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 .
Remarks
The present Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 9/8/2026. Claims 16-20, 29, and 35 remain pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
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)(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.
Claims 16, 17, 20, 29, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mok et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0275303 A1) (hereinafter Mok).
Regarding claim 16, Mok discloses a transceiver for a wireless communication system (Figure 4 and paragraph 0072 disclose an operation method of a terminal (e.g., the terminal 121, the terminal 123, the terminal 125, or the terminal 127) operating as a transmitter),
wherein the transceiver is configured to communicate with at least one other transceiver of the wireless communication system (Figure 1 and paragraph 0050 disclose each of the terminals 121, 123, 125, 127, and 129 is a device used by a user and communicates with the base stations 101 and 102 via wireless channels),
wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit a data packet on a component carrier to the other transceiver of the wireless communication system (Paragraph 0015 discloses an apparatus and a method according to various embodiments of the disclosure enable efficient transmission and reception of data packets in a wireless communication system. Figure 4 and paragraph 0075 disclose two or more duplicated packets may be transmitted through two or more component carriers that perform carrier aggregation (CA). That is, the respective duplicated packets may be transmitted to the receiver through different component carriers),
wherein the transceiver is configured to, if a PPPR value associated with said data packet or with data contained in said data packet indicates a high reliability, to re-transmit said data packet at least once on at least one other component carrier (Figure 4 and paragraphs 0073-0075 disclose the second information may be determined based on a required error rate, and may indicate a level of reliability required for each radio bearer or packet. The lower the required error rate of the packet, the higher the level of reliability. Thus, the second information may be determined to be higher. The second information may be referred to as “ProSe reliability per packet (PRPP)”. If the second information is greater than or equal to a specific threshold, the transmitter may determine to perform packet duplication. In step 405, if the transmitter determines to perform packet duplication, the transmitter duplicates one packet and transmits two or more duplicated packets to a receiver. Two or more duplicated packets may be transmitted through two or more component carriers that perform carrier aggregation (CA). That is, the respective duplicated packets may be transmitted to the receiver through different component carriers).
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 16 above, Mok further discloses wherein the transceiver is configured to retransmit said data packet at least once, if the PPPR value indicates a reliability that is equal to or higher than a predefined reliability or threshold (Figure 4 and paragraphs 0073-0075 disclose the second information may be determined based on a required error rate, and may indicate a level of reliability required for each radio bearer or packet. The lower the required error rate of the packet, the higher the level of reliability. Thus, the second information may be determined to be higher. The second information may be referred to as “ProSe reliability per packet (PRPP)”. If the second information is greater than or equal to a specific threshold, the transmitter may determine to perform packet duplication. In step 405, if the transmitter determines to perform packet duplication, the transmitter duplicates one packet and transmits two or more duplicated packets to a receiver. Two or more duplicated packets may be transmitted through two or more component carriers that perform carrier aggregation (CA). That is, the respective duplicated packets may be transmitted to the receiver through different component carriers).
Regarding claim 20, as applied to claim 16 above, Mok further discloses wherein the transceiver is configured to operate using carrier aggregation (Figure 4 and paragraph 0075 disclose two or more duplicated packets may be transmitted through two or more component carriers that perform carrier aggregation (CA). That is, the respective duplicated packets may be transmitted to the receiver through different component carriers).
Regarding claim 29, Mok discloses a method for transmitting data packets in a wireless communication system between at least two transceivers communicating with each other (Figure 1 and paragraph 0050 disclose each of the terminals 121, 123, 125, 127, and 129 is a device used by a user and communicates with the base stations 101 and 102 via wireless channels. Paragraph 0015 discloses an apparatus and a method according to various embodiments of the disclosure enable efficient transmission and reception of data packets in a wireless communication system. Figure 4 and paragraph 0072 disclose an operation method of a terminal (e.g., the terminal 121, the terminal 123, the terminal 125, or the terminal 127) operating as a transmitter), the method comprising:
transmitting a data packet on a component carrier from the transceiver to the other transceiver of the wireless communication system (Paragraph 0015 discloses an apparatus and a method according to various embodiments of the disclosure enable efficient transmission and reception of data packets in a wireless communication system. Figure 4 and paragraph 0075 disclose two or more duplicated packets may be transmitted through two or more component carriers that perform carrier aggregation (CA). That is, the respective duplicated packets may be transmitted to the receiver through different component carriers),
re-transmitting said data packet at least once on at least one other component carrier, if a PPPR value associated with said data packet or with data contained in said data packet indicates a high reliability (Figure 4 and paragraphs 0073-0075 disclose the second information may be determined based on a required error rate, and may indicate a level of reliability required for each radio bearer or packet. The lower the required error rate of the packet, the higher the level of reliability. Thus, the second information may be determined to be higher. The second information may be referred to as “ProSe reliability per packet (PRPP)”. If the second information is greater than or equal to a specific threshold, the transmitter may determine to perform packet duplication. In step 405, if the transmitter determines to perform packet duplication, the transmitter duplicates one packet and transmits two or more duplicated packets to a receiver. Two or more duplicated packets may be transmitted through two or more component carriers that perform carrier aggregation (CA). That is, the respective duplicated packets may be transmitted to the receiver through different component carriers).
Regarding claim 35, as applied to claim 29 above, Mok further discloses non-transitory digital storage medium having stored thereon a computer program for performing the method for transmitting data packets in a wireless communication system according to claim 29, when running on a computer or microprocessor (Paragraph 0238 disclose when the methods are implemented by software, a computer-readable storage medium for storing one or more programs (software modules) may be provided. The one or more programs stored in the computer-readable storage medium may be configured for execution by one or more processors within the electronic device. The at least one program may include instructions that cause the electronic device to perform the methods according to various embodiments of the disclosure as defined by the appended claims and/or disclosed herein).
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.
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 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok in view of Loehr et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0124015 A1) (as disclosed on Applicant’s IDS, hereinafter Loehr).
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 16 above, Mok discloses the claimed invention except explicitly disclosing wherein the transceiver is served by a central transceiver, for example, a base station, of the wireless communication system, wherein the transceiver is configured to operate in LTE V2X mode 3, NR V2X mode 1 or D2D mode 1 in which scheduling of resources for the communication with the at least one other transceiver is performed by the central transceiver.
In analogous art, Loehr discloses wherein the transceiver is served by a central transceiver, for example, a base station, of the wireless communication system, wherein the transceiver is configured to operate in LTE V2X mode 3, NR V2X mode 1 or D2D mode 1 in which scheduling of resources for the communication with the at least one other transceiver is performed by the central transceiver (Paragraph 0104 discloses Mode 1 refers to the eNB-scheduled resource allocation mode, where the UE requests transmission resources from the eNB (or Release-10 relay node), and the eNodeB (or Release-10 relay node) in turn schedules the resources used by a UE to transmit direct data and direct control information (e.g. Scheduling Assignment). Figure 11 and paragraph 0262 discloses the transmission layer is responsible for determining whether to use the Mode 1 or Mode 2 resource allocation based on the V2X data; e.g. based on a suitable mapping. In consequence, the transmission layer would then perform the corresponding Mode 1 or Mode 2 resource allocation as determined before, and then proceeds to transmit the V2X data according to the transmission parameters obtained by the resource allocation).
It 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 to incorporate V2X mode 1, where the UE requests transmission resources from the eNB (or Release-10 relay node), and the eNodeB (or Release-10 relay node) in turn schedules the resources used by a UE to transmit, as described in Loehr, with a terminal transmitting packets, as described in Mok, because doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Combining V2X mode 1, where the UE requests transmission resources from the eNB (or Release-10 relay node), and the eNodeB (or Release-10 relay node) in turn schedules the resources used by a UE to transmit of Loehr with a terminal transmitting packets of Mok was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Loehr.
Therefore, it 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 to combine the teachings of Mok and Loehr to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, as applied to claim 16 above, Mok discloses the claimed invention except explicitly disclosing wherein the transceiver is configured to operate in V2X Mode 4, NR V2X mode 2 or D2D mode 2, wherein the transceiver is configured to schedule resources for the sidelink communication autonomously.
In analogous art, Loehr discloses wherein the transceiver is configured to operate in V2X Mode 4, NR V2X mode 2 or D2D mode 2, wherein the transceiver is configured to schedule resources for the sidelink communication autonomously (Paragraph 0105 discloses Mode 2 refers to the UE-autonomous resource selection mode, where a UE on its own selects resources (time and frequency) from resource pool(s) to transmit direct data and direct control information (i.e. SA). Figure 11 and paragraph 0262 discloses the transmission layer is responsible for determining whether to use the Mode 1 or Mode 2 resource allocation based on the V2X data; e.g. based on a suitable mapping. In consequence, the transmission layer would then perform the corresponding Mode 1 or Mode 2 resource allocation as determined before, and then proceeds to transmit the V2X data according to the transmission parameters obtained by the resource allocation).
It 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 to incorporate V2X mode 2, where a UE on its own selects resources (time and frequency) from resource pool(s) to transmit, as described in Loehr, with a terminal transmitting packets, as described in Mok, because doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Combining V2X mode 2, where a UE on its own selects resources (time and frequency) from resource pool(s) to transmit of Loehr with a terminal transmitting packets of Mok was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Loehr.
Therefore, it 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 to combine the teachings of Mok and Loehr to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 4 and 5 in the Remarks, Applicant argues that Mok does not disclose “the transceiver is configured to, if a PPPR value associated with said data packet or with data contained in said data packet indicates a high reliability, to re-transmit said data packet at least once on at least one other component carrier” of claim 1. Packet duplication and packet re-transmission as defined by claim 1 are technically distinct. This is also confirmed by Mok, which explicitly mentions the difference in the description of Fig. 28, for example, in par. [0212] mentioning a time gap between initial transmission and retransmission.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Mok does not distinguish between packet duplication and packet re-transmission. In fact, paragraphs 0139-0140 and 0206-0216 of Mok suggest retransmission and duplication are the same. Specifically, paragraph 0140 references “the RLC retransmission method” where the previous paragraph discusses a packet duplication method and no prior reference was made using any variation of the word “retransmission”. Likewise, paragraphs 0206 and 0207 discuss a configuration for packet duplication illustrated in table 1 and paragraphs 0208-0216 using retransmission information. Furthermore, Applicant’s own specification in Figure 5b and at paragraphs 0140-0142 describe packet duplication by retransmitting packets. Therefore, the re-transmitting of data packets in Applicants claims is interpreted to include the packet duplication of Mok.
Mok discloses wherein the transceiver is configured to, if a PPPR value associated with said data packet or with data contained in said data packet indicates a high reliability, to re-transmit said data packet at least once on at least one other component carrier (Figure 4 and paragraphs 0073-0075 disclose the second information may be determined based on a required error rate, and may indicate a level of reliability required for each radio bearer or packet. The lower the required error rate of the packet, the higher the level of reliability. Thus, the second information may be determined to be higher. The second information may be referred to as “ProSe reliability per packet (PRPP)”. If the second information is greater than or equal to a specific threshold, the transmitter may determine to perform packet duplication. In step 405, if the transmitter determines to perform packet duplication, the transmitter duplicates one packet and transmits two or more duplicated packets to a receiver. Two or more duplicated packets may be transmitted through two or more component carriers that perform carrier aggregation (CA). That is, the respective duplicated packets may be transmitted to the receiver through different component carriers).
Consequently, in view of the above reasons and having addressed each of Applicant’s arguments, the previous rejection is maintained and made FINAL by the Examiner.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action, and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to MARK G. PANNELL whose telephone number is (303) 297-4245. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 3:00 pm (Mountain Time).
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on (571) 272-7915. 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 G. Pannell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights