DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/07/2026 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1-5, 7-23, 25-32 are presented for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/07/2026 has been entered.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 10, 12-14, 16, 17, 21-23, 25, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadambar et al. (US Pub. 20180368090 A1) in view of Akkarakaran et al. (US Pub. 20210037549 A1).
For claims 1, 16, 21, and 28, Kadambar discloses a first user equipment (UE) (UE1) [0084] comprising a transceiver (5220) [0246-249], a memory [0246, 0251], and a processor coupled to the transceiver and the memory [0008, 0251], the first UE configured to:
transmit, to a second UE (UE2), first stage sidelink control information (SCI-1) (PSCCH transmission) using a first set of resources of a resource pool (RP) [0150],
wherein the RP indicates resources reserved for communicating the SCI-1 [0150]; and
transmit, to the second UE, the SCI-1 using a second set of resources of the RP [0157-158],
wherein the second set of resources is different from the first set of resources (Figs. 27-31, 47-48 shows the sets of resources are different from each other) [0155-160];
But Kadambar doesn’t explicitly teach wherein a resource identifier associated with at least one of the first set of resources or the second set of resources is based on an identifier associated with the first UE in addition to a UE identifier associated with the second UE.
However, Akkarakaran discloses a resource identifier associated with at least one of the first set of resources or the second set of resources is based on a UE identifier associated with the first UE in addition to a UE identifier associated with the second UE (Figs. 5-6) [0170-171, 0275, 0279, 0040].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing resource management used in a mobile telecommunication system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kadambar with Akkarakaran to ensure different or conflict resources can be mitigated, thus, improving resource allocation.
For claim 2, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses receiving, from a base station (BS), an RP configuration that indicates the RP (Figs. 44 and 47) [0216].
For claim 3, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses receiving, from a third UE, an RP configuration that indicates the RP [0243].
For claim 4, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses transmitting, to the second UE, a configuration that indicates a location of at least one of the first set of resources or the second set of resources [0081, 0118].
For claim 5, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses the configuration is based on a distance between the first UE and the second UE [0081, 0099, 0118].
For claim 7, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses the SCI-1 indicates resources reserved for communicating one or more transport blocks (Figs. 7 and 53) [0066, 0094-95, 0101].
For claim 8, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses transmitting the SCI-1 in a first slot [0203-206, 0240-243]; and
transmitting the SCI-1 in a second slot, wherein the first slot is different from the second slot (Figs. 29, 33, and 53) [0203-206, 0240-243].
For claim 10, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses the SCI-1 comprises at least one of: a time domain resource allocation (TDRA) [0174] or a frequency domain resource allocation (FDRA) associated with a transport block (TB) [0188].
For claim 12, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses mapping the first set of resources to a first slot and a first frequency range (Fig. 11, and 13) [0091-94, 0203-206]; and
mapping the second set of resources to a second slot and a second frequency range (Fig. 11, and 13) [0091-94, 0203-206],
wherein: the second slot is different from the first slot (Fig. 11, and 13) [0091-94, 0203-206]; and
the second frequency range is different from the first frequency range (Fig. 11, and 13) [0091-94, 0203-206].
For claim 13, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses mapping the first set of resources to a sub-slot of a plurality of sub-slots of a first slot (Fig. 13-14) [0098, 0204-26]; and
mapping the second set of resources to a sub-slot of a plurality of sub-slots of a second slot, wherein the second slot is different from the first slot (Fig. 13-14) [0098, 0204-26].
For claim 14, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses selecting at least one of a time domain index or a frequency domain index associated with the first set of resources based on at least one of:
a slot identifier associated with the first set of resources [0078-79, 0082];
a sub-slot identifier associated with the first set of resources [0098, 1888];
an identifier associated with the first UE (Figs. 7 and 53) [0079, 0081];
an identifier associated with the second UE (Figs. 7 and 53) [0079, 0081]; or
an identifier associated with the combination of the first UE and the second UE (Figs. 7 and 53) [0079, 0081].
For claim 17, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses the receiving the SCI-1 using the first set of resources and the second set of resources is based on a distance between the first UE and the second UE [0081, 0099, 0118].
For claim 22, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses the first UE is further configured to: receive an RP configuration that indicates the RP from at least one of: a base station (BS); or a third UE [0243].
For claim 23, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses the first UE is further configured to:
transmit, to the second UE, a configuration that indicates a location of at least one of the first set of resources or the second set of resources [0081, 0118].
For claim 25, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses the first UE is further configured to: transmit the SCI-1 in a first slot [0203-206, 0240-243];
transmit the SCI-1 in a second slot, wherein the first slot is different from the second slot (Figs. 29, 33, and 53) [0203-206, 0240-243].
For claim 29, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses the receiving the SCI-1 using the first set of resources and the second set of resources is based on a distance between the first UE and the second UE [0081, 0099, 0118].
For claims 31 and 32, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, Akkarakaran further discloses the resource identifier is based on a concatenation of at least a portion of the UE identifier associated with the first UE and at least a portion of the UE identifier associated with the second UE (Figs. 5-6) [0170-171, 0275, 0279, 0040]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
Claim(s) 9, 20, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadambar et al. (US Pub. 20180368090 A1) in view of Akkarakaran et al. (US Pub. 20210037549 A1) in further view of Ganesan et al. (US Pub. 20210021536 A1).
For claim 9, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses all limitation this claim depends on.
But Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Ganesan.
Ganesan discloses transmitting a transport block (TB) in the first slot, wherein a resource reservation associated with the first TB is based on a packet delay budget associated with the first TB [0075, 0037, 0061].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing resource management used in a mobile telecommunication system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kadambar, and Akkarakaran with Ganesan to ensure resource reservations can be properly assigned based on packet delay budget, thus, improving system efficiency for resource allocation.
For claim 20, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses all limitation this claim depends on.
But Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Ganesan.
Ganesan discloses the indicator is based on a packet delay budget associated with a transport block transmitted by the second UE [0075, 0037, 0061].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing resource management used in a mobile telecommunication system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kadambar, and Akkarakaran with Ganesan to ensure resource reservations can be properly assigned based on packet delay budget, thus, improving system efficiency for resource allocation.
For claim 26, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses all limitation this claim depends on.
Kadambar further discloses the first UE is further configured to transmit a transport block (TB) in the first slot (Figs. 7 and 53) [0066, 0094-95, 0101];
But Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Ganesan.
Ganesan discloses a resource reservation associated with the first TB is based on a packet delay budget associated with the first TB [0075, 0037, 0061].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing resource management used in a mobile telecommunication system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kadambar, and Akkarakaran with Ganesan to ensure resource reservations can be properly assigned based on packet delay budget, thus, improving system efficiency for resource allocation.
Claim(s) 11 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadambar et al. (US Pub. 20180368090 A1) in view of Akkarakaran et al. (US Pub. 20210037549 A1) in further view of Xi et al. (WO 2020033704 A1).
For claim 11, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses all limitation this claim depends on.
But Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Xi.
Xi discloses the SCI-1 indicates that physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) decoding is not required [0006].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing resource management used in a mobile telecommunication system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kadambar, and Akkarakaran with Xi to ensure information can be retrieve without decoding, thus, improving data processing speed for data retrieval.
For claim 27, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses all limitation this claim depends on.
But Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Xi.
Xi discloses the SCI-1 indicates that physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) decoding is not required [0006].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing resource management used in a mobile telecommunication system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kadambar, and Akkarakaran with Xi to ensure information can be retrieve without decoding, thus, improving data processing speed for data retrieval.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadambar et al. (US Pub. 20180368090 A1) in view of Akkarakaran et al. (US Pub. 20210037549 A1) in further view of Huang et al. (US 20210227604 A1).
For claim 15, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses all limitation this claim depends on.
But Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Huang.
Huang discloses selecting at least one of a candidate set of time domain indexes or a candidate set of frequency domain indexes associated with the first set of resources [0503] based on at least one of:
a slot identifier associated with the first set of resources [0158];
a sub-slot identifier associated with the first set of resources [0158];
an identifier associated with the first UE [0158];
an identifier associated with the second UE;
a total number of time domain resources in the RP [0092-93 0503]; or
a total number of frequency resources in the RP; and
selecting the first set of resources based on at least one of the candidate set of time domain indexes or the candidate set of frequency domain indexes [0092-93 0503].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing resource management used in a mobile telecommunication system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kadambar, and Akkarakaran with Huang to ensure various resource candidates can be properly selected to assist in data transmission, thus, improving resource reliability.
Claim(s) 18, 19, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadambar et al. (US Pub. 20180368090 A1) in view of Akkarakaran et al. (US Pub. 20210037549 A1) in further view of Deng et al. (US 20230300857 A1).
For claim 18, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses all limitation this claim depends on.
But Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Deng.
Deng discloses receiving, from the second UE (202b), second stage sidelink control information (SCI-2) (Fig. 4-8) [0190, 0200-204, 0207-0209]; and
decoding, from the SCI-2, an identifier associated with the second UE (202b) [0190, 0200-204, 0207-0209],
wherein: the receiving the SCI-1 using the first set of resources and the second set of resources is based on the identifier associated with the second UE [0190, 0200-204, 0207-0209].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing resource management used in a mobile telecommunication system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kadambar, and Akkarakaran with Deng to ensure sidelink control information can be properly decoded for resource allocation, thus, improving allocation of different resources to be utilized by the network.
For claim 19, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses all limitation this claim depends on.
But Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Deng.
Deng discloses receiving, from the second UE (202b), second stage sidelink control information (SCI-2) [0190, 0200-204, 0207-0209]; and
decoding, from the SCI-2, an indicator that indicates whether the UE should receive the SCI-1 [0190, 0200-204, 0207-0209],
wherein: the receiving the SCI-1 using the first set of resources and the second set of resources is based on the indicator [0190, 0200-204, 0207-0209].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing resource management used in a mobile telecommunication system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kadambar, and Akkarakaran with Deng to ensure sidelink control information can be properly decoded for resource allocation, thus, improving allocation of different resources to be utilized by the network.
For claim 30, Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses all limitation this claim depends on.
But Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Deng.
Deng discloses the first UE (202a) is further configured to:
receive, from the second UE (202b), second stage sidelink control information (SCI-2) [0190, 0200-204, 0207-0209]; and
decode, from the SCI-2, an identifier associated with the second UE [0190, 0200-204, 0207-0209],
wherein: the receiving the SCI-1 using the first set of resources and the second set of resources is based on the identifier associated with the second UE [0190, 0200-204, 0207-0209].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing resource management used in a mobile telecommunication system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kadambar, and Akkarakaran with Deng to ensure sidelink control information can be properly decoded for resource allocation, thus, improving allocation of different resources to be utilized by the network.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's latest filed arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the references failing to teach every element recited in the independent claims; the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments by the Applicant. Even though, the Examiner acknowledges Applicant's invention may possess some novel features, the claims are written too broad that can be read on the current cited prior art(s). Further actions must be taken to explicitly claim those novel features of the current application.
With regards to the argument for the limitation “… a resource identifier associated with at least one of the first set of resources or the second set of resources is based on an identifier associated with the first UE in addition to a UE identifier associated with the second UE…”, the Examiner asserts that Kadambar, as modified by Akkarakaran, discloses “a first UE (e.g., a UE 120) may include means for identifying (e.g., using receive processor 258, transmit processor 264, controller/processor 280, memory 282, identification component 1006, and/or the like) a first set of resources for an access link communication between the first UE and a base station; means for identifying (e.g., using receive processor 258, transmit processor 264, controller/processor 280, memory 282, identification component 1006, and/or the like) a second set of resources for a sidelink communication between the first UE and a second UE; …identification component 1106, and/or the like) a second set of resources for a sidelink communication between the first UE and a second UE; means for identifying (e.g., using transmit processor 220, receive processor 238…”. ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS
NECESSARY
The arguments made by the counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. The Applicant representative’s arguments for the obvious reason to combine the implicit and explicit teaching of the cited reference(s) failed to provide factual support to sustain the ground of arguments. The mere statement of disagreement of the prior art made by the Applicant’s representative cannot be served as evidence for support. Please see the following case law for detail:
In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
ARGUING AGAINST REFERENCES INDIVIDUALLY
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck and Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As discussed above, it is apparent that the Applicant's cited limitations, elements, and arguments have already been disclosed by the relevant prior art(s) or were thoroughly addressed by the Examiner. Additionally, the current Office Action provides further elaboration on the explicit and implicit teachings of the aforementioned disclosed reference(s). It is important to note that any justifications and citations utilized in the preceding Office Action which were not contested by the Applicant shall be regarded as an implicit admission by the Applicant on the matter at hand.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights