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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisashi Manabe (GB-2471287-A), hereinafter “Manabe”, in view of Nguyen et al. (US 2024/0365363 A1), hereinafter Nguyen”.
Claims 1 and 10:
Regarding claim 1, Manabe teaches,a method for sidelink communication congestion control ([Abstract: “Disclosed is a communication system for a vehicle-to-vehicle communication network, i.e. an intelligent transport system (ITS) in which message congestion control is done by the nodes of the system; Vehicle to vehicle communication is a sidelink communicaiton), the method comprising:
enabling, by a first device, a cooperation mode over a sidelink communication channel, wherein the cooperation mode is used to perform joined sidelink communication congestion control (implied by the disclosure “A node that determines that the congestion level has reached or passed a threshold for that node, generates and transmits a signal requesting that a congestion control procedure be started. Other nodes that receive the signal initiate the requested congestion control procedure”; joined sidelink communication congestion control is implied by initiation of congestion control by other nodes and the transmitting node); and
Manabe however fails to teach cooperation mode indicator of the claim, but in the same field of endeavor Nguyen teaches different cooperation modes, [0080] “during Mode 2 operation, a UE 115 may monitor the sidelink network to deter mine if other UEs 115 are attempting to transmit over the sidelink network. For instance, the UE 115 may decode one or more reservation messages ( e.g., sidelink control channel transmissions such as SCI messages, SCI-1 messages, SCI-2 messages, request-to-send-messages, or some other sidelink control channel transmissions) and may determine which sidelink resources are reserved for other sidelink communications and which sidelink resources are available for sidelink communications based on the reservation messages.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to come up with the claimed invention by combining disclosure by Nguyen with that of Manabe to distinguish resource allocation procedure for sidelink communication, whether it is with the help of the network (mode 1) or autonomously by the user equipments themselves (mode 2) as disclosed in Nguyen [0079] and [0080].
Combination of Manabe and Nguyen jointly teaches, broadcasting, by the first device, a first cooperation message, wherein the first cooperation message comprises a cooperation mode indicator and interference information indicative of a measured total interference power received at the first device (implied by disclosures in Manabe: Fig. 3, step S16, “Generate and broadcast signal for requesting activation of congestion reduction procedure in other vehicles”; and Nguyen: [0005] “A UE may measure a reference signal received power (RSRP) between the UE and each UE of a set of UEs. The RSRP between the UE and a respective UE of the set of UEs may indicate the IBE interference experienced at the UE and caused by a sidelink transmission from the respective UE.”).
Manabe teaches, wherein the cooperation mode indicator is indicative of the cooperation mode, and wherein one or more second devices are invited to join the coalition based on the first cooperation message (inviting one or more second devices to join the coalition is implied by the disclosure in Manabe: S16, “Generate and broadcast signal for requesting activation of congestion reduction procedure in other vehicles”).
Claim 10 is for a device implementing method of claim 1. Device is change in category with respect to claim 1. Claim elements are discussed in claim 1. Existence of receiver, transmitter and processor is implied. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2 and 11:
Regarding claim 2, combination of Manabe and Nguyen teaches the method according to claim 1 (discussed above), wherein enabling the cooperation mode is performed based on at least one of: the first device detecting at least one of an interference power exceeding a threshold, receiving a coordination request from at least one second device; and periodically sending of cooperation message by configuration (Manabe: Fig.3 step S24 “congestion control request received from another vehicle).
Claim 11 is for a device implementing method of claim 2. Device is change in category with respect to claim 2. Claim elements are discussed in claim 1. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 2.
Claims 3 and 12:
Regarding claim 3, combination of Manabe and Nguyen teaches the method according to claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the first cooperation message further comprises at least one of: a transmission power of the first device, a sidelink ID, a sidelink direction, a device ID, a load, a priority, a rate demand, a power demand, and a periodicity of sending the first cooperation message (implied by disclosure in Manabe: Pg.2, lines 28-30, “The communication node may comprise means for initiating a congestion control procedure which may be operable to initiate a first congestion control procedure in dependence on said determined congestion level.”).
Claim 12 is for a device implementing method of claim 3. Device is change in category with respect to claim 3. Claim elements are discussed in claim 3. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4 and 13:
Regarding claim 4, combination of Manabe and Nguyen teaches the method according to claim 1 (discussed above), further comprising: receiving a second cooperation message from a second device, and/or participating in a coalition based on the second cooperation message or ignoring the second cooperation message (Manabe: Fig.3, step S24 discloses the action when congestion control request is received from another vehicle and taking action based on its own congestion level).
Claim 13 is for a device implementing method of claim 4. Device is change in category with respect to claim 4. Claim elements are discussed in claim 4. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 4.
Claims 5 and 14:
Regarding claim 5, combination of Manabe and Nguyen teaches the method according to claim 1 (discussed above), further comprising adjusting at least one transmission parameter associated with the sidelink communication at the first device (Manabe Fig.3, step S22 “Enforce congestion reduction control for own vehicle; Pg.11, lines 29-31, “the congestion reduction control module 38 is operable to reinforce the level of congestion control by initiating a reduction in transmitter power by the transmitter”).
Claim 14 is for a device implementing method of claim 5. Device is change in category with respect to claim 5. Claim elements are discussed in claim5. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6 and 15:
Regarding claim 6, combination of Manabe and Nguyen teaches the method according to claim 5 (discussed above), wherein the transmission parameter comprises at least one of a transmission power, a transmission load, a data rate, a position of used resources, a number of used resource units (implied by disclosure in Manabe, Clm.9 “congestion control procedure comprises modifying at least one of a transmission power, an interval between transmitted signals, and the size of transmitted data packets.”).
Claim 15 is for a device implementing method of claim 6. Device is change in category with respect to claim 6. Claim elements are discussed in claim 6. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 6.
Claims 7 and 16:
Regarding claim 7, combination of Manabe and Nguyen teaches the method according to claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the cooperation mode comprises an optimization of one transmission parameter or the joint optimization of at least two transmission parameters, wherein the cooperation mode optionally comprises an optimal operating point of the plurality of participating devices regarding at least one jointly available resource (Manabe: Pg.4, lines 26-29, “The preferred/optimum congestion control level may represent a preferred level of congestion control to be applied either by the communication node identifying the preferred/optimum congestion control level or the further communication node.”).
Claim 16 is for a device implementing method of claim 7. Device is change in category with respect to claim 7. Claim elements are discussed in claim 7. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 7.
Claims 8 and 17:
Regarding claim 8, combination of Manabe and Nguyen teaches the method according to claim 7 (discussed above).
Manabe however does not expressly teach but in the same field of endeavor Nguyen teachs, wherein the jointly available resource comprises an available link rate (implied by disclosure in Manabe [0048] “UE may monitor for and decode one or more reservation messages (e.g., sidelink control signaling, such as sidelink control information (SCI) messages) and may determine sidelink resources reserved for other sidelink communications and sidelink resources available for sidelink communications based on the reservation messages.”; jointly availability is implied based on the use of resources by a group of equipments with optimization of interference).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to come up with the claim by combining disclosure by Nguyen with that of Manabe so that available resource may be optimized/maximized by joint interference control in the system.
Claim 17 is for a device implementing method of claim 8. Device is change in category with respect to claim 8. Claim elements are discussed in claim 8. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 8.
Claims 9 and 18:
Regarding claim 9, combination of Manabe and Nguyen teaches the method according to claim 1 (discussed above).
Manabe fails to teach but Nguyen in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein the interference information indicative of a measured total interference power comprises information on measured interference in at least two distinct frequency bands (implied by disclosure in Nguyen “[0073] The wireless communications system 100 may operate using one or more frequency bands, typically in the range of 300 megahertz (MHz) to 300 gigahertz (GHz).”; when multiple bands are used, interference measurement will involve multiple bands).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to come up with the claim by combining disclosure by Nguyen with that of Manabe so that multiple bands are to be taken care of for congestion and interference control.
Claim 18 is for a device implementing method of claim 9. Device is change in category with respect to claim 9. Claim elements are discussed in claim 6. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 9.
Claim 19 is for a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. It is a change in category with respect to claim 10. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 10.
Claim 20 is rejected based on rejection of claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20230262774-A1 teaches configuring the sidelink session to support coordinated resource selection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INTEKHAAB AALAM SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 571-272-3927. 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.
/INTEKHAAB A SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights