-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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) were submitted on 04/29/2025 and 08/12/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of a group linked to claims 1-13 and 19-27 in the reply filed on 06/03/2026 acknowledged. Claims 14-18 and 28-30 have been cancelled from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 06/03/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 and 19-27 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1 recites, “-- both are to transmit to the first wireless device” (last line). It is suggested to replace it with “-- both are allowed to transmit the first message or the second message to the first wireless device” for more clarity. Claim 4 (line 4), 8 (line 7), 9 (line 5), 19 (last line), 21 (line 4), and 22 (line 6) are objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claims 2-13 and 20-27 are also objected to since they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the objected claims, as set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 19, 20, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hwang et al (US Publication No. 2023/0097401 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Hwang discloses, a first wireless device [FIGS. 13-14; their related descriptions; ¶0403, second UE], comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code [FIG. 16; its related descriptions; ¶0472, memory 204 storing software code]; and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to [FIG. 16; its related descriptions; ¶0472, processor 202 coupled with the memory to execute the code to perform action(s)].
transmit, to a second wireless device, a first control indication associated with a first set of control indication parameters specific to the first wireless device [FIGS. 13-14; their related descriptions; ¶0435, (in S1410) the second UE (i.e., claimed first wireless device) transmits, to the first UE (i.e., claimed second wireless device), the first SCI related to the first reserved resource (i.e., first set of control indication parameters) for the PSSCH], the first control indication comprising a first request to transmit a first message from the first wireless device to the second wireless device [FIGS. 13-14; their related descriptions; ¶0435, (in S1410) the second UE (i.e., claimed first wireless device) transmits, to the first UE (i.e., claimed second wireless device), the first SCI related to the first reserved resource (i.e., first set of control indication parameters) for the PSSCH; further see ¶0395, “reserved resources indicated by the SCI received from the UE-B”; note that it means that the first reserved resource indicated by the first SCI for the second UE’s subsequent PSSCH transmission is considered as “a first request”]; and
receive a feedback message from the second wireless device based at least in part on the first control indication [FIGS. 13-14; their related descriptions; ¶0438-0440, the second UE receives, from the first UE, information related to a conflict between the first reserved resource and a second reserved resource], wherein the feedback message indicates whether the first wireless device is to transmit the first message to the second wireless device [¶0426, the second UE or the third UE may reselect resources for PSSCH based on the information related to the conflict; note that the information related to the conflict indicates that the second UE or the third UE receiving this information does not transmit using the reserved resource, but reselect resources for PSSCH].
Regarding claim 20, Hwang discloses, the first wireless device of claim 19 as set forth above.
Hwang further discloses, the first set of control indication parameters [¶0404, first reserved resources] comprises one or more first frequency resources [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0127, frequency resources; note that reserved resources comprises frequency resources]; and the second set of control indication parameters [¶0406, second reserved resources] comprises one or more second frequency resources [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0127, frequency resources; note that reserved resources comprises frequency resources].
Regarding claim 24, Hwang discloses, the first wireless device of claim 19 as set forth above.
Hwang discloses, wherein, to receive the feedback message, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to [see supra rejections as set forth above in claims 1 and 19]:
receive a not-acknowledgment message from the second wireless device indicating whether the first wireless device is to transmit the first message based at least in part on a first priority associated with the first wireless device [¶0455, the second UE may receive information related to the conflict from the first UE when a priority of PSSCH transmission of the second UE is lower than a priority of PSSCH transmission of the third UE].
Regarding claim 27, Hwang discloses, the first wireless device of claim 19 as set forth above.
Hwang further discloses, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to [see supra rejections as set forth above in claim 19]:
transmit the first control indication via a sidelink channel [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0404-0406, note that the first SCI is transmitted via sidelink channel]; and
receive the feedback message via the sidelink channel [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0417, note that the information related to the conflict is received via PSFCH (sidelink channel)].
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US Publication No. 2023/0097401 A1) in view of Bal et al (US Publication No. 2022/0030441 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses, a first wireless device [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0402, first UE], comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code [FIG. 16; its related descriptions; ¶0471, memory 104 storing software code]; and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to [FIG. 16; its related descriptions; ¶0471, processor 102 coupled with the memory to execute the code to perform action(s)]:
receive, from a second wireless device, a first control indication associated with a first set of control indication parameters specific to the second wireless device [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0404, (in S1310) the first UE receives, from second UE, first SCI related to the first reserved resource (i.e., first set of control indication parameters) for the PSSCH], the first control indication comprising a first request to transmit a first message from the second wireless device to the first wireless device [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0404, (in S1310) the first UE receives, from second UE, first SCI related to the first reserved resource (i.e., specific to the second UE) for the PSSCH; further see ¶0395, “reserved resources indicated by the SCI received from the UE-B”; note that it means that the first reserved resource indicated by the first SCI for the second UE’s subsequent PSSCH transmission is considered as “a first request];
receive, from a third wireless device, a second control indication associated with a second set of control indication parameters specific to the third wireless device [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0406, (in S1320) the first UE receives, from third UE, second SCI related to the second reserved resource (i.e., second set of control indication parameters) for the PSSCH], the second control indication comprising a second request to transmit a second message from the third wireless device to the first wireless device [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0406, (in S1320) the first UE receives, from third UE, second SCI related to the second reserved resource for the PSSCH; further see ¶0395, “reserved resources indicated by the SCI received from the UE-B”; note that it means that the second reserved resource indicated by the second SCI for the third UE’s subsequent PSSCH transmission is considered as “a second request”]; and
transmit a feedback message to the second wireless device, the third wireless device, or both based at least in part on the first control indication and the second control indication [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0417-0419, (in S1340) the first UE transmits, to the second UE or the third UE, PSFCH including the information related to the conflict information], wherein the feedback message indicates whether the second wireless device, the third wireless device, or both are to transmit to the first wireless device [¶0426, the second UE or the third UE may reselect resources for PSSCH based on the information related to the conflict; note that the information related to the conflict indicates that the second UE or the third UE receiving this information does not transmit (the PSSCH) using the reserved resource, but reselect resources for PSSCH].
Hwang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), wherein the first wireless device is configured for full-duplex communications.
However, Bal discloses, wherein the first wireless device is configured for full-duplex communications [claim 1 and ¶0079, first device that supports full duplex communication].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Hwang with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Bal to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Bal into the system of Hwang would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to increase spectral efficiency and capacity, such a modification (or application) would have involved 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)).
Regarding claim 2, Hwang in view of Bal discloses, the first wireless device of claim 1 as set forth above.
Hwang further discloses, the first set of control indication parameters [¶0404, first reserved resources] comprises one or more first frequency resources [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0127, frequency resources; note that reserved resources comprises frequency resources]; and the second set of control indication parameters [¶0406, second reserved resources] comprises one or more second frequency resources [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0127, frequency resources; note that reserved resources comprises frequency resources].
Regarding claim 3, Hwang in view of Bal discloses, the first wireless device of claim 1 as set forth above.
Hwang further discloses, differentiate the first control indication from the second control indication based at least in part on a difference of at least one parameter between the first set of control indication parameters and the second set of control indication parameters [¶0393, it may be assumed that a priority value p1 obtained from SCI format 1-A of the UE-B is greater than a priority value p2 obtained from SCI format 1-A of the UE-C (p1>p2). In this case, the UE-A may transmit a resource conflict indicator (PSFCH with conflict information) to the UE-B; further see ¶00402 and 0404; note that the first UE determines to transmit a conflict indication in response to the first SCI or the second SCI based on a difference between priorities of the first SCI including the first reserved resources and the second SCI including the second reserved resources].
Regarding claim 12, Hwang in view of Bal discloses, the first wireless device of claim 1 as set forth above.
Hwang further discloses, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to [see supra rejections as set forth above in claim 1]:
receive the first control indication and the second control indication via a sidelink channel [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0404-0406, note that the first SCI and the second SCI are received via sidelink channel]; and
transmit the feedback message via the sidelink channel [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0417, note that the information related to the conflict is transmitted via PSFCH (sidelink channel)].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US Publication No. 2023/0097401 A1) in view of Bal et al (US Publication No. 2022/0030441 A1) and further in view of Xu et al (US Publication No. 2019/0159236 A1) and further in view of Zhang et al (US Publication No. 2023/0106109 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Hwang in view of Bal discloses, the first wireless device of claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Hwang further discloses, and the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to [see supra rejections as set forth above in claim 1]: receive, via the first control indication [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0404, (in S1310) the first UE receives, from second UE, first SCI for the PSSCH], a first priority indication associated with the second wireless device [¶0393, a priority value p1 obtained from SCI format 1-A of the UE-B; note that the first priority of the second UE is received via the first SCI]; receive, via the second control indication [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0406, (in S1320) the first UE receives, from third UE, second SCI for the PSSCH], a second priority indication associated with the third wireless device [¶0393, a priority value p2 obtained from SCI format 1-A of the UE-C; note that the second priority of the third UE is received via the second SCI]; transmit the feedback message [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0417-0419, (in S1340) the first UE transmits, to the second UE or the third UE, PSFCH including the information related to the conflict information], Hwang in view of Bal does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Xu discloses,
transmit the feedback message indicating that the second wireless device is to transmit the first message based at least in part on the first priority indication being associated with a higher priority than the second priority indication [¶0188, for a service of a higher priority, base station allocates uplink grant (i.e., first indication) in a subframe later, by N subframe, than a subframe (i.e., first time resources) in which the resource scheduling request is received].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Xu in the system of Hwang in view of Bal in order to cause the system to be able to reduce a sending latency of resource scheduling and thus meet a sending latency requirement for a service of a higher priority [e.g., ¶0005 of Xu].
Further, Hwang in view of Bal and Xu does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Zhang discloses, wherein the first control indication and the second control indication are at least partially overlapped in a time domain [¶0045-0046, a receiving moment of third SCI from second transmit end is the same as a receiving moment of the first SCI from first transmit-end device].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Zhang in the system of Hwang in view of Bal and Xu with enhanced flexibility in selecting or designing moments of different SCIs from different transmit devices [e.g., ¶0045-0046 of Zhang].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US Publication No. 2023/0097401 A1) in view of Bal et al (US Publication No. 2022/0030441 A1) and further in view of Ji et al (US Publication No. 2019/0349117 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hwang in view of Bal discloses, the first wireless device of claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Hwang discloses, wherein the first control indication is . . . to the second control indication . . . based at least in part on the first set of control indication parameters and the second set of control indication parameters [¶0404 and 0406, the first SCI including the first reserved resource and the second SCI including the second reserved resource are transmitted to the first UE], Hwang in view of Bal does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Ji discloses, wherein the first control indication is orthogonal to the second control indication [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0039, the wireless transmission 514 from wireless device 516 is orthogonal to the wireless transmission 504 from wireless device 506] in a frequency domain based at least in part on the first set of control indication parameters and the second set of control indication parameters [¶0045, orthogonal multiplexing scheme, such as OFDM/frequency or CDM/sequences].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Hwang in view of Bal with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Ji to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Ji into the system of Hwang in view of Bal would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to avoid interference between two wireless devices and thus enable reliable and efficient transmission of signaling, such a modification (or application) would have involved 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)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US Publication No. 2023/0097401 A1) in view of Bal et al (US Publication No. 2022/0030441 A1) and further in view Gulati et al (US Publication No. 2020/0229170 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hwang in view of Bal discloses, the first wireless device of claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Hwang discloses, wherein, to transmit the feedback message, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to [see supra rejections as set forth above in claim 1]: . . . the second wireless device is to transmit the first message based at least in part on a first priority associated with the second wireless device being higher than a second priority associated with the third wireless device [¶0455, when a priority of PSSCH transmission of the second UE is higher than a priority of PSSCH transmission of the third UE, the second UE may transmit a PSSCH based on pre-reserved resources]; and transmit a not-acknowledgment message to the third wireless device indicating that the third wireless device is not to transmit the second message [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0417-0419, (in S1340) the first UE transmits, to the third UE, PSFCH including the information related to the conflict information (i.e., not-acknowledgement message); further see [¶0426, the third UE may reselect resources for PSSCH based on the information related to the conflict; note that the information related to the conflict indicates that the third UE receiving this information does not transmit using the reserved resource, but reselect resources for PSSCH], Hwang in view of Bal does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Gulati discloses,
transmit an acknowledgment message to the second wireless device indicating that the second wireless device is to transmit the first message [FIG. 3B; its related descriptions; ¶0053, (in step S320) UE 120-2 may transmit a message/feedback message to UE 120-1 to identify the reservation of the second resource by the UE 120-1]; and
transmit a not-acknowledgment message to the third wireless device indicating that the third wireless device is not to transmit the second message [FIG. 3B; its related descriptions; ¶0053, (in step S320) UE 120-2 may transmit a message/feedback message to UE 120-3 to identify the reservation of the second resource by the UE 120-1, so that the UE 120-3 may selectively forgo transmission using the second resource based on receiving the message (step S325)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Gulati in the system of Hwang in view of Bal in order to cause the system to be able to avoid interferences due to conflict traffics between wireless devices and thus improve overall system performance in a wireless network [e.g., ¶0056 of Gultati].
Claims 4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US Publication No. 2023/0097401 A1) in view of Bal et al (US Publication No. 2022/0030441 A1) and further in view of Xu et al (US Publication No. 2019/0159236 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Hwang in view of Bal discloses, the first wireless device of claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Hwang further discloses, wherein, to transmit the feedback message to the second wireless device, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to [see supra rejections as set forth above in claim 1], Hwang in view of Bal does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Xu discloses, transmit the feedback message indicating that the second wireless device is to transmit the first message based at least in part on determining that the first request comprises an indication of urgent message request [¶0188, for a service of a higher priority, base station allocates uplink grant (i.e., first indication) in a subframe later, by N subframe, than a subframe (i.e., first time resources) in which the resource scheduling request is received; see ¶0119, a higher priority indicates a smaller latency (i.e., urgent)].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Hwang in view of Bal with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Xu to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Xu into the system of Hwang in view of Bal would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to reduce latency and meet critical service requirement for high-priority application, such a modification (or application) would have involved 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)).
Regarding claim 8, Hwang in view of Bal discloses, the first wireless device of claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Hwang discloses wherein, to transmit the feedback message, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to [see supra rejections as set forth above in claim 1]: . . . the second wireless device is allowed to transmit the first message [¶0455, when a priority of PSSCH transmission of the second UE is higher than a priority of PSSCH transmission of the third UE, the second UE may transmit a PSSCH based on pre-reserved resources]; and transmit, to the third wireless device, a second indication of second time resources . . . [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0417-0419, (in S1340) the first UE transmits, to the third UE, PSFCH including the information related to the conflict information], Hwang in view of Bal does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Xu discloses,
transmit, . . . a first indication of first time resources in which the second wireless device is allowed to transmit the first message [¶0188, for a service of a higher priority, base station allocates uplink grant (i.e., first indication) in a subframe later, by N subframe, than a subframe (i.e., first time resources) in which the resource scheduling request is received]; and
transmit, . . . a second indication of second time resources in which the third wireless device is to transmit the second message [¶0188, for a service of a lower priority, base station allocates uplink grant (i.e., second indication) in a subframe later, by M subframe, than a subframe (i.e., second time resources) in which the resource scheduling request is received], wherein the first time resources are before the second time resources in a time domain [¶0188, M is greater than or equal to N, and M and N are integers] based at least in part on a first priority associated with the second wireless device being higher than a second priority associated with the third wireless device [¶0188, the priority of the uplink grant allocated in the subframe later by N subframes is higher than that of the uplink grant allocated in the subframe later by M subframes].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Xu in the system of Hwang in view of Bal in order to cause the system to be able to reduce a sending latency of resource scheduling and thus meet a sending latency requirement for a service of a higher priority [e.g., ¶0005 of Xu].
Regarding claim 9, Hwang in view of Bal discloses, the first wireless device of claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Hwang discloses, wherein, to transmit the feedback message, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to [see supra rejections as set forth above in claim 1]: . . . the second wireless device is to transmit the first message based at least in part on a first priority associated with the second wireless device being higher than a second priority associated with the third wireless device [¶0455, when a priority of PSSCH transmission of the second UE is higher than a priority of PSSCH transmission of the third UE, the second UE may transmit a PSSCH based on pre-reserved resources]; and transmit, to the third wireless device, an indication . . . [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0417-0419, (in S1340) the first UE transmits, to the third UE, PSFCH including the information related to the conflict information],
Hwang in view of Bal does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Xu discloses,
transmit an acknowledgment message . .. indicating that the second wireless device is to transmit the first message [¶0188, for a service of a higher priority, base station allocates uplink grant in a subframe later, by N subframe, than a subframe in which the resource scheduling request is received] based at least in part on a first priority associated with the second wireless device being higher than a second priority associated with the third wireless device [¶0188, the priority of the uplink grant allocated in the subframe later by N subframes is higher than that of the uplink grant allocated in the subframe later by M subframes]; and
transmit, to the third wireless device, an indication of a time offset after which the third wireless device is to transmit the second message [¶0188, for a service of a lower priority, base station allocates uplink grant in a subframe later, by M subframe, than a subframe in which the resource scheduling request is received; further see, M is greater than or equal to N, and M and N are integers; note that a difference in subframes of (M-N) is considered as the claimed time offset)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Xu in the system of Hwang in view of Bal for similar rationales set forth above in claim 8.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US Publication No. 2023/0097401 A1) in view of Bal et al (US Publication No. 2022/0030441 A1) and further in view of Badic et al (US Publication No. 2023/0096571 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Hwang in view of Bal discloses, the first wireless device of claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Hwang discloses, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device [see supra rejections as set forth above in claim 1] to: transmit the feedback message to the second wireless device indicating that the second wireless device is not to transmit the first message based . . . a second priority associated with the second wireless device [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0417-0419, (in S1340) the first UE transmits, to the second UE or the third UE, PSFCH including the information related to the conflict information]; and transmit a second feedback message to the third wireless device indicating that the third wireless device is not to transmit the second message based . . . a third priority associated with the third wireless device [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0417-0419, (in S1340) the first UE transmits, to the second UE or the third UE, PSFCH including the information related to the conflict information], Hwang in view of Bal does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Badic discloses,
wherein the first wireless device has scheduled a transmission of a third message from a fourth wireless device to the first wireless device [FIG. 3; its related descriptions; ¶0064, the relay device 305 (i.e., first wireless device) may transmit a high priority emergency response message to the requesting device(s) 325 (i.e., fourth wireless device) with the highest priority, while sending a “backoff message” to requesting device(s) 325 with a lower priority; note that as shown in FIG. 3, there are more than two requesting devices 325 communicating with the relay device 305; further see ¶0124 and 0136], and
transmit the feedback message to the second wireless device indicating that the second wireless device is not to transmit the first message based at least in part on a first priority associated with the fourth wireless device being higher than a second priority associated with the second wireless device [see ¶0124 and 0136, the relay device sends a backoff message to the second requesting device based on determining that a second priority level of the second requesting device does not satisfy the priority threshold, while a third priority level of the third request device satisfies the priority threshold]; and
transmit a second feedback message to the third wireless device indicating that the third wireless device is not to transmit the second message based at least in part on the first priority associated with the fourth wireless device being higher than a third priority associated with the third wireless device [see ¶0124 and 0136, the relay device sends a backoff message to the fourth requesting device based on determining that a fourth priority level of the fourth requesting device does not satisfy the priority threshold, while a third priority level of the third request device satisfies the priority threshold].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Hwang in view of Bal with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Badic to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Badic into the system of Hwang in view of Bal would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to improve resource utilization, priority management and low latency communication for urgent traffic, such a modification (or application) would have involved 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)).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US Publication No. 2023/0097401 A1) in view of Bal et al (US Publication No. 2022/0030441 A1) and further in view of Badic et al (US Publication No. 2023/0096571 A1) and further in view of Gulati et al (US Publication No. 2020/0229170 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hwang in view of Bal discloses, the first wireless device of claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Hwang discloses, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to [see supra rejections as set forth above in claim 1], Hwang in view of Bal does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Badic discloses,
wherein the first wireless device has scheduled a transmission of a third message from a fourth wireless device to the first wireless device [FIG. 3; its related descriptions; ¶0064, the relay device 305 (i.e., first wireless device) may transmit a high priority emergency response message to the requesting device(s) 325 with the highest priority, while sending a “backoff message” to requesting device(s) 325 (i.e., fourth wireless device) with a lower priority; note that as shown in FIG. 3, there are more than two requesting devices 325 communicating with the relay device 305; further see ¶0124 and 0136]
transmit a . . . message to the fourth wireless device that . . . the transmission of the third message based at least in part on a first priority associated with the fourth wireless device being lower than a second priority associated with the second wireless device or a third priority associated with the third wireless device [see ¶0124 and 0136, the relay device sends a backoff message to the second requesting device based on determining that a second priority level of the second requesting device does not satisfy the priority threshold, while a third priority level of the third request device satisfies the priority threshold].
Although Hwang in view of Bal and Badic discloses, “transmit a . . . message to the fourth wireless device that . . . the transmission of the third message based at least in part on a first priority associated with the fourth wireless device being lower than a second priority associated with the second wireless device or a third priority associated with the third wireless device”, Hwang in view of Bal does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Gulati discloses, transmit a cancelation message to the fourth wireless device that cancels the transmission of the third message [FIG. 3B; its related descriptions; ¶0053, (in step S320) UE 120-2 may transmit a message/feedback message to UE 120-3 to identify the reservation of the second resource by the UE 120-1, so that the UE 120-3 may selectively forgo transmission using the second resource based on receiving the message (step S325)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Gulati in the system of Hwang in view of Bal and Badic in order to cause the system to be able to avoid interferences due to conflict traffics between wireless devices and thus improve overall system performance in a wireless network [e.g., ¶0056 of Gultati].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US Publication No. 2023/0097401 A1) in view of Bal et al (US Publication No. 2022/0030441 A1) and further in view of Zhang et al (US Publication No. 2023/0106109 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Hwang in view of Bal discloses, the first wireless device of claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Hwang discloses, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to [see supra rejections as set forth above in claim 1]:
wherein the first control indication and the second control indication are received [¶0404 and 0406, thee first SCI and the second SCI are received], Hwang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Bal discloses, transmit a third message to a fourth wireless device [claim 1, first device transmit a first message to a second device], wherein an indication is received simultaneously with transmitting the third message [claim 1, a second message is received from a third device, while concurrently transmitting (the first message)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Bal in the system of Hwang for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Further Hwang in view of Bal does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Zhang discloses, wherein the first control indication and the second control indication are received simultaneously [¶0045-0046, a receiving moment of third SCI from second transmit end is the same as a receiving moment of the first SCI from first transmit-end device].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Zhang in the system of Hwang in view of Bal with enhanced flexibility in selecting or designing moments of different SCIs from different transmit devices [e.g., ¶0045-0046 of Zhang].
Claims 21-22 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US Publication No. 2023/0097401 A1) in view of Xu et al (US Publication No. 2019/0159236 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Hwang discloses, the first wireless device of claim 19 as set forth above.
Although Hwang discloses, wherein, to receive the feedback message from the second wireless device [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0417-0419, (in S1340) the first UE transmits, to the second UE or the third UE, PSFCH including the information related to the conflict information], the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to [see supra rejections as set forth above in claim 19], Hwang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Xu discloses, receive the feedback message indicating that the first wireless device is to transmit the first message based at least in part on the first request comprising an indication of an urgent message request [¶0188, for a service of a higher priority, base station allocates uplink grant (i.e., first indication) in a subframe later, by N subframe, than a subframe (i.e., first time resources) in which the resource scheduling request is received; see ¶0119, a higher priority indicates a smaller latency (i.e., urgent)].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Hwang with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Xu to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Xu into the system of Hwang would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to reduce latency and meet critical service requirement for high-priority application, such a modification (or application) would have involved 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)).
Regarding claim 22, Hwang discloses, the first wireless device of claim 19 as set forth above.
Although Hwang discloses, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to [see supra rejections as set forth above in claim 1]: transmit, via the first control indication [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0404, (in S1310) the first UE receives, from second UE, first SCI for the PSSCH], a first priority indication associated with the first wireless device [¶0393, a priority value p1 obtained from SCI format 1-A of the UE-B; note that the first priority of the second UE is received via the first SCI]; and receive the feedback message [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0417-0419, (in S1340) the first UE transmits, to the second UE or the third UE, PSFCH including the information related to the conflict information], Hwang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Xu discloses,
receive the feedback message indicating that the first wireless device is to transmit the first message based at least in part on the first priority indication [¶0188, for a service of a higher priority, base station allocates uplink grant (i.e., first indication) in a subframe later, by N subframe, than a subframe (i.e., first time resources) in which the resource scheduling request is received].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Xu in the system of Hwang in order to cause the system to be able to reduce a sending latency of resource scheduling and thus meet a sending latency requirement for a service of a higher priority [e.g., ¶0005 of Xu].
Regarding claim 25, Hwang discloses, the first wireless device of claim 19 as set forth above.
Although Hwang discloses, wherein, to receive the feedback message, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to [see supra rejections as set forth above in claim 19]: . . . the first wireless device is allowed to transmit the first message [¶0455, when a priority of PSSCH transmission of the second UE is higher than a priority of PSSCH transmission of the third UE, the second UE may transmit a PSSCH based on pre-reserved resources], Hwang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Xu discloses, receive . . . a first indication of first time resources in which the first wireless device is allowed to transmit the first message [¶0188, for a service of a lower priority, base station allocates uplink grant (i.e., second indication) in a subframe later, by M subframe, than a subframe (i.e., second time resources) in which the resource scheduling request is received], wherein the first time resources are based at least in part on a first priority associated with the first wireless device [¶0188, the priority of the uplink grant allocated in the subframe later by N subframes is higher than that of the uplink grant allocated in the subframe later by M subframes].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Xu in the system of Hwang in order to cause the system to be able to reduce a sending latency of resource scheduling and thus meet a sending latency requirement for a service of a higher priority [e.g., ¶0005 of Xu].
Regarding claim 26, Hwang discloses, the first wireless device of claim 19 as set forth above.
Although Hwang discloses, wherein, to receive the feedback message, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to [see supra rejections as set forth above in claim 19], Hwang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Xu discloses,
receive an indication of a time offset after which the first wireless device is to transmit the first message [¶0188, for a service of a lower priority, base station allocates uplink grant in a subframe later, by M subframe, than a subframe in which the resource scheduling request is received; further see, M is greater than or equal to N, and M and N are integers; note that a difference in subframes of (M-N) is considered as the claimed time offset)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Xu in the system of Hwang for similar rationales set forth above in claim 25.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al (US Publication No. 2023/0043000 A1] [FIG. 3; its related description]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm(M-T).
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights