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 .
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 2, 13-15 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko WO 2021086093 in view of Ren WO 2021121058-A1.
5. Consider claim 14. Ko teaches an apparatus (fig 24) for controlling signal transmission power, comprising: a memory (104), configured to store program instructions; a processor (102), configured to invoke the program instructions stored in the memory, and perform followings according to an obtained program: determining a transmission power control parameter; determining a transmission power of a sidelink positioning reference signal, S- PRS, according to the transmission power control parameter (from Ko….. For example, the one or more processors execute the instructions to receive a sidelink positioning reference signal (S-PRS) from a first device, and the transmission parameter related to the S-PRS is information obtained by the first device. Based on, the S-PRS is determined by the first device, and the S-PRS is transmitted from the first device based on the transmission parameter, and the information obtained by the first device is a movement speed of the first device. , The distance between the first device and the second device, the congestion level of the channel related to the S-PRS, the noise of the channel related to the S-PRS, the interference of the channel related to the S-PRS Including at least one of an interference level, an accuracy required for positioning related to the S-PRS, a priority of a positioning related to the S-PRS, or the strength of a signal related to the S-PRS And, the transmission parameter is a first center frequency related to the S-PRS, a distributed form related to the transmission of the S-PRS, whether a muting operation for prohibiting the S-PRS transmission by the second device is performed. Or, it may include at least one of the first transmission power related to the S-PRS.
Ko fails to teach wherein the S-PRS and a physical sidelink share channel, PSSCH, are not sent on a same symbol. However, Ren from the same field of endeavor (fig 3, slot 4 for example) teaches such (… the transmission pattern of S-PRS on a resource block is Staggered interleaved transmission, that is, the position of the transmission sub-carrier on each symbol is different, which becomes a kind of interleaved transmission pattern. However, when the RE (i.e., resource unit) occupied by the S-PRS is located on the AGC symbol or the PSCCH symbol or the GP symbol, it will conflict with the AGC signal, PSCCH channel or GP originally intended to be transmitted on these symbols. The transmission priority of the PSCCH channel or GP is relatively high, so when a conflict occurs, the S-PRS signal will not be sent, but the AGC signal, PSCCH channel or GP will be sent first. In this way, reliable transmission of the AGC signal, PSCCH channel or GP can be guaranteed. The S-PRS signal occupies more REs, and non-sending S-PRS REs in a few locations will not cause a significant decrease in the performance of the S-PRS….). It would have been obvious, to use the transmission technique taught by Ren in Ko in order to avoid collisions thus saving power by avoiding retransmissions. Method claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as apparatus claim 14 since the recited elements would perform the claimed steps.
6. Regarding claims 15 and 2, Ko teaches wherein the transmission power control parameter comprises a sidelink path loss (reads on the strength of the signal related to the S-PRS as stated above).
7. Regarding claims 13 and 26, Ren teaches (fig 3) not sending the S-PRS on the same symbol with the PSSCH as stated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 3, 6-9, 11, 16, 19-22 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. See reasons for allowance in the non-final mailed 1/23/26.
9. Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Firstly, the previous indication of the objection to claim 12 as allowable is withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendment. It previously was dependent upon claim 11 (which was objected to as allowable). Moving claim 12 limitations directly into claims 1 and 14 introduces a new claim scope combination previously not considered which necessitated adding the new reference to Ren to address the limitation added and addresses many of the applicants’ arguments on pages 13-14. Applicants’ arguments directed to “increasing transmission bandwidth occupied by S-PRS and improving the accuracy of the sidelink positioning on page 13 is not in the claims. The same with “avoiding mutual interference” or “controlling the S-PRS transmission power more precisely” on page 15.
10. 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.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7499. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th from 530am to 330pm and Fri from 530am to 10am.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D Anderson, can be reached at telephone number 5712724177. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/Primary examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights