DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
This official action replies to applicant response, filed Sept. 11, 2026 that submits a Consent of Assignee, submits a Reissue Application Declaration by Inventor and amends claims 1, 6, 10 and 15. Claims 1, 4-7, 9-10, 13, 15 and 21-31 are pending.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 9 and Consent, filed Feb 11, 2026, with respect to Consent of Assignee have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Consent of Assignee has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 9 and Consent, filed Feb 11, 2026, with respect to lack of antecedent basis under 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 9, and 21-25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed Feb 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Although each of the two AIA /05, Reissue Application Declarations by Inventor, include a named inventor and each AIA /05 includes the “X” in box for additional joint inventor(s) named with indicator of 2 additional sheets, but the recent filed Reissue Application Declarations fail to submit the additional sheet(s) using AIA /10 for each additional named joint inventor(s), as stated on numbered page 4 of non-final action, mailed 11/12/2025 in this reissue (“then one or more AIA /10 should be attached and indicated in box below the 1st inventor info”). The recent filed Declarations continue the issue that “As presently filed, the declarations regard separate declarations by individuals that are named inventors herein but are not linked properly.” To be clear, one AIA /05 is filed for a first named joint inventor with X in box for additional joint inventor(s) with a number of additional sheets stated, then each additional named inventor is listed on attached additional sheet(s), AIA /10.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Reissue Application Declaration
The reissue application declaration by the inventor, filed on Feb. 11, 2026, for this application is defective because it fails to identify each co-inventor on the same declaration by assignee to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414. Two reissue application declarations by the inventor (PTO/AIA /05) were co-filed with recent reply that are each defective/improper for reasons stated in non-final action mailed 11/12/2025 and as noted above.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-10, 13, 15 and 21-31 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration by the assignee under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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)(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.
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, 9-10, 13, 15 and 21-31 is/are rejected 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Agiwal et al (US Pat. App. Pub. 2020/0092833) with provisional application 62/732,775 filed 9/18/2018 or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Agiwal et al (US Pat. App. Pub. 2020/0092833) with provisional application 62/732,775 filed 9/18/2018, in view of Novlan et al (US Pat. App. Pub. 2020/0053524). With broadest reasonable interpretation of claims as broadened herein, regarding claim 1, lacking evidence to the contrary, Agiwal discloses
a method for operating a first device in a communication system, the method comprising: (method performed by UE/Vehicle in a wireless communication, comprising ([Abstract, 0010-0032, 0193-0202], FIGs. 13, 14)
configuring a first sidelink (SL) bandwidth part (BWP) for SL communication (processor configures based on configuration received from base station, a list of BWPs for V2X SL communication between itself and another device, including vehicle to vehicle (V2V) exchange ([Abstract, 0114, 0142-0145], FIG. 6, provisional application pages 9-13)
transmitting configuration information including information on a second SL BWP to a second device (UE/vehicle transmits on indicated BWP indicated by base station ([Abstract, 0114, 0142-0145], FIG. 6, provisional application pages 9-13)
performing the SL communication using resources in the second SL BWP, wherein the configuration information includes information regarding at least one of a location, a size or a valid time duration of the second SL BWP ([Abstract, 0009-0032, 0057-0067, 0104-0107, 0114-0117], Timer, SI window and SSBs discussed therein involves at least size or a valid time duration).
In the alternative, to the extent a POSITA/artisan interprets Agiwal does not expressly disclose performing the SL communication using resources in the second SL BWP, wherein the configuration information includes information regarding at least one of a location, a size or a valid time duration of the second SL BWP. However, such steps/features were known prior to critical date as shown in related reference Novlan.
Novlan discloses transmitting configuration information including information on a second SL BWP to a second device (V2X UE, e.g. FIG. 8 #802(0), acting as local manager to a group of other UEs/vehicles provides resource allocation/available bandwidth parts provided by base station to other UEs/vehicles; [0026, 0036, 0054], FIGs. 4-8), performing the SL communication using resources in the second SL BWP (V2X UE, e.g. FIG. 8 #802(0), begins SL communication using one of configured SL BWPs [0063-0067], FIG. 8) wherein the configuration information includes information regarding at least one of a location, a size or a valid time duration of the second SL BWP ([0050-0056], [0068-0085]; [0050] “Example parameters may include, but are not limited to, measurement resources for local manager discovery, thresholds for local manager selection, synchronization and timing assistance parameters, IDs of candidate local managers (e.g. RNTI or SL-RNTI), timers associated with local manager association durations, and a list of associated V2X UEs for a given local manager or V2X UEs which can be reached for broadcast, groupcast, or unicast communication over sidelink, e.g., V2X UE 402(0) or V2X IDs (e.g. RNTI or SL-RNTI). This information may be provided by system-information signaling or by dedicated (e.g. RRC, described below) signaling to V2X UEs”; [0033] “the system 100 can operate in… LTE time division duplexing (TDD)… time division multiple access (TDMA)” that a person of skill in the art (a POSITA or an artisan) would have understood involves configuration information includes information regarding at least one of a location, a size or a valid time duration; [0051] “For example, the network may determine local managers and UE association based on metrics that tend to maximize sidelink spectral efficiency or coverage, ensure QoS, or based on location/velocity characteristics”; [0052] “The network 404 may further utilize reports related to the sidelink performance via control signaling on the MCG from V2X UEs, including mobility, channel, and location measurements, buffer status reports, and throughput statistics”; [0053] “Turning to aspects related to radio resource configuration, in another example generally represented in FIG. 5, the time/frequency resources on a carrier may be partitioned between sidelink communications and cellular communications, as represented via blocks of parameters 510-513. If so, the V2X UE or UEs (e.g., 502(1) and 502(2)) are informed of the set of resources, e.g., for sidelink transmission/reception, based on control plane signaling provided by the network 504”).
Further, Novlan is deemed herein to be relevant prior art due to either being in the same field of endeavor or being reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the Applicant was faced. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The level of ordinary skill in the art is shown by the applied art herein. Since Agiwal and Novlan each regard a system/method involving V2X communications with configuration thereof, in consideration consistent with US Supreme Court decision in KSR that ‘known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art’, in this case, it would have been obvious to an artisan to add “performing the SL communication using resources in the second SL BWP, wherein the configuration information includes information regarding at least one of a location, a size or a valid time duration of the second SL BWP” as taught by Novlan to improve Agiwal’s system/method with the motivation to enable implementation of a local manager UE/vehicle to relay configured SL BWPs to other UEs/vehicles within close proximity and to allocate one or more SL BWPs to other UEs/vehicles on need-basis (Novlan, [0026, 0036, 0054], FIGs. 4-9).
Regarding claim 4, Agiwal discloses default SL BWP is provided by RRC along with other candidate SL BWPs ([0114], FIGs. 4-6; see also Id., [0002, 0010-0032]) that overlaps/involves wherein the second SL BWP is determined by the first device, and wherein the configuration information of the second SL BWP is transmitted to the second device together with a SL BWP list, as recited herein.
Regarding claims 5, Agiwal list of BWPs for V2X SL communication are candidate list provided by base station ([0114, 0142-0145], FIG. 6, provisional application pages 9-13) that overlaps wherein the first SL BWP belongs to candidate SL BWPs configured by a base station.
Regarding claim 6, Agiwal discloses a process involving BWP inactivity timer, and transmitting/receiving SSBs during SI window ([0002, 0009-0032, 0057-0067, 0104-0108, 0114-0118], Timer, SI window and SSBs discussed therein involves at least size or a valid time duration) that overlaps “wherein the SL communication is performed within the valid time duration in which the second SL BWP is valid.”
In the alternative, to the extent a POSITA/artisan interprets Agiwal does not expressly disclose “wherein the SL communication is performed within the valid time duration in which the second SL BWP is valid.” However, such step/feature was known prior to critical date as shown in related reference Novlan. Novlan discloses SL communication is performed within BWP during a provisioned time ([0053, 0056]). Novlan remains deemed herein to be relevant prior art due to either being in the same field of endeavor or being reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the Applicant was faced. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The level of ordinary skill in the art is shown by the applied art herein. Since Agiwal and Novlan each regard a system/method involving V2X communications with configuration thereof, in consideration consistent with US Supreme Court decision in KSR that ‘known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art’, in this case, it would have been obvious to an artisan to add “wherein the SL communication is performed within the valid time duration in which the second SL BWP is valid” as taught by Novlan to improve Agiwal’s system/method with the motivation to enable implementation of a local manager UE/vehicle to relay configured SL BWPs to other UEs/vehicles within close proximity and to allocate one or more SL BWPs to other UEs/vehicles on need-basis (Novlan, [0026, 0036, 0054], FIGs. 4-8) and/or to enable implementation time limits for a particular SL BWP to ensure efficient use of spectrum and fair sharing with other UEs/vehicles requesting SL communication as also consistent within TDD and TDMA communication systems. Further, Novlan is relied on to teach a multi-connectivity (three or more simultaneous communication links) framework in a wireless communication network, including aspects and components that support the operation of New Radio vehicle-to-everything (V2X) services ([ABS, 0001-0003], FIGs. 1-13).
Regarding claim 7, Agiwal discloses communication involving V2X operates in two modes for resource allocation including “V2X sidelink communication, sidelink transmission and/or reception resources including an exceptional pool for different frequencies for scheduled resource allocation and UE autonomous resource selection may be provided” and “BWP switching for a Serving Cell is used to activate an inactive BWP and deactivate an active BWP at a time, and is controlled by the physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) indicating a downlink assignment or an uplink grant, by an bwp-InactivityTimer, by RRC signaling, or by a medium access control (MAC) entity itself upon initiation of a random access procedure. Upon addition of a special cell (SpCell) or activation of the SCell, the DL BWP and UL BWP indicated by firstActiveDownlinkBWP-Id and firstActiveUplinkBWP-Id respectively is active without receiving a PDCCH indicating a downlink assignment or an uplink grant. The active BWP for a serving cell is indicated by either the RRC or PDCCH. For the unpaired spectrum, a DL BWP is paired with a UL BWP, and BWP switching is common for both UL and DL. Upon expiration of a BWP inactivity timer, the UE switches the active DL BWP to the default DL BWP, or initial DL BWP if the default DL BWP is not configured” ([0018-0032]; see Id., [0023]) that overlaps/involves “when characteristics of the SL communication between the first device and the second device satisfy one or more conditions, determining that switching of the second SL BWP is necessary; selecting a third SL BWP in the SL BWP list; transmitting a switching request message including configuration information for the third SL BWP to the second device; and performing the SL communication with the second device using the third SL BWP.”
Regarding claim 9, see cited facts for claim 7.
Regarding features/limitations in claims 21-31, Agiwal describes these limitations (Abstract, [0002, 0009-0032, 0057-0067, 0104-0108, 0114-0118, 0142-0150]) as also shown in facts above that similarly discuss these limitations.
Regarding claims 10, 13, 15, although the claimed steps in 10, 13 and 15 involve receiving (acquiring) the information transmitted in claims 1 and 7, the discussion/cited facts above regarding Agiwal alone or in combination with Novlan for claims 1 and 7 is relied on herein for receiving the transmitted information in claims 1 and 7 and further Agiwal describes first and second device each containing a processor, a transceiver (transmitter/receiver) and a memory performing steps in the process ([0055, 0057-0058, 0193-0202], FIGs. 1-9, 13-14) that is applicable regarding claims 10, 13 and 15.
Prior or Concurrent Proceedings
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the 11,310,772 patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Information Material to Patentability
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark Sager whose telephone number is (571) 272-4454. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 6:30 AM - 3 PM, 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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571) 272-3744. 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.
/Mark Sager/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/Woo H Choi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992