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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/03/24 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention Group l corresponding to claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 06/05/26 is acknowledged.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 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.
The dependent claims 11-12 are objected as allowable because the closest prior art found fails to disclose, teach or suggest either alone or render obvious in a combined teachings of the prior art, the uniquely distinct features in the specific order, structure and combination of limitations together as a whole of the limitations recited in the dependent claims in combination with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims in between.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 13-14, 16-17 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (US Patent Publication 2022/0322359 herein after referenced as Ye) in view of ZHAO et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0345426 herein after referenced as Zhao).
Regarding claim 1 and claim 14, Ye discloses:
A user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to: and A method performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising: identify a configuration (Ye, [0138] discloses the first UE (i.e. reads on a UE) may determine a set of resources for the second UE to use for sidelink communications based on the selection criteria (i.e. reads on identify a configuration) included in the sidelink coordination request message; Ye, [0162] discloses In some embodiments, the first UE may determine a resource selection window for selecting resources for transmission of the inter-UE coordination message. In some embodiments, a packet delay budget associated with the resource selection window may depend, at least in part, on a resource collision slot or a half-duplex restriction slot. In addition, the first UE may determine a data priority of the inter-UE coordination message. The data priority level may be based, at least in part, on a data priority level of included in a sidelink coordination request message received from the second UE; Ye, [0079] discloses The UE 106 may include a processor that is configured to execute program instructions stored in memory. The UE 106 may perform any of the method embodiments described herein by executing such stored instructions. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is inherent for a complex device such as a UE to include a processor and memory in order to be able to perform the disclosed functionalities).
comprising (Ye, [0163] discloses In some embodiments, the sidelink coordination request message may include a triggering signal that includes a single bit indicating triggering of the inter-UE coordination message and/or a multi-bit message indicating one or more criteria for selecting the set of resources. The one or more criteria for selecting the set of resources may include any, any combination of, and/or all of a time window for the inter-UE coordination message, a time window for the set of resources, a data priority associated with the set of resources, a number of sub-channels of the set of resources, a periodicity of the set of resources, a cast type (i.e. reads on a restriction) of the set of resources, an identifier ID of the second UE, and/or a format of the inter-UE coordination message. The format of the inter-UE coordination message may define any, any combination of, and/or all of e.g., at least one of and/or one or more of a resource map for selecting the set of resources, preferred resources of the first UE (i.e. reads on of one inter-UE coordination schemes), non-preferred resources of the first UE, and/or latency requirements for the inter-UE coordination message. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or more”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
between the UE and a second UE; (Ye, [0161] discloses At 1402, a first e.g., coordinating UE (i.e. reads on between the UE) such as UE 106, may determine to transmit, to a second UE (i.e. reads on a second UE) e.g., a source UE, a set of resources for the second UE to use for sidelink communications. … The set of resources may allocate resources for the second UE to transmit on to the first UE or to the fourth UE).
and transmit an inter-UE coordination report to the second UE according to the identified configuration (Ye, [0139] discloses At 906, the first UE may provide e.g., send and/or transmit, to the second UE (i.e. reads on to the second UE), an indication of a set of resources for sidelink communications, e.g., via an inter-UE coordination message (i.e. reads on transmit an inter-UE coordination report). The set of resources may be based on the parameters (i.e. reads on according to the identified configuration) included in the sidelink coordination request message. Further, the set of resources may be for sidelink communications between the first UE and the second UE and/or for sidelink communications between the second UE and a third UE).
and based at least in part on a request for the inter-UE coordination report from the second UE (Ye, [0161] discloses At 1402, a first e.g., coordinating UE such as UE 106, may determine to transmit, to a second UE e.g., a source UE, a set of resources for the second UE to use for sidelink communications. Note that the second UE may also be a UE 106. The determination may be based, at least in part, on an occurrence of at least one condition. The at least one condition may include any, any combination of, and/or all of e.g., at least one of and/or one or more of the first UE receiving, from the second UE, sidelink coordination request message (i.e. reads on based at least in part on a request for the inter-UE coordination report from the second UE) e.g., the inter-UE coordination message may be transmitted in response to receiving the sidelink coordination message. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or a condition”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Ye discloses a first mobile device sending a resource set back to a second mobile device wherein the resource set is selected based on various criteria received from the second mobile device but fails to explicitly recite the presence of a look-up table and therefore fails to disclose “identify a configuration comprising a lookup table defining a restriction”.
In a related field of endeavor, Zhao discloses:
identify a configuration comprising a lookup table defining a restriction (Zhao, [0181] discloses Based on table 3 (i.e. reads on identify a configuration comprising a lookup table), when the priority is 0 (i.e. reads on defining a restriction) and the CBR measurement value is 0.1 that is, CBR<0.2, the first terminal device determines that the quantity of first resources included in the resource set is N=64; when the priority is 1 and the CBR measurement value is 0.1 that is, CBR<0.2, the terminal device determines that the quantity of first resources included in the resource set is N=32, and so on; Zhao, [0157] discloses In another example, the first terminal device receives the second configuration information sent by the network device or the fourth indication information sent by the second terminal device, wherein the second configuration information or the fourth indication information includes the priority. The first terminal device determines the quantity of the first resources included in the resource set according to the priorities included in the second configuration information or the fourth indication information; Zhao, [0118] discloses For example, as shown in FIG. 9, when the second terminal device UE-B needs to select resources in time slot n, UE-B sends indication information to the first terminal device UE-A to instruct UE-A to send the resource set to UE-B, and at the same time, UE-B sends second indication information to UE-A. UE-A determines the quantity of the first resource included in the resource set according to the second indication information, determines the resource set according to the quantity, and then sends the first indication information for indicating the resource set to UE-B. Optionally, the UE-A may also send the quantity of the first resource included in the resource set to the UE-B; Zhao, [0154] discloses channel busy ratio CBR; Zhao, [0180] discloses For another example, the network device configures the first terminal device with a first correspondence among the priority, the CBR, and the quantity N of first resources included in the resource set. The first corresponding relationship is shown in Table 3; Zhao, [0091]-[0092] discloses the first terminal device sends the first indication information to the second terminal device and discloses the first indication information is used to indicate a resource set, the resource set is determined based on resource attribute information, and the resource set is used to determine the transmission resource of the second terminal device; Zhao, [0096] discloses the first indication information may be carried by the SCI, the medium access control layer control element MAC CE or the sidelink PC5 radio resource control RRC signal. The first indication information may indicate a resource set or index information of the resource set. For example, the first indication information may include indexes of each first resource in the resource set; Zhao, [0086] discloses In order to solve the above problems, an enhanced scheme to the second mode in which the terminal device independently selects resources from the resource pool is proposed. The enhancement scheme improves system performance through inter-UE coordination. Specifically, the first terminal device UE-A sends a resource set to the second terminal device UE-B, and UE-B performs resource selection according to the resource set sent by UE-A).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Ye to incorporate the teachings of Zhao for the purpose of providing the system with a means to be able to identify and map different amount of the resources according to specific criteria of the configuration information (Zhao, [0181]) in order to improve system performance with an enhanced scheme for resource selection (Zhao, [0086]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with added functionalities and various different alternatives in design, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and thereby, preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario (Ye, [0179]) and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of a first mobile device sending a resource set back to a second mobile device wherein the resource set is selected based on various criteria received from the second mobile device as taught by Ye) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of a first mobile device sending a resource set back to a second mobile device wherein the resource set is selected based on various criteria received from the second mobile device, wherein the various criteria utilizes a look-up table and includes various parameters such as CBR in determining an amount of resources of the resource set and the amount of resources is sent back to the second mobile device and wherein the resource set is sent via an SCI or MAC CE as taught by Zhao) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of a first mobile device sending a resource set back to a second mobile device wherein the resource set is selected based on various criteria received from the second mobile device (i.e. as taught by both Ye & Zhao) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 2 and claim 16, Ye in view of Zhao discloses:
The UE of claim 1, (see claim 1) and The method of claim 14 (see claim 14).
wherein the restriction of the one or more inter-UE coordination schemes is based on (Ye, [0163] discloses In some embodiments, the sidelink coordination request message may include a triggering signal that includes a single bit indicating triggering of the inter-UE coordination message and/or a multi-bit message indicating one or more criteria for selecting the set of resources. The one or more criteria for selecting the set of resources may include any, any combination of, and/or all of a time window for the inter-UE coordination message, a time window for the set of resources, a data priority associated with the set of resources, a number of sub-channels of the set of resources, a periodicity of the set of resources, a cast type of the set of resources, an identifier ID of the second UE, and/or a format of the inter-UE coordination message. The format of the inter-UE coordination message may define any, any combination of, and/or all of e.g., at least one of and/or one or more of a resource map for selecting the set of resources, preferred resources of the first UE, non-preferred resources of the first UE, and/or latency requirements for the inter-UE coordination message. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “a channel busy ratio (CBR), a per-packet priority” and “a destination, or a combination thereof”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 3 and claim 17, Ye in view of Zhao discloses:
The UE of claim 1, (see claim 1) and The method of claim 14, (see claim 14).
wherein the restriction of the one or more inter-UE coordination schemes is preconfigured for each channel busy ratio (CBR) value (Zhao, [0180]-[0181] discloses For another example, the network device configures the first terminal device with a first correspondence among the priority, the CBR, and the quantity N of first resources included in the resource set. The first corresponding relationship is shown in Table 3 and discloses Based on table 3, when the priority is 0 and the CBR measurement value is 0.1 that is, CBR<0.2, the first terminal device determines that the quantity of first resources included in the resource set is N=64; when the priority is 1 and the CBR measurement value is 0.1 that is, CBR<0.2, the terminal device determines that the quantity of first resources included in the resource set is N=32, and so on; Zhao, [0157] discloses In another example, the first terminal device receives the second configuration information sent by the network device or the fourth indication information sent by the second terminal device, wherein the second configuration information or the fourth indication information includes the priority. The first terminal device determines the quantity of the first resources included in the resource set according to the priorities included in the second configuration information or the fourth indication information. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or a range of values and per-priority value or a range of priority values, and wherein the per-priority value or the range of priority values is indicated by one or more priority fields in a first sidelink control information (SCI) payload.”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 6 and claim 20, Ye in view of Zhao discloses:
The UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to (see claim 1) and The method of claim 14, further comprising (see claim 14).
transmit the inter-UE coordination report using a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE), (Zhao, [0096] discloses the first indication information may be carried by the SCI, the medium access control layer control element MAC CE or the sidelink PC5 radio resource control RRC signal. The first indication information may indicate a resource set or index information of the resource set. For example, the first indication information may include indexes of each first resource in the resource set; Zhao, [0091]-[0092] discloses the first terminal device sends the first indication information to the second terminal device and discloses the first indication information is used to indicate a resource set, the resource set is determined based on resource attribute information, and the resource set is used to determine the transmission resource of the second terminal device; Ye, [0161] discloses At 1402, a first e.g., coordinating UE such as UE 106, may determine to transmit, to a second UE e.g., a source UE, a set of resources for the second UE to use for sidelink communications. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “sidelink control information (SCI), or a combination thereof”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 7 and claim 21, Ye in view of Zhao discloses:
The UE of claim 1, (see claim 1) and The method of claim 14, (see claim 14).
wherein the inter-UE coordination report comprises resource information indicating one or more preferred resources, (Ye, [0163] discloses The format of the inter-UE coordination message may define any, any combination of, and/or all of e.g., at least one of and/or one or more of a resource map for selecting the set of resources, preferred resources of the first UE, non-preferred resources of the first UE, and/or latency requirements for the inter-UE coordination message; Zhao, [0118] discloses UE-A determines the quantity of the first resource included in the resource set according to the second indication information, determines the resource set according to the quantity, and then sends the first indication information for indicating the resource set to UE-B. Optionally, the UE-A may also send the quantity of the first resource included in the resource set to the UE-B; Zhao, [0180]-[0181] discloses For another example, the network device configures the first terminal device with a first correspondence among the priority, the CBR, and the quantity N of first resources included in the resource set. The first corresponding relationship is shown in Table 3 and discloses Based on table 3, when the priority is 0 and the CBR measurement value is 0.1 that is, CBR<0.2, the first terminal device determines that the quantity of first resources included in the resource set is N=64; when the priority is 1 and the CBR measurement value is 0.1 that is, CBR<0.2, the terminal device determines that the quantity of first resources included in the resource set is N=32, and so on. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “one or more non-preferred resources, or a combination thereof,” and “a per packet priority, a cast type, or a combination thereof”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 8, Ye in view of Zhao discloses:
The UE of claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to (see claim 7).
determine the amount of resources reported as a function of a CBR range, (Zhao, [0180]-[0181] discloses For another example, the network device configures the first terminal device with a first correspondence among the priority, the CBR, and the quantity N of first resources included in the resource set. The first corresponding relationship is shown in Table 3 and discloses Based on table 3, when the priority is 0 and the CBR measurement value is 0.1 that is, CBR<0.2, the first terminal device determines that the quantity of first resources included in the resource set is N=64; when the priority is 1 and the CBR measurement value is 0.1 that is, CBR<0.2, the terminal device determines that the quantity of first resources included in the resource set is N=32, and so on. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “a channel occupancy ratio (CR) threshold, or a combination thereof”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 9, Ye in view of Zhao discloses:
The UE of claim 7, (see claim 7).
wherein the amount of preferred or non-preferred resources that are included in the inter-UE coordination report comprises a number of resources,(Zhao, [0118] discloses UE-A determines the quantity of the first resource included in the resource set according to the second indication information, determines the resource set according to the quantity, and then sends the first indication information for indicating the resource set to UE-B. Optionally, the UE-A may also send the quantity of the first resource included in the resource set to the UE-B. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “a percentage of resources, or a combination thereof.”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 13, Ye in view of Zhao discloses:
The UE of claim 1, (see claim 1).
(EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in a contingent limitation format directed towards limitations contingent on a selection of a non-selected alternative option recited in the preceding limitations (i.e. see claim 1 reciting non-selected alternative limitations of “or a condition”) and as such are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “wherein the condition is selected from the group comprising at least one of detecting overlapping resources, detecting a reference signal received power satisfying a threshold, and detecting a half duplex operation during sidelink (SL) reception”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03, Section C that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (US Patent Publication 2022/0322359 herein after referenced as Ye) in view of ZHAO et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0345426 herein after referenced as Zhao) and further in view of FOUAD et al. (US Patent Publication 2022/0116942 herein after referenced as Fouad).
Regarding claim 4 and claim 18, Ye in view of Zhao discloses:
The UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to (see claim 1) and The method of claim 14, further comprising (see claim 14).
determine to transmit the inter-UE coordination report(Ye, [0161] discloses At 1402, a first e.g., coordinating UE such as UE 106, may determine to transmit, to a second UE e.g., a source UE, a set of resources for the second UE to use for sidelink communications. Note that the second UE may also be a UE 106. The determination may be based, at least in part, on an occurrence of at least one condition. The at least one condition may include any, any combination of, and/or all of e.g., at least one of and/or one or more of the first UE receiving, from the second UE, sidelink coordination request message e.g., the inter-UE coordination message may be transmitted in response to receiving the sidelink coordination message).
Ye in view of Zhao discloses a mobile device performing a sidelink transmission based on a condition occurring as well as the use of a channel busy ratio CBR but fails to explicitly recite that the transmissions are based on a signal strength indicator and therefore fails to disclose “determine to transmit the inter-UE coordination report based on a measured sidelink (SL) received signal strength indicator (RSSI).”
In a related field of endeavor, Fouad discloses:
determine to transmit the inter-UE coordination report based on a measured sidelink (SL) received signal strength indicator (RSSI) (Fouad, [0244]-[0245] discloses In LTE and NR V2X, congestion control mechanisms may be used to reduce collisions between neighboring UEs when utilizing a Mode 2 resource selection procedure. In particular, two congestion control metrics i.e., CBR and channel occupancy ratio CR are defined, whereby the CBR measures the number of resources within a given window with an RSSI above a certain threshold. Based on the measured CBR, the UE obtains a CR.sub.Limit, which governs how many resources a UE can occupy within a given window. The CR.sub.Limit will depend on priority and discloses In particular, the UE measures a CR that includes the resources it has consumed and resources to be consumed with a given window and compares it against its CR.sub.Limit. If the measured CR is below the CR.sub.Limit, then the UE can proceed with its transmission).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Ye in view of Zhao to incorporate the teachings of Fouad for the purpose of providing the system with a means to control congestion and reduce collisions in accordance with the mechanisms of the network (Fouad, [0244]-[0245]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with added functionalities and various different alternatives in design, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and thereby, preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario (Ye, [0179]) and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of a first mobile device sending a sidelink transmission based on a condition as taught by Ye) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of a first mobile device sending a sidelink transmission based on a condition, wherein the condition is based on a CBR that measures the number of resources within a given window with an RSSI above a certain threshold as taught by Fouad) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of a first mobile device sending a sidelink transmission based on a condition (i.e. as taught by both Ye & Fouad) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 5 and claim 19, Ye in view of Zhao and further in view of Fouad discloses:
The UE of claim 4, (see claim 4) and The method of claim 18 (see claim 18).
wherein the restriction of the one or more inter-UE schemes is based on a channel busy ratio (CBR) measurement in response to the SL RSSI satisfying a threshold (Fouad, [0244]-[0245] discloses In LTE and NR V2X, congestion control mechanisms may be used to reduce collisions between neighboring UEs when utilizing a Mode 2 resource selection procedure. In particular, two congestion control metrics i.e., CBR and channel occupancy ratio CR are defined, whereby the CBR measures the number of resources within a given window with an RSSI above a certain threshold. Based on the measured CBR, the UE obtains a CR.sub.Limit, which governs how many resources a UE can occupy within a given window. The CR.sub.Limit will depend on priority and discloses In particular, the UE measures a CR that includes the resources it has consumed and resources to be consumed with a given window and compares it against its CR.sub.Limit. If the measured CR is below the CR.sub.Limit, then the UE can proceed with its transmission).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (US Patent Publication 2022/0322359 herein after referenced as Ye) in view of ZHAO et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0345426 herein after referenced as Zhao) and further in view of Hoang et al. (US Patent Publication 2021/0314796 herein after referenced as Hoang).
Regarding claim 10, Ye in view of Zhao discloses:
The UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to (see claim 1).
(Ye, [0161] discloses At 1402, a first e.g., coordinating UE such as UE 106, may determine to transmit, to a second UE e.g., a source UE, a set of resources for the second UE to use for sidelink communications. Note that the second UE may also be a UE 106. The determination may be based, at least in part, on an occurrence of at least one condition. The at least one condition may include any, any combination of, and/or all of e.g., at least one of and/or one or more of the first UE receiving, from the second UE, sidelink coordination request message e.g., the inter-UE coordination message may be transmitted in response to receiving the sidelink coordination message).
Ye in view of Zhao discloses receiving a request from a mobile device but fails to explicitly recite that said request is dropped or rejected based on a channel busy ratio and therefore fails to disclose “drop the request from the second UE due to a channel busy ratio (CBR).”
In a related field of endeavor, Hoang discloses:
drop the request from the second UE due to a channel busy ratio (CBR) (Hoang, [0235] discloses In such embodiments, a WTRU operating in autonomous scheduled mode may be configured to report a congestion level of the channel before and/or after requesting to change the scheduling mode. The network, based on the report CBR and its load, may determine to accept or reject the request to change the scheduling mode; Hoang, [0173] discloses In LTE V2X, Channel Busy Ratio CBR and Channel Occupancy Ratio CR are used as parameters to determine the channel status. CBR is used to evaluate congestion level of the system in a resource pool and CR is used to determine the channel occupancy ratio of a WTRU in one transmission pool. In a resource pool, if data and control resources i.e., PSSCH and PSCCH are non-adjacent, CBR and CR are evaluated in the data pool. In various examples herein, the term CBR is used to describe congestion for ease of description, but any measure of congestion can be used in various embodiments).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Ye in view of Zhao to incorporate the teachings of Hoang for the purpose of providing the system with a means to accept or reject requests based on CBR congestion levels in accordance with the mechanisms of the network (Hoang, [0173] & [0235]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with added functionalities and various different alternatives in design, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and thereby, preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario (Ye, [0179]) and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of receiving a request from a mobile device as taught by Ye) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of receiving a request from a mobile device, wherein the request is rejected based on a CBR congestion level as taught by Hoang) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of receiving a request from a mobile device (i.e. as taught by both Ye & Hoang) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y MAPA whose telephone number is (571)270-5540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday: 10 AM - 8 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, Anthony Addy can be reached at (571) 272 - 7795. 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.
/MICHAEL Y MAPA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights