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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 10, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ye et al. (US 2023/0337187, Ye hereafter).
RE claims 1, 10 and 19, Ye discloses a sidelink (SL) communication method, terminal device comprising a processor and a memory configured to store a computer program; and a chip, comprising: a processor configured to call and run a computer program stored in a memory to cause a device in which the chip is installed (Figure 27) to perform operations of: acquiring an indication for triggering a resource selection procedure for aperiodic transmission at a first time position (Figure 4, 404, resource selection trigger at slot “n”. Paragraph 67 discloses the figure “illustrates operational diagrams in which the UE only uses contiguous partial sensing in accordance with some embodiments”); determining a resource selection window (RSW) after the first time position, wherein the RSW comprises a time window for resource selection and at least part of a contiguous partial sensing (CPS) monitoring window (Figure 4, 404, the resource selection operation timeline is interpreted to be the overall claimed resource selection window timed based on slot “n”, with a sensing window at n+T_A and ending at n+T_B. The result of that sensing operation is sued to make a resource selection during time m+T_1 and ending at n+T_2. That is, though the claim and reference use the same terms, the claim can be interpreted to encompass an entire overall window of time devoted to a triggered resource selection process); and performing the resource selection procedure based on the time window for resource selection (Figure 4, Paragraph 67 discloses the figure “illustrates operational diagrams in which the UE only uses contiguous partial sensing in accordance with some embodiments”).
RE claims 7 and 16, Ye discloses the method of claim 1 and terminal device of claim 10 as set forth above. Note that Ye further discloses wherein said performing the resource selection procedure based on the time window for resource selection comprises: initializing a candidate resource set based on a set of all candidate resources within the time window for resource selection (Paragraph 165 discloses “When a UE determines a candidate set of resources, the UE is supposed to identify at least M*|S_M| candidate resources, wherein S_M is the set of all resources in the resource selection window.“).
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, 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.
Claims 2-4, 6, 11-13, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Liu et al. (US 2024/0244594, Liu hereafter, Publication and English translation of foreign priority application attached. The following citations are supported by at least paragraphs 224-227 of the translation.).
RE claims 2 and 11, Ye discloses the method of claim 1 and terminal device of claim 10 as set forth above. Ye does not explicitly disclose wherein said determining the RSW comprises at least one of: determining the RSW satisfying a first criterion, wherein the first criterion comprises that a time length of the time window for resource selection is greater than or equal to a first threshold; determining the RSW satisfying a second criterion, wherein the second criterion comprises that a time length of the CPS monitoring window is greater than or equal to a second threshold; and determining the RSW satisfying a third criterion, wherein the third criterion comprises that an overlapped time length between the time window for resource selection and an SL discontinuous reception (DRX) active duration of a second terminal device is greater than or equal to a third threshold.
However, Liu teaches wherein said determining the RSW comprises at least one of: determining the RSW satisfying a first criterion, wherein the first criterion comprises that a time length of the time window for resource selection is greater than or equal to a first threshold (The following citations are supported by paragraphs 224-227 of the provided foreign priority translation. Paragraph 220 teaches: “In a possible implementation, for the first condition and/or the second condition for determining sensing occasions and/or triggering sensing, the first value, the second value, the third value, the fourth value, the fifth value and/or the sixth value is a first preset value or a product of the first preset value and an adjustment coefficient (for example, denoted as α).” Paragraphs 223 and 226 teaches “the first preset value includes” … “a minimum resource quantity of an available resource set; for example, it is understood as a minimum selection window length RSWmin, a minimum remaining selection window length RRSWmin, a minimum value Ymin of Y, or a minimum value of the quantity of resources contained in a resource set; optionally, this is preferably applicable to the sixth value;”); determining the RSW satisfying a second criterion, wherein the second criterion comprises that a time length of the CPS monitoring window is greater than or equal to a second threshold (Paragraphs 223-225 further teaches the first preset value includes “a minimum quantity of sensing occasions; optionally, this is preferably applicable to the first value to fifth value; and it may be understood that CPS is triggered only when the quantity of CPS windows or CPS sensing slots is not less than CPSmin;”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and terminal of Ye with the teachings of Liu since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique (RSW and CPS window minimums and thresholds) to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 3 and 12, Ye in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 2 and terminal device of claim 11 as set forth above. Note that Liu further teaches determining the first threshold based on a high layer parameter configured or pre-configured for the aperiodic transmission (Paragraph 222 teaches these values as “preset” and thus “pre-configured”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and terminal of Ye with the teachings of Liu since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique (RSW and CPS window minimums and thresholds) to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 4 and 13, Ye in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 2 and terminal device of claim 11 as set forth above. Note that Ye further discloses determining a start time position of the CPS monitoring window that is at least M slots before the first slot of the time window for resource selection or before the end time position of the CPS monitoring window, where M is determined based on a higher layer parameter configured or pre-configured for the aperiodic transmission (Figure 4 and paragraph 82 discloses “determination of T_A and T_B of the contiguous partial sensing window may be based on a channel busy ratio (CBR). For example, the contiguous partial sensing window (for example, T_B-T_A) may be proportional with a CBR level. A larger contiguous partial sensing window may be used for higher levels of CBR (for example, a more congested channel)” Paragraph 50 further discloses “ Resource pool configuration may include the base station 108 providing a UE with the configuration information via control signaling, for example, radio resource control (RRC) signaling. Additionally/alternatively the configuration of the resource pool may include accessing predefined configuration information stored at a UE.”).
Also, note that Liu further teaches determining an end time position of the CPS monitoring window that is a processing time before first slot of the time window for resource selection (Paragraphs 223-225 further teaches the first preset value includes “a minimum quantity of sensing occasions; optionally, this is preferably applicable to the first value to fifth value; and it may be understood that CPS is triggered only when the quantity of CPS windows or CPS sensing slots is not less than CPSmin;”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and terminal of Ye with the teachings of Liu since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique (RSW and CPS window minimums and thresholds) to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 6 and 15, Ye in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 2 and terminal device of claim 11 as set forth above. Note that Liu further teaches determining the second threshold or a value of M based on at least one of: a high layer parameter configured for the aperiodic transmission; a remaining packet delay budget (PDB); and a preset range of values (Paragraphs 223-226 further teaches the first preset value includes “a minimum quantity of sensing occasions; optionally, this is preferably applicable to the first value to fifth value; and it may be understood that CPS is triggered only when the quantity of CPS windows or CPS sensing slots is not less than CPSmin; and further “a minimum resource quantity of an available resource set; for example, it is understood as a minimum selection window length RSWmin, a minimum remaining selection window length RRSWmin, a minimum value Ymin of Y, or a minimum value of the quantity of resources contained in a resource set; optionally, this is preferably applicable to the sixth value;”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and terminal of Ye with the teachings of Liu since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique (RSW and CPS window minimums and thresholds) to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Liu and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2021/0314821, Huang hereafter).
RE claims 5 and 14, Ye in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 4 and terminal device of claim 13 as set forth above. Note that Liu teaches wherein the processing time is equal to a sum of Tproc,0 and Tproc,1 (Paragraphs 126-128, paragraphs 131-133 in the translation, teaches “The UE determines available sensing slots, … In an implementation, the preset time window is related to a start point of a selection window/remaining selection window/set of Y slots/resource set, and specifically ranges from the start point-T4 to the start point-processing time1. Optionally, the processing time1 contains at least a time required for decoding SCI and/or for reporting a target resource, for example, Tproc0 +Tproc1. Optionally, T4 is a value that is configurable or pre-configured or specified by a protocol.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and terminal of Ye with the teachings of Liu since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Ye in view of Liu does not explicitly disclose where Tproc,0 and Tproc,1 are determined based on a sub-carrier spacing (SCS).
However, Huang teaches where Tproc,0 and Tproc,1 are determined based on a sub-carrier spacing (SCS) (Paragraph 517 teaches “T0, T1, T2, and/or T3 and/or Tproc,0 and/or Tproc,1 could be in units of slot. T0, T1, T2, and/or T3 and/or Tproc,0 and/or Tproc,1 could be in units of millisecond which is equivalent to units of slot with SCS associated to the sidelink resource pool or sidelink BWP.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and terminal of Ye in view of Liu with the teachings of Huang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Miao et al. (US 2024/0008074, Miao hereafter).
RE claims 8 and 17, Ye in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 1 and terminal device of claim 10 as set forth above. Ye in view of Liu does not explicitly disclose monitoring a set of consecutive slots in an SL resource pool within the CPS monitoring window, wherein the SL resource pool is not configured with a parameter or the parameter for the SL resource pool is configured as disabled, and the parameter is indicative of periodic resource reservation.
However, Miao teaches monitoring a set of consecutive slots in an SL resource pool within the CPS monitoring window, wherein the SL resource pool is not configured with a parameter or the parameter for the SL resource pool is configured as disabled, and the parameter is indicative of periodic resource reservation (Paragraphs 59-62, “ terminal device determines candidate sensing slots in the sidelink for aperiodic transmission Furthermore, “In some example embodiments, if it is determined that the traffic to be transmitted is aperiodic, the process will proceed to the next step. In one example, if partial sensing is configured, when the higher layer parameter sl-ResourceReservePeriodList is invalid (e.g., zero value) or the higher layer parameter sl-MultiReserveResource is not configured as enable, the terminal device 110 may determine that the traffic is aperiodic traffic. In such case, the process will proceed to the next step.”.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and terminal of Ye in view of Liu with the teachings of Miao since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 9 and 18, Ye in view of Liu and further in view of Miao discloses the method of claim 8 and terminal device of claim 17 as set forth above. Note that Miao further discloses wherein the parameter comprises a higher layer parameter “sl-MultiReserveResource” (Paragraphs 59-62, “ terminal device determines candidate sensing slots in the sidelink for aperiodic transmission Furthermore, “In some example embodiments, if it is determined that the traffic to be transmitted is aperiodic, the process will proceed to the next step. In one example, if partial sensing is configured, when the higher layer parameter sl-ResourceReservePeriodList is invalid (e.g., zero value) or the higher layer parameter sl-MultiReserveResource is not configured as enable, the terminal device 110 may determine that the traffic is aperiodic traffic. In such case, the process will proceed to the next step.”.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and terminal of Ye in view of Liu with the teachings of Miao since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/James P Duffy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461