DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the amendment filed on 16 April 2026, having claims 1-30.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, see remarks (pages 10-12), filed April 16, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 9-13, 16-20, and 25-29 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Peng et al. (US 2021/0298015 A1).
Claims 1, 10, 17, and 26 were amended to recite “reservation conflict indicates that the first resource is reserved by multiple UEs.” Applicant argued that Ye does not teach the added limitations. The examiner cites Peng for the added limitations. Peng, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches the first terminal determines whether there is a partial or entire conflict for target resource(s) for a second terminal, wherein the resources conflict with reserved resources of multiple other terminals [0043]. The claims are rejected based on the combination of Ye and Peng, and this action is made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 10-11, 13, 17, 20, 26-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (EP 4 465 752 A2) in view of Peng et al. (US 2021/0298015 A1).
For claims 1 and 17, Ye discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE) (Fig 2, UE 106A or Fig 3, UE 106), comprising: a processor (Fig 3, processor 302); memory (Fig 3, memory 306) coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
transmit a control message indicating reservation of a first resource of a sidelink channel for a sidelink transmission (column 21, lines 20-22, the transmitting UE sends a control message via PSCCH to reserve multiple resources for the sidelink transmission);
receive, from a second UE, a conflict indication indicating a reservation conflict for the first resource based at least in part on the control message (column 21, lines 23-27, the transmitting UE receives a coordination message from the receiving UE indicating collision/conflict on the reserves resources);
perform resource selection to select a second resource based at least in part on receiving the conflict indication; and transmit the sidelink transmission using the second resource (column 21, lines 28-34, after receiving the coordination message, the transmitting UE reselect resources for the sidelink transmission and transmits using the re-selected resources).
For claims 1 and 17, Ye does not expressly disclose the reservation conflict indicates that the first resource is reserved by multiple UEs. Peng, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches the first terminal determines whether there is a partial or entire conflict for target resource(s) for a second terminal, wherein the resources conflict with reserved resources of multiple other terminals [0043]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the collision/conflict indication message in the communication network of Ye to indicate that the collision/conflict is caused by the resource being reserved by “multiple other terminals” as taught by Peng at the time of the invention.
For claims 4 and 20, Ye does not expressly disclose perform the resource selection based at least in part on a conflict indication percentage during a time duration being less than a threshold percentage. However, Ye discloses the UE may skip resource re-selection if the indication message indicates that some reserved resources (i.e., a percentage of the reserved resources) do not have collision during a time period [0110]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to perform resource re-selection based on a percentage of the reserved resources experiencing collision being less or greater than a threshold without departing from the scope of the invention.
For claims 10 and 26, Ye discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE) (Fig 2, UE 106A or Fig 3, UE 106), comprising: a processor (Fig 3, processor 302); memory (Fig 3, memory 306) coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
transmit a control message indicating reservation of a first resource of a sidelink channel for a sidelink transmission (column 21, lines 20-22, the transmitting UE sends a control message via PSCCH to reserve multiple resources for the sidelink transmission);
receive, from a second UE, a conflict indication indicating a reservation conflict for the first resource based at least in part on the control message (column 21, lines 23-27, the transmitting UE receives a coordination message from the receiving UE indicating collision/conflict on the reserves resources); and
transmit the sidelink transmission using the first resource (column 22, [0107], the UE may skip resource re-selection based on one or more conditions including processing time limitation, interference level, or data priority of the sidelink transmission; in which case, the first resource is used for the sidelink transmission).
For claims 10 and 26, Ye does not expressly disclose the reservation conflict indicates that the first resource is reserved by multiple UEs. Peng, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches the first terminal determines whether there is a partial or entire conflict for target resource(s) for a second terminal, wherein the resources conflict with reserved resources of multiple other terminals [0043]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the collision/conflict indication message in the communication network of Ye to indicate that the collision/conflict is caused by the resource being reserved by “multiple other terminals” as taught by Peng at the time of the invention.
For claims 11 and 27, Ye discloses transmit the sidelink transmission using the first resource based at least in part on a remaining packet delay budget for a packet in the sidelink transmission being less than a threshold value corresponding to a time when the conflict indication is received ([0112] resource re-selection may be skipped (meaning, the first resource is used) when the transmission would occur within the remaining packet delay budget).
For claims 13 and 29, Ye does not expressly disclose transmit the sidelink transmission using the first resource based at least in part on a conflict indication percentage during a time duration being greater than or equal to a threshold percentage. However, Ye discloses the UE may skip resource re-selection (i.e., transmit using the first resource) if the indication message indicates that some reserved resources (i.e., a percentage of the reserved resources) do not have collision during a time period [0110]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to transmit the sidelink transmission using the first resource based on a percentage of the reserved resources experiencing collision being less than or greater than a threshold without departing from the scope of the invention.
5. Claims 2-3, 12, 18-19, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (EP 4 465 752 A2) in view of in view of Peng et al. (US 2021/0298015 A1), and further in view of Pan et al. (US 2023/0309116 A1).
For claims 2 and 18, Ye does not expressly disclose perform the resource selection based at least in part on a remaining packet delay budget for a packet in the sidelink transmission being greater than or equal to a threshold value corresponding to a time when the conflict indication is received.
Pan, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches that a UE must select (or re-select) resources for sidelink transmissions within a selection window which cannot be longer than a remaining packet latency budget (or packet delay budget) [0045-0046]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the resource selection window (i.e., from the time the conflict is indicated to the remaining time required to transmit the packet) in the communication network of Ye must be within a threshold time period for resource re-selection to occur in time before latency budget expires based on the teachings of Pan at the time of the invention.
For claims 3 and 19, Ye does not expressly disclose perform the resource selection based at least in part on a priority associated with the sidelink transmission being less than a priority threshold value.
Pan, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches that when a UE performs resource selection (or re-selection), some reserved resources are excluded based on priorities of the traffic of the reserved resources being higher than a threshold compared to the resources of the transmitting UE, meaning the traffic of the sidelink transmission is of lower priority than the reserved resources; in which case, resource re-selection would not occur ([0046]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the resource selection method of Pan in the communication network of Ye at the time of the invention to prioritize high-priority traffic when selecting or reselecting resources.
For claims 12 and 28, Ye does not express transmit the sidelink transmission using the first resource based at least in part on a priority associated with the sidelink transmission being greater than or equal to a priority threshold value.
Pan, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches that when a UE performs resource selection (or re-selection), the transmitting UE may use the reserved resources of another UE if the traffic of the transmitting UE has higher priority threshold than the traffic of other UE [0046]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the resource selection method of Pan in the communication network of Ye at the time of the invention to prioritize high-priority traffic when selecting or reselecting resources.
6. Claims 9 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (EP 4 465 752 A2) in view of Peng et al. (US 2021/0298015 A1), and further in view of Lee et al. (EP 4 072 219 A1).
For claims 9 and 25, Ye does not expressly disclose reporting, from a physical layer at the first UE to a medium access control layer at the first UE, a negative acknowledgement message base at least in part on receiving the conflict indication.
Lee, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches two UEs transmitting and receiving data via a PSSCH (sidelink channel), wherein the MAC layer of the transmitting UE may start retransmission of data after receiving a NACK (HARQ status) reported by the PHY layer (page 19, table 12, lines 20-24). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement HARQ feedback method of Lee in the communication network of Ye at the time of the invention to report unsuccessful transmissions of sidelink data due to an indicated conflict of sidelink resources.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 5-8, 14-16, 21-24, and 30 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
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM 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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights