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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 28 July 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Di Girolamo and Liu.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 8-9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1023 as being unpatentable over Di Girolamo et al. (US 2023/0171738) in view of Liu et al. (US 2023/0049307).
Regarding claim 1, Di Girolamo discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a first wireless device (fig. 3A, UE_B; note: requester UE), from a second wireless device (UE_A; note: assistant UE) via a sidelink (paras. 130, 132 and 159-164), a first message indicating activation of periodic transmission of assistance information (paras. 147 and 151; note: SCI for the request to activate) and a first time interval for transmitting the periodic transmission of the assistance information (paras. 100, 107, 144 and 441; note: periodicity as related to an interval or a period of time for a timer); activating, in response to the first message, the periodic transmission of assistance information to the second wireless device based on the first time interval (para. 151; note: trigger; para. 144).
However, Di Girolamo discloses deactivating periodic assistance information based on SCI (para. 151; note: SCI for the request to deactivate; para. 144; note: deactivation of the sending of assistance information) but Di Girolamo fails to disclose receiving, from the second wireless device via sidelink, a second message indicating deactivation of the periodic transmission of assistance information; and deactivating, based on the second message, the periodic transmission of assistance information to the second wireless device. However, Liu discloses different values of SCI in a message for activation and deactivation (para. 116). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have in the invention of Di Girolamo. The motivation to have receiving, from the second wireless device, a second message via sidelink indicating deactivation of the transmission of assistance information; and deactivating, based on the second message, the transmission of assistance information to the second wireless device the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, sending different messages having different SCI to achieve different functionality as is known in the art (Liu, para. 116; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 2, Di Girolamo in view of Liu teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the assistance information indicates at least one of: a set of resources for sidelink transmissions from the second wireless device (Di Girolamo, para. 157, especially the first and last two sentences)
Regarding claims 8-9, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 1-2, respectively. In addition, Di Girolamo discloses the first wireless device comprising (fig. 12 and paras. 285 and 323): one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the first wireless device to perform the method of claims 1-2.
Regarding claims 15-16, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 1-2, respectively. In addition, Di Girolamo discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of the first wireless device, cause the first wireless device to (fig. 12 and paras. 285 and 323) perform the method of claims 1-2.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Girolamo in view of Liu and Lee et al. (US 2021/0400663).
Regarding claim 3, Di Girolamo in view of Liu fails to disclose the method of claim 2, wherein the transmission of assistance information is used for sidelink transmissions from the second wireless device. However, Lee discloses this feature (para. 123; para. 119; note: a UE using transmission and reception resources indicated by assistance information). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the transmission of assistance information used for sidelink transmissions from the second wireless device in the invention of Di Girolamo in view of Liu. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing communication resources as is known in the art (Lee, paras. 123 and 139; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 3.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Girolamo in view of Liu and Ji et al. (US 2022/0408415).
Regarding claim 4, Di Girolamo in view of Liu fails to disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, from a base station, configuration parameters indicating one or more time intervals for the transmission of assistance information via sidelink, wherein the one or more time intervals comprises a first time interval. However, Ji teaches these features (para. 52-53; note: RRC indication from a base station for a period to send assistance information; para. 51; para. 47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have receiving, from a base station, configuration parameters indicating one or more time intervals for the transmission of assistance information via sidelink, wherein the one or more time intervals comprises a first time interval in the invention of Di Girolamo in view of Liu. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, controlling network resources as is known in the art (Ji, paras. 47 and 51-53; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claims 11 and 18, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 4.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Girolamo in view of in view of Liu and Ji as applied to claim 4, 11 or 18 above, and in further view of Deng (US 2023/0123151).
Regarding claim 5, Di Girolamo in view of Liu and Ji fails to teach and make obvious the method of claim 4, further comprising keeping the configuration parameters in response to the deactivating the transmission of assistance information. However, Deng discloses a UE keeping configuration parameters when the state of the UE changes (para. 69; note: retaining a configuration when not actively transmitting and implementing the configuration during a future transmission). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have keeping the configuration parameters in response to the deactivating the transmission of assistance information in the invention of Di Girolamo in view of Liu and Ji. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, using a previous configuration for a subsequent same state of the UE as is known in the art (Deng, para. 69; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 5.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Girolamo in view of Liu and Chen et al. (US 2020/0008183).
Regarding claim 6, Di Girolamo in view of Liu fails to disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first message comprises a first SCI indicating a first reservation interval for sidelink transmissions. However, Chen teaches these features (para. 519 and fig. 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first message comprise a first SCI indicating a first reservation interval for sidelink transmissions in the invention of Di Girolamo in view of Liu. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, controlling network resources as is known in the art (Ji, paras. 47 and 51-53; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 6.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Girolamo in view of in view of Liu and Wong (US 2013/0163492).
Regarding claim 7, Di Girolamo fails to disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising resuming the transmissions of assistance information based on receiving a third message. However, Wong discloses a UE sending a request which cancels a previous deactivation request (paras. 34 and 106). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have resuming the transmissions of assistance information based on receiving a third message in the invention of Di Girolamo. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing signaling to continuing (resume) a previous state of a UE as is known in the art (Wong, paras. 34 and 106; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 14, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 7.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM ET.
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. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights