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 .
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 3/3/26.
Claims 1-30 are pending.
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 (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.
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.
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) 1-4, 8, 10-17, 21, and 23-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al., US 2024/0163903, (“Sun”), in view of Panteleev et al., US 2024/0155654, (“Panteleev”).
Independent Claims
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches “A method for wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE) (see Fig. 1, UE 101 for a “first UE”), comprising:
receiving at least a first sidelink transmission from a second UE, wherein at least a second sidelink transmission from a third UE is scheduled contemporaneously with at least the first sidelink transmission from the second UE (paragraph no. 0046, “a UE (e.g., UE 103 illustrated and shown in FIG. 1) transmits a control signal to another UE (e.g., UE 101 illustrated and shown in FIG. 1). The control signal indicates resource(s) reserved for the UE, i.e., the UE's reserved resource(s). For example, the control signal is a PSCCH transmission including SCI”; the “second UE” reads on UE 103; see paragraph no. 0047, “the UE (e.g., UE 103 illustrated and shown in FIG. 1 ) receives a resource conflict indicator from the abovementioned another UE (e.g., UE 101 illustrated and shown in FIG. 1 ). The resource conflict indicator indicates that there is a resource conflict between resource(s) reserved for the UE and resource(s) reserved for an additional UE (e.g., UE 105 illustrated and shown in FIG. 1)”; the “third UE” reads on the additional UE, UE 105; the disclosed resource conflict between resources reserved for the UE (“second UE”) and resources reserved for the additional UE (“third UE”) teaches the claimed “wherein at least a second sidelink transmission from a third UE is scheduled contemporaneously with at least the first sidelink transmission from the second UE”); and
transmitting conflict information in a transmission occasion to at least one of the second UE or the third UE, wherein the conflict indication comprises an indication that at least the first sidelink transmission from the second UE is scheduled contemporaneously with at least the second sidelink transmission from at least the third UE” (paragraph no. 0047, “the UE (e.g., UE 103 illustrated and shown in FIG. 1 ) receives a resource conflict indicator from the abovementioned another UE (e.g., UE 101 illustrated and shown in FIG. 1 ). The resource conflict indicator indicates that there is a resource conflict between resource(s) reserved for the UE and resource(s) reserved for an additional UE (e.g., UE 105 illustrated and shown in FIG. 1 )”). Sun does not teach but Panteleev teaches “based at least in part on a priority value of a feedback channel associated with the conflict information” as recited in claim 1, see paragraph no. 0103, “Considering limitations in UE capability for feedback signaling, the RX UE may prioritize the feedback indication using predefined or pre-configured priority rules to determine the feedback for transmission” and paragraph no. 0107, “HARQ ACK/NACK … may be prioritized over half-duplex/co-channel collision feedback indications.” It’s noted that the HARQ ACK/NACK is transmitted over the feedback channel, PSFCH, see paragraph no. 0103.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Sun by incorporating the teachings of Panteleev to enable the receiving UE (i.e., the first UE) to provide inter-UE coordination feedback to multiple transmitting UEs (i.e., second and/or third UEs) via prioritization of feedback information when its UE capabilities are limited, as suggested by Panteleev in paragraph no. 0103.
Regarding independent claims 14, 27, and 29, these independent claims are corresponding apparatus, means for, and computer readable medium claims of the method claim 1 and recite similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 1 applies with equal force to these independent claims and as further amplified below to highlight the minor differences between the claims.
Regarding further independent claim 14, see Sun, Fig. 13 for the claimed structural elements of the claim.
Regarding further independent claim 27, see Sun, Fig. 13 for the structure corresponding to the “means for receiving” (receiver 1302) and the “means for transmitting” (transmitter 1304). Note that in the alternative, the processor 1308, medium or storage 1306 and code included in the storage 1306 may be construed as the structure corresponding to the above means for limitations.
Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 2, 15, 28, and 30, Sun does not teach but Panteleev teaches “determining a type of conflict between the second UE and the third UE, wherein a prioritization of information for the transmission occasion is based at least in part on the type of conflict” (see paragraph nos. 0083 and 0108 and in particular, paragraph no. 0108 which discloses different priorities for different detected conflicts).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Sun and Panteleev by incorporating the additional teachings of Panteleev to enable the receiving UE (i.e., the first UE) to provide inter-UE coordination feedback to multiple transmitting UEs (i.e., second and/or third UEs) via prioritization of the different types of sidelink conflicts, as suggested by Panteleev in paragraph no. 0108.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Sun does not teach but Panteleev teaches “wherein the prioritization of information prioritizes conflict indications of the type of conflict over first UE feedback messages” (paragraph no. 0108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Sun and Panteleev by incorporating the additional teachings of Panteleev to enable the receiving UE (i.e., the first UE) to provide inter-UE coordination feedback to multiple transmitting UEs (i.e., second and/or third UEs) via prioritization of sidelink conflicts over HARQ feedback, as suggested by Panteleev in paragraph no. 0108. This would enable the UE to operate optimally based on its limited capabilities, as further suggested by Panteleev in paragraph no. 0103.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Sun does not teach but Panteleev teaches “wherein the type of conflict comprises a direct collision of at least the first sidelink transmission from the second UE transmitted over a first resource with at least the second sidelink transmission from the third UE over the first resource, a half-duplex collision of at least the first sidelink transmission from the second UE transmitted in a slot with at least the second sidelink transmission from the third UE transmitted in the slot, or an in-band collision of at least the first sidelink transmission from the second UE transmitted over a first frequency with at least the second sidelink transmission from the third UE over a second frequency adjacent to the first frequency” (the “direct collision” and “half-duplex collision” alternatives are taught in paragraph no. 0108; see also, paragraph nos. 0063-0075 which disclose half-duplex and co-channel collision (aka, “direct collision”) sidelink conflicts).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Sun and Panteleev by incorporating the additional teachings of Panteleev to enable the receiving UE (i.e., the first UE) to provide inter-UE coordination feedback to multiple transmitting UEs (i.e., second and/or third UEs) via prioritization of sidelink conflicts over HARQ feedback, as suggested by Panteleev in paragraph no. 0108. This would enable the UE to operate optimally based on its limited capabilities, as further suggested by Panteleev in paragraph no. 0103.
Regarding claims 8 and 21, Sun teaches “wherein the indication is a first conflict indication” (see paragraph no. 0047). Sun does not teach but Panteleev teaches “the information further comprises at least one first UE feedback message and at least a second conflict indication” (paragraph no. 0108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Sun and Panteleev by incorporating the additional teachings of Panteleev to enable the receiving UE (i.e., the first UE) to provide inter-UE coordination feedback to multiple transmitting UEs (i.e., second and/or third UEs) via prioritization of sidelink conflicts over HARQ feedback, as suggested by Panteleev in paragraph no. 0108. This would enable the UE to operate optimally based on its limited capabilities, as further suggested by Panteleev in paragraph no. 0103.
Regarding claims 10 and 23, Sun teaches “wherein the indication is associated with a first conflict of a first conflict type” (see paragraph no. 0047). Sun does not teach but Panteleev teaches “identifying at least a second conflict of the first conflict type; and selecting the first conflict over at least the second conflict to indicate in the indication based at least in part on a data transmission prioritization” (paragraph no. 0108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Sun and Panteleev by incorporating the additional teachings of Panteleev to enable the receiving UE (i.e., the first UE) to provide inter-UE coordination feedback to multiple transmitting UEs (i.e., second and/or third UEs) via prioritization of sidelink conflicts over HARQ feedback, as suggested by Panteleev in paragraph no. 0108. This would enable the UE to operate optimally based on its limited capabilities, as further suggested by Panteleev in paragraph no. 0103.
Regarding claims 11 and 24, Sun teaches “wherein the indication is associated with a first conflict of a first conflict type” (paragraph no. 0047). Sun does not teach but Panteleev teaches “identifying at least a second conflict of the first conflict type; and selecting the first conflict over at least the second conflict to indicate in the indication based at least in part on a ranking of the first conflict and at least the second conflict” (paragraph no. 0108 discloses ranking or different priorities of different sidelink conflicts).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Sun and Panteleev by incorporating the additional teachings of Panteleev to enable the receiving UE (i.e., the first UE) to provide inter-UE coordination feedback to multiple transmitting UEs (i.e., second and/or third UEs) via prioritization of sidelink conflicts over HARQ feedback, as suggested by Panteleev in paragraph no. 0108. This would enable the UE to operate optimally based on its limited capabilities, as further suggested by Panteleev in paragraph no. 0103.
Regarding claims 12 and 25, Sun teaches “wherein the first sidelink transmission is received via a first resource, and the second sidelink transmission is scheduled for transmission with the first resource” (paragraph nos. 0047, 0091).
Regarding claims 13 and 26, Sun teaches “receiving the second sidelink transmission from the third UE via the first resource, wherein the indication is based at least in part on receiving the first sidelink transmission and the second sidelink transmission” (paragraph nos. 0047, 0091).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 9, 18-20, and 22 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.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest “wherein the prioritization comprises a first priority level for the direct collision, a second priority level lower than the first priority level for the half-duplex collision, and a third priority level lower than the second priority level to for the in-band collision.” Panteleev is the closest prior art of record vis a vis claims 5 and 18. Panteleev teaches half-duplex and co-channel collisions which correspond to the claimed “half-duplex collision” and “direct collision,” respectively (see paragraph nos. 0063-0075). However, Panteleev does not teach or fairly suggest an “in-band collision” nor the specific priorities associated with each of the claimed three collisions and their inter-relationships as specifically required by claims 5 and 18.
Claims 6-7 and 19-20 depend from claims 5 and 18, respectively.
Regarding claims 9 and 22, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest “detecting a plurality of conflicts associated with the transmission occasion; determining a plurality of first UE feedback messages associated with the transmission occasion; determining a maximum number of feedback messages that may be sent in the transmission occasion; selecting a subset of first UE feedback messages from the plurality of first UE feedback messages based at least in part on the prioritization; and selecting a subset of a plurality of indications for the plurality of conflicts based at least in part on the prioritization, wherein transmitting the indication in the transmission occasion further comprises transmitting the subset of the plurality of indications and the subset of first UE feedback messages in the transmission occasion.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 14, 27, and 29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
To the extent that some of the arguments are not considered moot, these arguments are addressed herein. Applicant argues, re claim 1, that Sun and Panteleev, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest “transmitting conflict information … based at least in part on a priority value of a feedback channel associated with the conflict information,” see page 11 of the amendment. In particular, applicant argues that Panteleev “describes a UE prioritizing between different types of inter-UE coordination feedback messages, such as prioritizing the transmission of half- duplex/co-channel collision feedback over HARQ ACK/NACK or NACK only feedback, but does not teach or suggest that the UE prioritizes between the types of inter-UE coordination feedback messages "based at least in part on a priority value of a feedback channel associated with the conflict information," as recited in amended independent claim 1,” see the paragraph bridging pages 11 and 12.
The argument regarding Panteleev is not persuasive since the UE does prioritize between the types of inter-UE coordination feedback messages "based at least in part on a priority value of a feedback channel associated with the conflict information" as now recited in claim 1. Panteleev discloses in paragraph no. 0107, “HARQ ACK/NACK … may be prioritized over half-duplex/co-channel collision feedback indications.” It’s noted that the HARQ ACK/NACK is transmitted over the feedback channel, PSFCH, see paragraph no. 0103. Since the HARQ ACK/NACK information transmitted in a PSFCH may be prioritized over half-duplex/co-channel collision feedback indications, this clearly indicates that the HARQ ACK/NACK information has a higher priority (aka, higher priority value) than the half-duplex/co-channel collision feedback indications, thus still teaching the newly amended claim limitations of claim 1. The “feedback channel” limitation of the newly amended claim limitations of claim 1 is interpreted to cover feedback information in accordance with the BRI standard and consistent with applicant’s own disclosure. See, e.g., Fig. 4 of applicant’s drawings which show that the HARQ Feedback has a priority level 1 in contrast to the other types of conflict indication information - the HARQ Feedback has a higher priority (i.e., priority level 1) and not the feedback channel.
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 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 WON TAE C. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/WON TAE C KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2414