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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 19 June 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claim 1, 2, 4-10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19-25, 27, 28, 31 and 46 are amended.
Claims 14, 15, 32-45 and 47-60 are canceled.
Claims 1-13, 16-31 and 46 are currently pending.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 2-10, 12, 13, 17-25, 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claims.
The outstanding rejections of Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 16-18, 20, 22, 23, 26, 29, 30, 31 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and Claims 4, 6, 12, 13, 19, 21, 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1, 16, 31 and 46.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 16, 31 and 46 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.
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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 16-18, 20, 22, 23, 26, 29, 30, 31 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0163903), hereinafter Sun, in view of Bharadwaj et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20200236655), hereinafter Bharadwaj.
Regarding Claim 16, Sun discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE) (Figure 13 – UE 1300), comprising:
one or more processors (Figure 13 and paragraph 0153 – at least one processor 1308);
one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors (Figure 13 and paragraphs 0152 and 0154 – at least one non-transitory computer readable medium 1306 which can be memory); and
instructions stored in the one or more memories and executable by the one or more processors (paragraph 0154 – software modules stored in memory to be executed by a processor) to cause the apparatus to:
monitor for one or more sidelink messages that indicate a set of sidelink resource reservations associated with one or more second UEs (Figure 3 at step 301 and paragraph 0052 - a UE receives two or more control signals from two or more UEs, where one control signal received from each UE within these two or more UEs indicates resources reserved for each UE);
select one or more sets of sidelink resource reservations for indicating in a coordination message in accordance with one or more prioritization rules based at least in part on a first sidelink message of the one or more sidelink messages (Figure 3 at steps 302 and 303; paragraphs 0053-0054 – the UE selects a transmission resource from a set of resources upon detecting a resource conflict in the received sidelink messages; as described in paragraphs 0058-0066, the determination of reservation rules includes, for example, assessing a maximum number of reservations possible in a resource, the extent of overlap between the reservations, or time-related values (e.g., processing delays)); and
transmit the coordination message comprising an indication of the one or more sets of sidelink resource reservations based at least in part on the selecting (Figure 3 at step 304 and paragraph 0055 - the UE transmits, to at least one UE within these two or more UEs, a resource conflict indicator on the selected transmission resource).
However, Sun does not disclose one or more prioritization rules for forwarding sidelink resource reservations. In an analogous art, Bharadwaj discloses this. Specifically, at paragraph 0115, Bharadwaj discloses a sidelink communications system may configure all UEs to forward all resource reservation information, may configure certain UEs to forward resource reservation information (e.g., based on global positioning system (GPS) information of the UEs, based on priority of the UEs, etc.), may configure forwarding of certain resource reservation information (e.g., forwarding of resource reservation information associated with a certain priority). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sun and Bharadwaj. One would have been motivated to do so in order to address collisions or other interference on resources utilized by multiple UEs.
Regarding Claim 31, Sun discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE) (Figure 13 – UE 1300), comprising:
means for monitoring for one or more sidelink messages that indicate a set of sidelink resource reservations associated with one or more second UEs (Figure 3 at step 301 and paragraph 0052 - a UE receives two or more control signals from two or more UEs, where one control signal received from each UE within these two or more UEs indicates resources reserved for each UE; (Figure 13 and paragraph 0153 – at least one processor 1308 for performing the functions, equivalent to the means for monitoring));
means for selecting one or more sets of sidelink resource reservations for indicating in a coordination message in accordance with one or more prioritization rules based at least in part on a first sidelink message of the one or more sidelink messages (Figure 3 at steps 302 and 303; paragraphs 0053-0054 – the UE selects a transmission resource from a set of resources upon detecting a resource conflict in the received sidelink messages; as described in paragraphs 0058-0066, the determination of reservation rules includes, for example, assessing a maximum number of reservations possible in a resource, the extent of overlap between the reservations, or time-related values (e.g., processing delays); paragraph 0153 – at least one processor 1308 for performing the functions, equivalent to the means for selecting); and
means for transmitting the coordination message comprising an indication of the one or more sets of sidelink resource reservations based at least in part on the selecting (Figure 3 at step 304 and paragraph 0055 - the UE transmits, to at least one UE within these two or more UEs, a resource conflict indicator on the selected transmission resource; Figure 13 – transmitter 1304, equivalent to the means for transmitting).
However, Sun does not disclose one or more prioritization rules for forwarding sidelink resource reservations. In an analogous art, Bharadwaj discloses this. Specifically, at paragraph 0115, Bharadwaj discloses a sidelink communications system may configure all UEs to forward all resource reservation information, may configure certain UEs to forward resource reservation information (e.g., based on global positioning system (GPS) information of the UEs, based on priority of the UEs, etc.), may configure forwarding of certain resource reservation information (e.g., forwarding of resource reservation information associated with a certain priority). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sun and Bharadwaj. One would have been motivated to do so in order to address collisions or other interference on resources utilized by multiple UEs.
Claim 1 is a method claim comprising the same steps performed by the apparatus of Claim 16. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 16.
Claim 46 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE), the code comprising instructions executable by one or more processors to perform the same operations as the apparatus of Claim 16. As noted in the rejection of Claim 16, Sun discloses, at Figure 13 and paragraphs 0152 and 0154, at least one non-transitory computer readable medium 1306 which can be memory for performing the disclosed operations. The remaining limitations are rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 16.
Regarding Claims 2 and 17, Sun discloses wherein selecting the one or more sets of sidelink resource reservations comprises: selecting, in accordance with the one or more prioritization rules, the one or more sets of sidelink resource reservations based at least in part on a scheduled transmission time associated with the one or more sets of sidelink resource reservations (paragraphs 0067-0069 – the UE can determine conflict detection based on time domain locations provided in the received control signals), wherein the first sidelink message indicates the scheduled transmission time (paragraphs 0067-0069 – the received control signals comprise time domain locations for the reserved resources).
Regarding Claims 3 and 18, Sun discloses wherein selecting the one or more sets of sidelink resource reservations comprises: selecting, in accordance with the one or more prioritization rules, the one or more sets of sidelink resource reservations based at least in part on a difference between the scheduled transmission time and a delay period being greater than a threshold difference, the delay period based at least in part on a UE processing time and a first time associated with the selecting (paragraphs 0063-0064 – a resource conflict is determined based whether a time gap between the two control signals is equal or less than a maximum time gap value (i.e., threshold difference), where the maximum time gap value is computed as a sum of the resource reservation processing time (i.e., UE processing time) and the resource selection processing time (i.e., first time associated with the selecting).
Regarding Claims 5 and 20, Sun discloses wherein a UE processing time associated with the UE is based at least in part on a time for the UE to process the first sidelink message and a type of signal used to convey the first sidelink message (paragraph 0064 – a maximum time gap for the UE is computed as the sum of the resource reservation processing time and the resource selection processing time; paragraph 0065 – the processing time can also be dependent on sub-carrier spacing (i.e., a type of signal)).
Regarding Claims 7 and 22, Sun discloses selecting at least a first set of sidelink resource reservations of the one or more sets of sidelink resource reservations based at least in part on a first slot in which the first sidelink message that indicates the first set of sidelink resource reservations is received being less than a threshold time period from a second slot in which the coordination message is scheduled (paragraph 0076 – the UE may select the transmission resource having an earliest time location within the set of resources).
Regarding Claims 8 and 23, Sun discloses selecting at least a first set of sidelink resource reservations of the one or more sets of sidelink resource reservations based at least in part on a first slot in which the first sidelink message that indicates the first set of sidelink resource reservations is received being less than a threshold time period from a second slot that corresponds to a time at which the UE selects the first set of sidelink resource reservations for indicating in the coordination message (paragraph 0076 – the UE may select the transmission resource having an earliest time location within the set of resources).
Regarding Claims 11 and 26, Sun discloses receiving the one or more sidelink messages from the one or more second UEs, the one or more sidelink messages comprising inter-UE coordination messages (paragraph 0044 – the control signal transmission and resource selection is performed via inter-UE coordination).
Regarding Claim 29, Sun discloses transmit(ting) the coordination message via a physical sidelink shared channel, wherein a quantity of the one or more sets of sidelink resource reservations indicated via the coordination message is based at least in part on a quantity of available resources in the physical sidelink shared channel (paragraphs 0068, 0070 and 0089-0091 – the resource conflict indicator is associated with a location of PSCCH which transmits SCI and is dependent on the availability of a resource set).
Regarding Claim 30, Sun discloses transmit(ting) the coordination message via radio resource control signaling, a medium access control-control element, sidelink control information (paragraph 0068 – the resource conflict indicator message is transmitted via SCI, therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation), or a combination thereof.
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Bharadwaj, as applied to Claims 2 and 17 above, and further in view of Khoryaev et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0292378), hereinafter Khoryaev.
Regarding Claims 4 and 19, the combination of Sun and Bharadwaj discloses the limitations of Claims 2 and 17, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose wherein the one or more sets of sidelink resource reservations exclude a first set of sidelink resource reservations based at least in part on a second scheduled transmission time associated with the first set of sidelink resource reservations being before a time associated with an end of a delay period, the delay period based at least in part on a UE processing time and a first time associated with the selecting. In an analogous art, Khoryaev discloses this. Specifically, Khoryaev discloses feedback information for resources within the time interval a certain time interval may be irrelevant since when the TX UE received feedback, these resources have already passed in time and cannot be selected (paragraph 0260). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sun/Bharadwaj and Khoryaev. One would have been motivated to do so in order to resolve sidelink conflicts in inter-UE coordination schemes (paragraphs 0078 and 0079 of Khoryaev).
Claims 6, 12, 13, 21, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Bharadwaj, as applied to Claims 1, 11, 16 and 26 above, and further in view of Blasco Serrano et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0244585), hereinafter Blasco.
Regarding Claims 6 and 21, the combination of Sun and Bharadwaj discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 16, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose selecting at least a first set of sidelink resource reservations of the one or more sets of sidelink resource reservations based at least in part on the first sidelink message that indicates the first set of sidelink resource reservations being received after other sidelink messages of the one or more sidelink messages that indicate other sets of sidelink resource reservations. In an analogous art, Blasco discloses this. Specifically, Blasco discloses a UE dropping a first resource and selecting a resource in response to receiving a later control message (see Figure 4 at steps S4 and s5; paragraphs 0083-0095). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sun/Bharadwaj and Blasco. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the probability of collisions in sidelink transmissions (paragraph 0009 of Blasco).
Regarding Claims 12 and 27, the combination of Sun and Bharadwaj discloses the limitations of Claims 11 and 26, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose monitoring a quantity of times a first set of sidelink resource reservations of the one or more sets of sidelink resource reservations is forwarded via the inter-UE coordination messages; and selecting at least the first set of sidelink resource reservations based at least in part on the quantity being less than a threshold quantity. In an analogous art, Blasco discloses monitoring resource selections and excluding resources if it has already been selected (i.e., a resource can be forwarded if it has not previously been selected) (paragraph 0050). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sun/Bharadwaj and Blasco. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the probability of collisions in sidelink transmissions (paragraph 0009 of Blasco).
Regarding Claims 13 and 28, the combination of Sun, Bharadwaj and Blasco further discloses selecting the set of sidelink resource reservations based at least in part on the quantity being greater than or equal to one (paragraph 0050 of Blasco - monitoring resource selections and excluding resources if it has already been selected (i.e., a resource can be forwarded if it has not previously been selected)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Sun/Bharadwaj and Blasco. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the probability of collisions in sidelink transmissions (paragraph 0009 of Blasco).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 24 and 25 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.
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 ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights