Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 06/26/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/22/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 18696376 filed on 03/28/2024.
Priority # Filling Data Country
21200245.5 2021-09-30 EP
Response to Amendment
5. The amendment filed on 06/26/2026, independent Claim 1, 47 have been amended; Claims 2-46 are canceled; therefore, Claims 1 and 47-56 are pending.
6. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/26/2026, pages 5-8 have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been fully considered.
Since applicant has amended independent claims 1, 47 properly and cancelled claims 2-46, the 112(b) rejection in the non-final rejection is therefore withdrawn.
However, claim 48 still has 112(d) issues, as presented in this office action. Claim 48 dependent on independent claim 47, which is a method, but does not further limit the subject matter of the claim (a method) upon which it depends; preamble as: “computer-readable medium comprising a computer program” does not further limit the method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been fully considered.
Basically, applicant argued that the prior arts (LEVITSKY et al. (US 20220167414) and in view of Intel (3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #106-e)) does not discloses the amended limitation of : “ performing at least one action in response to the collision indication, where the at least one
action comprises at least one of:
perform a retransmission on a different carrier,
perform a retransmission in a different frequency band, or
perform a retransmission in a different bandwidth part”
in amended independent claims, since:
“In response to a collision indication that is associate with a device's SPS, Levitsky teaches changing to a different SPS, and if the collision is not associated with an SPS, Levitsky teaches changing the schedule for the retransmission".
“Upon review, the applicants are unable to find references to carrier, frequency band, or bandwidth part in Intel.”
Examiner’s Response:
After reviewing the claim limitations and the prior arts, examiner believe that LEVITSKY et al. (US 20220167414) and in view of Zhang et al. (US 20180206246) teach the aforementioned limitation. Follows are reason:
For example, Zhang discloses that “performing at least one action in response to the collision indication, where the at least one action comprises at least one of:
perform a retransmission on a different carrier,
perform a retransmission in a different frequency band, or
perform a retransmission in a different bandwidth part” in fig. 5A-5B, fig. 6A-6B; in which, the re-transmission after the collision is in different frequency band; also in paragraph 0055, as: “ In this case, responsive to receiving the NACK, the first UE 510 and the second UE 520 retransmit at the same time, t.sub.4, but transmit in a grant-free manner using different resource groups or different hopping resources. Because different frequencies are used for the retransmissions, it is unlikely that another collision will occur in the retransmissions”.
Therefore, the combination of LEVITSKY, and Zhang discloses the limitations of: “performing at least one action in response to the collision indication, where the at least one action comprises at least one of:
perform a retransmission on a different carrier,
perform a retransmission in a different frequency band, or
perform a retransmission in a different bandwidth part” in independent claims.
The applicant also argued that dependent claims should be allowed due to their dependency on independent claims.
Examiner’s Response:
As discussed above, the combination of LEVITSKY, and Zhang discloses the limitations in independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
8. Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 48 depend on independent claim 47 but fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
10. For claim 48, it is dependent on claim 47, which is a method; however, claim 48 as a whole is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Therefore, it is not clear claim 48 claims a method or a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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 of this title, 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.
12. Claims 1, 47-54 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEVITSKY et al. (US 20220167414) and in view of Zhang et al. (US 20180206246 ) .
Regarding claim 1, LEVITSKY teaches a user device (fig. 3, 350) comprising: a processor circuit (fig. 3, 368 and 356, 359) and a memory circuit (fig. 3, 360), wherein the memory circuit is arranged to store instructions for the processor circuit (paragraph 0055, …The controller/processor 359 can be associated with a memory 360 that stores program codes and data),
wherein the processor circuit is arranged to transmit and/or receive (as shown in fig. 3, also fig. 1, fig. 4) over a sidelink (fig. 4, 412; paragraph 0061, …,V2X system 400 includes a transmitter UE 404 transmitting data to an RSU 410 and a receiving UE 402 via sidelink transmissions 412), wherein the processor circuit is arranged to receive at least one collision indication (fig. 8, 802, 808 and 810) wherein the at least one collision indication indicates at least one collision on at least one resource (paragraph 0110, …In block 802, the UE identifies collisions on the selected CV2X resources subset based on a UE processing capability, as well as multiple control channel (CCH) hypothesis decoding, and resource indication value (RIV) field analysis), wherein the at least one resource is used or arranged for use by the user device for at least one transmission or for at least one reception from at least one second user device over the sidelink (as shown in fig. 9, the resource arrangement is over the sidelink between UE1 and UE2),
wherein the at least one transmission is on a first carrier, in a first frequency band, and in a first bandwidth part (as shown in fig. 5, the transmission is on a first carrier, a first frequency and in a first bandwidth part; paragraph 0064, … , the sidelink resource 506 may include a number of subcarriers or RBs in frequency and a number of symbols in time).
wherein the processor circuit is arranged to is to perform at least one actions for the at least one transmissions is response to the collision indication (as shown in fig. 9, Trigger rescheduling SPS Tx procedure Tll is to perform at least one actions for the at least one transmissions is response to the collision indication; paragraph 0114, … UE 1 triggers rescheduling for its SPS transmissions or any other scheduled transmissions at time T11. At time T12, UE 1 transmits the collision report to UE 2 through UE n as a CV2X collision report).
It is noticed that LEVITSKY does not disclose explicitly of performing at least one action in response to the collision indication, where the at least one action comprises at least one of:
perform a retransmission on a different carrier, perform a retransmission in a different frequency band, or perform a retransmission in a different bandwidth part.
Zhang discloses that “performing at least one action in response to the collision indication, where the at least one action comprises at least one of: perform a retransmission on a different carrier, perform a retransmission in a different frequency band, or perform a retransmission in a different bandwidth part” (in fig. 5A-5B, fig. 6A-6B; in which, the re-transmission after the collision is in different frequency band; also in paragraph 0055, as: “ In this case, responsive to receiving the NACK, the first UE 510 and the second UE 520 retransmit at the same time, t.sub.4, but transmit in a grant-free manner using different resource groups or different hopping resources. Because different frequencies are used for the retransmissions, it is unlikely that another collision will occur in the retransmissions”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that performing at least one action in response to the collision indication, where the at least one action comprises at least one of: perform a retransmission on a different carrier, perform a retransmission in a different frequency band, or perform a retransmission in a different bandwidth part as a modification to the user device for the benefit of that avoid collision in the retransmission (paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 47, LEVITSKY teaches a method (fig. 10), comprising:
transmitting and/or receiving (as shown in fig. 3, also fig. 1, fig. 4) over a sidelink (fig. 4, 412; paragraph 0061, …,V2X system 400 includes a transmitter UE 404 transmitting data to an RSU 410 and a receiving UE 402 via sidelink transmissions 412), receive at least one collision indication (fig. 8, 802, 808 and 810) wherein the at least one collision indication indicates at least one collision on at least one resources (paragraph 0110, …In block 802, the UE identifies collisions on the selected CV2X resources subset based on a UE processing capability, as well as multiple control channel (CCH) hypothesis decoding, and resource indication value (RIV) field analysis), wherein the at least one resource is used or is arranged for use by the user device for at least one transmission or for at least one reception from at least one second user device over the sidelink (as shown in fig. 9, the resource arrangement is over the sidelink between UE1 and UE2) wherein the processor circuit is arranged to is to perform at least one actions for the at least one transmissions is response to the collision indication (as shown in fig. 9, Trigger rescheduling SPS Tx procedure Tll is to perform at least one actions for the at least one transmissions is response to the collision indication; paragraph 0114, … UE 1 triggers rescheduling for its SPS transmissions or any other scheduled transmissions at time T11. At time T12, UE 1 transmits the collision report to UE 2 through UE n as a CV2X collision report).
It is noticed that LEVITSKY does not disclose explicitly of performing at least one action in response to the collision indication, where the at least one action comprises at least one of:
perform a retransmission on a different carrier, perform a retransmission in a different frequency band, or perform a retransmission in a different bandwidth part.
Zhang discloses that “performing at least one action in response to the collision indication, where the at least one action comprises at least one of: perform a retransmission on a different carrier, perform a retransmission in a different frequency band, or perform a retransmission in a different bandwidth part” (in fig. 5A-5B, fig. 6A-6B; in which, the re-transmission after the collision is in different frequency band; also in paragraph 0055, as: “ In this case, responsive to receiving the NACK, the first UE 510 and the second UE 520 retransmit at the same time, t.sub.4, but transmit in a grant-free manner using different resource groups or different hopping resources. Because different frequencies are used for the retransmissions, it is unlikely that another collision will occur in the retransmissions”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that performing at least one action in response to the collision indication, where the at least one action comprises at least one of: perform a retransmission on a different carrier, perform a retransmission in a different frequency band, or perform a retransmission in a different bandwidth part as a modification to the method for the benefit of that avoid collision in the retransmission (paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 48, the combination LEVITSKY and Zhang teaches the limitations recited in claim 47 as discussed above. In addition, LEVITSKY further discloses that a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a computer program wherein the computer program when executed on a processor performs the method (paragraph 0055, …The controller/processor 359 can be associated with a memory 360 that stores program codes and data)).
Regarding claim 49, the combination LEVITSKY and Zhang teaches the limitations recited in claim 47 as discussed above. In addition, LEVITSKY further discloses that wherein the at least one action comprises performing a retransmission on a different carrier (as shown in fig. 5A-5B, retransmission is in different carrier frequency, therefore, on a different carrier since the retransmission is with a carrier; paragraph 0055, as: “ In this case, responsive to receiving the NACK, the first UE 510 and the second UE 520 retransmit at the same time, t.sub.4, but transmit in a grant-free manner using different resource groups or different hopping resources (i.e., different frequency carrier)).
Regarding claim 50, the combination LEVITSKY and Zhang teaches the limitations recited in claim 47 as discussed above. In addition, LEVITSKY further discloses he at least one action comprises performing a retransmission in a different frequency band (as shown in fig. 5A-5B, retransmission is in different frequency).
Regarding claim 51, the combination LEVITSKY and Zhang teaches the limitations recited in claim 47 as discussed above. In addition, LEVITSKY further discloses the at least one action comprises performing a retransmission in a different bandwidth par (as shown in fig. 5A-5B, retransmission is in different frequency, thus in a different bandwidth par ).
Regarding claim 52, the combination LEVITSKY and Zhang teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, LEVITSKY further discloses that wherein the at least one action comprises performing a retransmission on a different carrier (as shown in fig. 5A-5B, retransmission is in different carrier frequency, therefore, on a different carrier since the retransmission is with a carrier paragraph 0055, as: “ In this case, responsive to receiving the NACK, the first UE 510 and the second UE 520 retransmit at the same time, t.sub.4, but transmit in a grant-free manner using different resource groups or different hopping resources (i.e., different frequency carrier)).
Regarding claim 52, the combination LEVITSKY and Zhang teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, LEVITSKY further discloses he at least one action comprises performing a retransmission in a different frequency band (as shown in fig. 5A-5B, retransmission is in different frequency).
Regarding claim 53, the combination LEVITSKY and Zhang teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, LEVITSKY further discloses the at least one action comprises performing a retransmission in a different bandwidth par (as shown in fig. 5A-5B, retransmission is in different frequency, thus in a different bandwidth par ).
13. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
14. Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAIHAN JIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1399. The examiner can normally be reached on flexible.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sath Perungavoor can be reached on (571)272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-0655.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZAIHAN JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights