DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on 28 January 2026.
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
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 10 were pending the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 28 October 2025.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 10 have been amended in amendments filed on 28 January 2026.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 10 remain pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 4-5 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, the prior art of record does not disclose the claimed invention, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Here, while Applicant summarizes the cited disclosure of Tseng et al. (US 2020/0145867) and 3GPP TS 36.331 v.15.0.1 (2018-01) (hereinafter TS36.331), and concludes, apparently based on their own summary, that neither reference, alone or in combination, teach the claimed invention. However, Applicant does not appear to specifically address any particularly cited portion of Tseng or TS36.331. Thus, Applicant’s arguments amount to a general allegation of patentability.
Further, the amendments to claims 1, 4, 7, and 10 do not appear to alter the scope of the claims as they were previously presented. For example, claim 10 previously included a wherein clause requiring that “a CBR for the NR sidelink communication is measured by on the configuration” (emphasis added). Thus, amended claim 10 with “for the NR sidelink communication” added in line 8 is of identical scope to claim 10 as previously presented on 22 September 2025. The present amendments of claims 1, 4, and 7 have the same effect as in claim 10. Thus, presently presented amended claims 1, 4, 7, and 10 are of identical scope to claims 1, 4, 7, and 10 as presented on 22 September 2025.
Therefore, the prior art rejection of 28 October 2025 is maintained below.
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.
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, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng et al. (US 2020/0145867, previously cited, hereinafter Tseng) in view of "3rd Generation Partnership; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Radio Resource Control (RRC); Protocol Specification (Release 15)," 3GPP TS 36.331 v.15.0.1 (2018-01), Technical Specification, https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=2440, uploaded on 9 January 2018, (previously cited, hereinafter TS36.331).
Regarding Claim 1, Tseng discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station associated with a long term evolution (LTE), a radio resource control (RRC) message (Fig. 3 and ¶ 71 discloses sidelink (SL) measurement negotiations between user equipment (UEs) through a base station exchanging RRC signaling with each of the UEs on an LTE Uu interface, wherein the RRC signaling may be an RRCConnection(Re)Establishment message, an RCConnectionReconfiguration message with/without mobilitycontrolinfoV2X, or an RRCConnectionReconfiguration message with/without reconfigurationwithsync message) including a configuration for a new radio (NR) sidelink communication (¶ 72 discloses the UEs negotiating SL measurement related information including SL-measurement configuration data [to activate SL-measurement reporting between the UEs (¶ 71)] (e.g., which SL Pools to measure), wherein SL measurement reports may be NR SL measurement reports);
measuring the CBR for the NR sidelink communication based on the configuration (¶ 75 discloses the exchange of SL-measurement reports as occurring on a first RAT (e.g., LTE) while the monitored (measured) SL resource pools are associated with a second RAT different from the first RAT (e.g., NR) — thus, ¶¶ 71-72 and 75 disclose negotiated SL measurement configuration data being received by the UE via an RRC message on an LTE Uu interface from a base station to activate SL-measurement of SL resource pools on a NR PC5 interface); and
transmitting, to the base station, a measurement report including the CBR for the NR sidelink communication (¶ 121 discloses that SL-measurement may be reported on the LTE/NR Uu interface for the serving RAN (i.e., the eNB), for example, to adjust the SL-resource pool configuration in some of the present implementations — although specifically describing SL-measurement as beam-based SL-measurement, the described beam-based SL-measurement is disclosed as including CBRs of specific beams, as illustrated in Fig. 2, and one skill in the art would recognize and appreciate that this could be applied to implementation illustrated in Fig. 3).
Tseng may not explicitly disclose:
wherein the configuration is associated with a measurement object including a list of transmission resource pools for a channel busy ratio (CBR) measurement for the NR sidelink communication.
However, in analogous art, TS36.331 discloses:
wherein the configuration is associated with a measurement object (p. 138, § 5.5.1, 2nd ¶ discloses that a UE reports measurement information in accordance with the measurement configuration as provided by E-UTRAN (e.g., eNB)) including a list of transmission resource pools for a channel busy ratio (CBR) measurement for the NR sidelink communication (pp. 138-139, 1. Measurement Objects discloses that measurement objects are that objects on which the UE shall perform the measurements, and that for CBR measurements a measurement object is a set of transmission resource pools for V2X sidelink communication).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use TS36.331 to modify Tseng in order to show that according to industry standards, a SL measurement configuration, which is to activate CBR measurement of SL resource pools, is required to include a measurement object that, for CBR measurements, is a set (i.e., list) of transmission resource pools for V2X sidelink communication. One would have been motivated to do this, because application of agreed-upon industry protocols at the time of filing should be well known to one having ordinary skill in the art, which, specific to the instant claim, apply to a Radio Resource Control protocol for the radio interface between UE and E-UTRAN. (TS36.331 p. 21, § 1 Scope).
Regarding Claims 4, 7, and 10, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 4, 7, and 10 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 1, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THOMAS R CAIRNS whose telephone number is (571)270-0487. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM ET M-F.
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, MARCUS SMITH can be reached at (571) 270-1096. 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.
/Thomas R Cairns/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights