates the claim).
Claim 23
Cao discloses an apparatus (UE 654a-b in fig. 6 and UE or UE 1404a-d in fig. 5) for wireless communication comprising:
memory (memory 678b in fig. 6); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory (processor 676b coupled to the memory in fig. 6) and configured to:
transmit a sidelink (SL) reservation for a SL resource (405-410 in fig. 4; see par. 0077-0078 for reserving the resource and par. 0283-0284).
Although Cao does not disclose: “transmit an indication of a capability to receive an expected conflict indication; and receive, based on the transmitted SL reservation and the indication of the capability to receive the expected conflict indication, the expected conflict indication from a first user equipment (UE)”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
First, to address the obviousness of the claim limitation “transmit an indication of a capability to receive an expected conflict indication”, recall that Cao discusses transmitting a sidelink control information from one UE to another UE (par. 0078 & 0181-0183). In particular, Huang teaches a third device, as to a first UE, (fig. 8A) for sending assistance information such as capability of the terminal device (par. 0076, assistance information is a conflict on periodic resource reservation and see par. 0362).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify resource selection and reservation in sidelink transmission of Cao by providing a sidelink control information SCI as taught in Huang. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment to select sidelink resources so that the resource conflict could be avoided as suggested in par. 0003-0006 of Huang.
Secondly, to consider the obviousness of the claim limitations “receive, based on the transmitted SL reservation and the indication of the capability to receive the expected conflict indication, the expected conflict indication from a first user equipment (UE)”, recall that Cao in view of Huang discloses transmitting resource reservation for sidelink (fig. 4 of Cao and fig. 8A of Huang), an indication of the capability of a terminal device (par. 0362 of Huang), and assistance information (assistance information in fig. 8 & 10 of Huang). In particular, Chen teaches determining whether there is a conflict between the reserved resource of the interferer UE and the reserved resource of the sender UE (3 in fig. 4), generating the auxiliary information to send the auxiliary information to the sender UE (4 in fig. 4 and see par. 0113-0115 for representing the conflict and fig. 5-11 depict that priority or hidden node problem or IBE problem as to the collision parameter) and the auxiliary information indicating the same reserved resource from the sender UE and the interfere UE or IBE or RSRP or priority information (see fig. 6-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify resource selection and reservation in sidelink transmission of Cao in view of Huang by providing resource allocation in V2X communication as taught in Chen to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment to select resource for performing V2V communication so that continuous collision and conflict could be avoided from resulting in low latency in communication as suggested in par. 0014-0015 of Chen.
Claim 24
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 23, wherein the indication indicating the capability to receive the expected conflict indication comprises at least one bit in a sidelink control information (SCI) message (Cao, reserved bit in par. 0078, 0181-0183; Huang, indicated information in par. 0227, capability information in par. 0362; S804 in fig. 8A, S1003 in fig. 10A, 1013 in fig. 10B, S1103 in fig. 11 and see a reserved bit in par. 0078, 0182-0183; Chen, the auxiliary information sent to the sender UE in fig. 4 & 11-12; and thus, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 25
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 24, wherein the at least one bit indicating the capability to receive the expected conflict indication comprises a reserved bit in the SCI message (Cao, reserved bit in par. 0078, 0181-0183; Huang, indicated information in par. 0227, capability information in par. 0362; S804 in fig. 8A, S1003 in fig. 10A, 1013 in fig. 10B, S1103 in fig. 11 and see a reserved bit in par. 0078, 0182-0183; Chen, the auxiliary information sent to the sender UE in fig. 4 & 11-12; and thus, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 26
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 24, wherein the SL reservation is comprised in the SCI message (Cao, fig. 4 and Huang, SCI in fig. from the terminal devices in fig. 4-8A; and thus, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 27
Cao, in view of Huang and Chen, discloses the apparatus of claim 23, further comprising at least one transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (Cao, communication subsystem 670b is coupled to the processor and the memory in fig. 6 and thus, the combined prior art anticipates the claim).
Claim 28 and 29
Claims 28-29 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 1-2. All of the limitations of claims 28-29 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations of claims 1-2. Accordingly, claims 28-29 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claims 1-2 respectively set forth above.
Claim 30
Claim 30 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 23. All of the limitations of claim 30 is found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations of claim 23. Accordingly, claim 30 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claim 23 set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 15 is 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.
9. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Dutta et al. Pub. No. US 2023/0224764 A1 teach determining a communication collision between sidelink resource reservations by UEs and performing action based on identified the communication collision (see fig. 3-7); and
Khoryaev et al. Pub. No.: US 2020/0299171 A1 teach detecting collision in resource selection in new radio NR sidelink communication (see fig. 1-4).
However, the prior art of record fails to teach or renders the claim limitations, as a whole obvious, particularly: “ wherein the collision is a first collision, wherein the collision indication is a first collision indication, receive, from a fourth UE, a third reservation of an additional SL resource for a third SL transmission; receive, from a fifth UE, a fourth reservation of the additional SL resource for a fourth SL transmission within a particular time before the additional SL resource; and skip transmission of a second collision indication based on a second collision of the third reservation and the fourth reservation based on an occurrence of a condition for not transmitting the second collision indication;
wherein the condition for not transmitting the second collision indication is at least one of (1) a distance to at least one of the third UE or the fourth UE being below a threshold distance, (2) a measured power of at least one of the third reservation and the fourth reservation being within a range of powers indicating that the second collision indication may interfere with sidelink feedback, or (3) both the third reservation and the fourth reservation being for a SL communication having been transmitted at least a threshold number of times; wherein the distance between the third UE or the fourth UE is based on at least one of (1) zone information associated with the first UE and at least one of the third UE or the fourth UE or (2) location information associated with the first UE and at least one of the third UE or the fourth UE”.
Conclusion
10. 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 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.
Contact Information
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN HTUN whose telephone number is (571)270-3190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 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, Jinsong Hu can be reached on 5712723965. 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.
/SAN HTUN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights