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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 05/13/2024. Claims 1-30 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/13/2024 have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS are hereby attached.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 24 and 30 recites “user equipment (UE) for wireless communication “. The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the claimed wireless communication is any of the devices listed in the specification (Paragraph [0035]: “The UEs 120 may be dispersed throughout the wireless network 100, and each UE 120 may be stationary or mobile. A UE 120 may include, for example, an access terminal, a terminal, a mobile station, and/or a subscriber unit. A UE 120 may be a cellular phone (e.g., a smart phone), a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wireless modem, a wireless communication device, a handheld device, a laptop computer, a cordless phone, a wireless local loop (WLL) station, a tablet, a camera, a gaming device, a netbook, a smartbook, an ultrabook, a medical device, a biometric device, a wearable device (e.g., a smart watch, smart clothing, smart glasses, a smart wristband, smart jewelry (e.g., a smart ring or a smart bracelet)), an entertainment device (e.g., a music device, a video device, and/or a satellite radio), a vehicular component or sensor, a smart meter/sensor, industrial manufacturing equipment, a global positioning system device, and/or any other suitable device that is configured to communicate via a wireless medium. “)
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 (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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10-11, 12-16, 18, 20-22, 24, 26-28 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kelkar (US20200042013A1).
Regarding claim 1 Kelkar disclose: A first user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (Para 0066: “Cooperating vehicles, including the principal vehicle 106 and the subordinate vehicle 108, have an operating environment that allows them to share autonomy through cooperative sensing. A host vehicle, as used herein, refers to a cooperating vehicle having the operating environment. Accordingly, either the principal vehicle 106 or the subordinate vehicle 108 can act as a host vehicle with respect to the operating environment 200 shown in FIG. 2.”), comprising: a memory (Figure 2, element 210); and one or more processors , coupled to the memory (Figure 2, element 202), configured to: transmit a discovery message to discover another UE with which to establish a cooperative radar sensing session (Figure 3; Para 0085: “Returning to FIG. 3, the identification of the cooperating vehicles may be impromptu, shown at the impromptu meeting 302, or prearranged, shown at the arranged meeting 304. For example, an impromptu meeting may occur when the cooperating vehicles are traveling in the same direction on a roadway. At block 306, the cooperating vehicles transmit broadcast messages. For example, the broadcast messages may be sent from the communications module 406 of the principal vehicle subsystems 402 to the subordinate communications module 420 the subordinate vehicle 108 having subordinate vehicle subsystems 404. The communications modules 406 and 420 by utilizing the remote transceiver 232, a wireless network antenna 234, roadside equipment 252, and/or the communication network 220 (e.g., a wireless communication network), or other wireless network connections.”) receive, from a second UE, a join request for the first UE to establish the cooperative radar sensing session with the second UE (Figure 3; Para 0095: “The principal vehicle 106 and/or the subordinate vehicle 108 may perform the compatibility check. In some embodiments, the cooperating vehicle that is broadcasting messages for shared autonomy performs the compatibility check. For example, a principal vehicle 106 may indicate that it is available for sharing autonomy in its broadcast messages. The rendezvous module 222 of a subordinate vehicle 108, interested in shared autonomy, may perform the compatibility check upon receiving a broadcast message from the principal vehicle 106. Alternatively, the principal vehicle 106 may receive a broadcast message from a subordinate vehicle 108 requesting shared autonomy. The rendezvous module 222 of the principal vehicle 106 may perform the compatibility check upon receiving the broadcast message of the subordinate vehicle 108. Accordingly, the compatibility check may occur in response to a broadcast message being received by a host vehicle. Otherwise, the compatibility check may be performed in response to a response message from the cooperating vehicle that received the broadcast message.”); transmit, to the second UE, an acceptance indication based at least in part on the join request (Figure 3; Para 0102: “At block 310, the method 300 includes sending an acceptance message to initiate cooperative autonomy. The acceptance message may be sent by the rendezvous module 222 when the host vehicle performs a successful compatibility check. For example, suppose the principal vehicle 106 transmits a broadcast message indicating that it is available for sharing autonomy, and a subordinate vehicle 108 performs the compatibility check upon receiving a broadcast message from the principal vehicle 106. The subordinate vehicle 108 may send an acceptance message and enter a shared autonomy mode. In the shared autonomy, a cooperating vehicle performs, coordinates, or facilitates sharing of autonomy between the cooperating vehicles. For example, a cooperating vehicle may share sensor data, decision-making capability, behavior plans, actions, etc.”); and communicate with the second UE to establish a joint configuration to be used by the first UE and the second UE for the cooperative radar sensing session (Para 0140: “Returning to FIG. 3 and the method 300, at block 322, at least one cooperating vehicle profile is exchanged. A cooperating vehicle profile aggregates at least one cooperating parameter for that cooperating vehicle. With reference to FIG. 8, the principal vehicle 506 may have a principal profile 802 (represented as an arrow) and/or the subordinate vehicle 508 may have a subordinate profile 804 (represented as an arrow). The principal vehicle 506 may send the principal profile 802 the subordinate vehicle 508. Additionally or alternatively, the subordinate vehicle 508 may send the subordinate profile 804 to the principal vehicle 506. Alternatively, in some embodiments, rather than sending a cooperating vehicle profile, a cooperating vehicle may send one or more cooperating parameters individually.”; Para: 0077: “The vehicle sensors 206, which can be implemented with the vehicle systems 204, can include various types of sensors for use with the host vehicle and/or the vehicle systems 204 for detecting and/or sensing a parameter of the host vehicle, the vehicle systems 204, and/or the environment surrounding the host vehicle. For example, the vehicle sensors 206 can provide data about vehicles and/or downstream objects in proximity to the host vehicle. For example, the vehicle sensors 206 can include, but are not limited to: acceleration sensors, speed sensors, braking sensors, proximity sensors, vision sensors, ranging sensors, seat sensors, seat-belt sensors, door sensors, environmental sensors, yaw rate sensors, steering sensors, GPS sensors, among others. The vehicle sensors 206 can be any type of sensor, for example, acoustic, electric, environmental, optical, imaging, light, pressure, force, thermal, temperature, proximity, among others.”).
Claims 18, 24 and 30 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 1, therefore claims 18, 24 and 30 are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 2 Kelkar discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kelkar further teaches: wherein the one or more processors (Figure 2, element 208), to transmit the discovery message (Figure 3; Para 0085: “Returning to FIG. 3, the identification of the cooperating vehicles may be impromptu, shown at the impromptu meeting 302, or prearranged, shown at the arranged meeting 304. For example, an impromptu meeting may occur when the cooperating vehicles are traveling in the same direction on a roadway. At block 306, the cooperating vehicles transmit broadcast messages. For example, the broadcast messages may be sent from the communications module 406 of the principal vehicle subsystems 402 to the subordinate communications module 420 the subordinate vehicle 108 having subordinate vehicle subsystems 404. The communications modules 406 and 420 by utilizing the remote transceiver 232, a wireless network antenna 234, roadside equipment 252, and/or the communication network 220 (e.g., a wireless communication network), or other wireless network connections.”), are configured to: periodically transmit the discovery message (Para 0092: “The rendezvous module 222 of a cooperating vehicle may control transmission of the broadcast messages over remote networks by utilizing the remote transceiver 232, a wireless network antenna 234, roadside equipment 252, and/or the communication network 220 (e.g., a wireless communication network), or other wireless network connections. The broadcast messages may be transmitted based on a predetermined schedule (e.g., every second, every 10 seconds, 10 minutes, etc.)”).
Regarding claim 10 Kelkar discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kelkar further teaches: wherein the discovery message includes an indication of at least one of a location of the first UE, an orientation of the first UE, or a trajectory of the first UE (Para 0091: “A broadcast message may also include a cooperating proposal. The cooperating proposal may form a basis for sharing autonomy. For example, the cooperating proposal may include a destination, planned route, preferred pricing, specific cooperating parameters, etc. Thus, the cooperating vehicles may use the cooperating proposal to determine whether there is a minimum threshold advantage to the cooperating vehicles before having to engage in the cooperative positioning stage and/or the parameter negotiation stage.”).
Claims 20 and 26 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 10, therefore claims 20 and 26 are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 11 Kelkar discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kelkar further teaches: wherein the join request includes an indication of at least one of radar capabilities of the second UE, a location of the second UE, an orientation of the second UE, or a trajectory of the second UE (Para 0097: “The compatibility check may also include determining whether the routes of the principal vehicle 106 and the subordinate vehicle 108 are compatible based on the cooperating proposal including a shared destination, planned route, etc. For example, suppose the subordinate vehicle 108 is broadcasting broadcast messages requesting cooperative autonomy. The broadcast message from the subordinate vehicle 108 may include a planned route that the subordinate vehicle 108 plans to travel to a desired destination.”).
Claims 21 and 27 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 11, therefore claims 21 and 27 are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 12 Kelkar discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kelkar further teaches: wherein the joint configuration includes at least one of a joint radar configuration to be used by the first UE and the second UE in the cooperative radar sensing session ((Para 0140: “Returning to FIG. 3 and the method 300, at block 322, at least one cooperating vehicle profile is exchanged. A cooperating vehicle profile aggregates at least one cooperating parameter for that cooperating vehicle. With reference to FIG. 8, the principal vehicle 506 may have a principal profile 802 (represented as an arrow) and/or the subordinate vehicle 508 may have a subordinate profile 804 (represented as an arrow). The principal vehicle 506 may send the principal profile 802 the subordinate vehicle 508. Additionally or alternatively, the subordinate vehicle 508 may send the subordinate profile 804 to the principal vehicle 506. Alternatively, in some embodiments, rather than sending a cooperating vehicle profile, a cooperating vehicle may send one or more cooperating parameters individually.”), a duration of a measurement phase associated with the cooperative radar sensing session, or an order for radar signal transmissions by the first UE and the second UE in the cooperative radar sensing session.
Claims 22 and 28 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 12, therefore claims 22 and 28 are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 13 Kelkar discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kelkar further teaches: wherein the one or more processors, to communicate with the second UE to establish the joint configuration, are configured to: transmit, to the second UE, an indication of a proposed joint configuration(Figure 3, step 322); and receive, from the second UE, an acknowledgement that indicates acceptance of the proposed joint configuration by the second UE (Figure3; Para 0152: “ Once each of the cooperating vehicles in the cooperative pairing determine that the cooperating parameters are amenable at block 324, the method 300 continues to block 332. At block 332, a control handoff is initiated in the shared autonomy mode. The control handoff occurs when a cooperating vehicle hands off control to another cooperating vehicle. For example, the principal vehicle 506 begins sharing autonomy with the subordinate vehicle 508 by providing the subordinate vehicle 508 with data, functionality, and/or control to function in a manner consistent with a higher level of autonomy than the inherent level of autonomy of the subordinate vehicle 508. Initiating the control handoff may be performed negotiation module 226 without intervention by a vehicle occupant of either the principal vehicle 506 or the subordinate vehicle 508.”).
Regarding claim 14 Kelkar discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kelkar further teaches: wherein the one or more processors, to communicate with the second UE to establish the joint configuration, are configured to: transmit, to the second UE, an indication of a first proposed joint configuration(Para 0159: “As discussed above, the cooperating vehicles involved in the exchange of vehicle profiles at block 322, at block 324 the cooperating vehicles determine whether the cooperating parameters are amenable.”) ; receive, from the second UE, a rejection of the first proposed joint configuration and an indication of a second proposed joint configuration (Para 0159: “As discussed above, the cooperating vehicles involved in the exchange of vehicle profiles at block 322, at block 324 the cooperating vehicles determine whether the cooperating parameters are amenable. Suppose the subordinate vehicle 508 has a vehicle profile that defines a preferred pricing with a maximum of $0.08. Accordingly, the subordinate vehicle 508 may object to being charged $0.10 per mile during cooperative automation.”); and transmit, to the second UE, an acknowledgement indicating acceptance of the second proposed joint configuration (Para 0159: “As discussed above, the cooperating vehicles involved in the exchange of vehicle profiles at block 322, at block 324 the cooperating vehicles determine whether the cooperating parameters are amenable. Suppose the subordinate vehicle 508 has a vehicle profile that defines a preferred pricing with a maximum of $0.08. Accordingly, the subordinate vehicle 508 may object to being charged $0.10 per mile during cooperative automation. Accordingly, the subordinate vehicle 508 may generate a counter parameter in response to the business parameter, in accordance with block 326. For example, the subordinate vehicle 508 may counter with a counter parameter, for example, $0.05 per mile. If approved by the principal vehicle 506, the principal vehicle may initiate a handoff. Alternatively, the principal vehicle 506 could suggest a further counter parameter, such as charging the subordinate vehicle 508 a rate of $0.07 per mile. The principal vehicle 506 could also choose to end negotiations by terminating the shared autonomy mode and thus the cooperative pairing at block 328.”).
Regarding claim 15 Kelkar discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kelkar further teaches: wherein communication with the second UE to establish the joint configuration comprises: receive, from the second UE, an indication of a first proposed joint configuration (Figure 3, step 322); and transmit, to the second UE, an acknowledgement indicating acceptance of the first proposed joint configuration or an indication of a second proposed joint configuration (Figure 3, steps 332-334).
Regarding claim 16 Kelkar discloses all the limitations of claim 15. Kelkar further teaches: wherein the indication of the first proposed joint configuration is included in the join request (Para 0223: “At block 1318, the method 1300 includes sending an acceptance message to initiate a shared autonomy mode when the compatibility check is successful and a primary vehicle is determined. Accordingly, the method 1300 progresses to cooperative positioning 1320, parameter negotiation 1322, and cooperative perception as discussed above with respect to the stages described in FIG. 3.”).
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 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.
Claims 3-9, 19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kelkar (US20200042013A1) in view of Hu (US20210315032A1).
Regarding claim 3 Kelkar discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kelkar does not teach “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, from the second UE, a basic safety message, wherein transmitting the discovery message comprises transmitting the discovery message based at least in part on receiving the basic safety message from the second UE“.
However, Hu in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, from the second UE, a basic safety message(Para 0055: “Also, the V2X communication is the enabling technology for an Intelligent Transport System (ITS) based on the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) standards, where information distributed by Cooperative Awareness Messages (CAM) is commonly used by some safety related services (e.g. Approaching Emergency Vehicle, Slow Vehicle Warning, etc.).”), wherein transmitting the discovery message comprises transmitting the discovery message based at least in part on receiving the basic safety message from the second UE (Para 0055: “Also, the V2X communication is the enabling technology for an Intelligent Transport System (ITS) based on the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) standards, where information distributed by Cooperative Awareness Messages (CAM) is commonly used by some safety related services (e.g. Approaching Emergency Vehicle, Slow Vehicle Warning, etc.). The ETSI ITS standards describe that by receiving CAMs, the V2X device is aware of other device(s) in its neighborhood area as well as their positions, speed (including velocity and direction), basic attributes and basic sensor information. At the receiver side, reasonable efforts can be taken to evaluate the relevance of the messages and the information. This allows the receiver to get information about its situation and act accordingly.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kelkar with Hu to incorporate the feature of: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, from the second UE, a basic safety message, wherein transmitting the discovery message comprises transmitting the discovery message based at least in part on receiving the basic safety message from the second UE. Kelkar and Hu are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose method for cooperative remote sensing. However, Kelkar fails to disclose a feature of safety message transfer. This feature is disclosed by Hu. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kelkar with Hu to incorporate the feature of: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, from the second UE, a basic safety message, wherein transmitting the discovery message comprises transmitting the discovery message based at least in part on receiving the basic safety message from the second UE as such a feature would increase the security and efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 4 the combination of Kelkar and Hu discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Hu further teaches: wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the discovery message based at least in part on receiving the basic safety message from the second UE(Para 0055: “Also, the V2X communication is the enabling technology for an Intelligent Transport System (ITS) based on the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) standards, where information distributed by Cooperative Awareness Messages (CAM) is commonly used by some safety related services (e.g. Approaching Emergency Vehicle, Slow Vehicle Warning, etc.). The ETSI ITS standards describe that by receiving CAMs, the V2X device is aware of other device(s) in its neighborhood area as well as their positions, speed (including velocity and direction), basic attributes and basic sensor information. At the receiver side, reasonable efforts can be taken to evaluate the relevance of the messages and the information. This allows the receiver to get information about its situation and act accordingly.”), are configured to: transmit the discovery message in a unicast sidelink communication to the second UE based at least in part on receiving the basic safety message from the second UE (Para 0065: “The proposed V2X communication method is based on a Sidelink (SL) discovery including Proximity Services (ProSe) layer Sidelink discovery 32 and/or radio layer SL discovery 34. The radio layer SL discovery 34 may provide a single framework to discover proximity UE with interested services and exchange radio layer UE capability information among the discovery UE. The ProSe layer Sidelink discovery 32 cannot be used for link establishment reliably according to some embodiments, since it cannot achieve the exchange of radio layer information. However, the ProSe layer Sidelink discovery 32 as well as the radio layer SL discovery 34 can carry an intension code contained, respectively, in a ProSe message or Radio Resource Control (RRC) message.”).
The reason for combining Kelkar with Hu is similar to the one given in claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 5 Kelkar discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kelkar does not teach “: wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the discovery message, are configured to: transmit the discovery message in a broadcast sidelink communication or in a groupcast sidelink communication associated with an indicated negative acknowledgement (NACK) distance “.
However, Hu in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the discovery message (Para 0062: “In some embodiments, vehicle-to-anything (V2X) communication is established between at least two user equipment (UE) of a plurality of neighboring user equipment (UEs). The at least two UE may for instance include at least one receiver user equipment (Rx UE) (e.g., as an example of UE 10 in FIG. 1) and at least one transmitter user equipment (Tx UE) (e.g., as an example of peer UE 14 in FIG. 1). Any of these UEs may be placed in, or be a part, of a vehicle and/or network infrastructure. Or, any UE may be associated with a person (including any handheld UE carried by a pedestrian, cyclist, driver or passenger). Moreover, any UE can operate as Rx UE and/or Tx UE depending on the UE requirements.”), are configured to: transmit the discovery message in a broadcast sidelink communication or in a groupcast sidelink communication associated with an indicated negative acknowledgement (NACK) distance (Para 0065: “The proposed V2X communication method is based on a Sidelink (SL) discovery including Proximity Services (ProSe) layer Sidelink discovery 32 and/or radio layer SL discovery 34. The radio layer SL discovery 34 may provide a single framework to discover proximity UE with interested services and exchange radio layer UE capability information among the discovery UE. The ProSe layer Sidelink discovery 32 cannot be used for link establishment reliably according to some embodiments, since it cannot achieve the exchange of radio layer information. However, the ProSe layer Sidelink discovery 32 as well as the radio layer SL discovery 34 can carry an intension code contained, respectively, in a ProSe message or Radio Resource Control (RRC) message.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kelkar with Hu to incorporate the feature of wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the discovery message, are configured to: transmit the discovery message in a broadcast sidelink communication or in a groupcast sidelink communication associated with an indicated negative acknowledgement (NACK) distance. Kelkar and Hu are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose method for cooperative remote sensing. However, Kelkar fails to disclose a feature of transmitting a discovery message in a broadcast sidelink. This feature is disclosed by Hu. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kelkar with Hu to incorporate the feature of: wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the discovery message, are configured to: transmit the discovery message in a broadcast sidelink communication or in a groupcast sidelink communication associated with an indicated negative acknowledgement (NACK) distance as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system.
Claims 19 and 25 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 5, therefore claims 19 and 25 are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 6 Kelkar discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kelkar does not teach “wherein the discovery message includes an indication of radar capabilities of the first UE”.
However, Hu in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the discovery message includes an indication of radar capabilities of the first UE (Figure 7, step 90).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kelkar with Hu to incorporate the feature of: wherein the discovery message includes an indication of radar capabilities of the first UE. Kelkar and Hu are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose method for cooperative remote sensing. However, Kelkar fails to disclose a feature of transmitting a discovery message that includes indication on radar capabilities. This feature is disclosed by Hu. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kelkar with Hu to incorporate the feature of: wherein the discovery message includes an indication of radar capabilities of the first UE as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 7 the combination of Kelkar and Hu discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Hu further teaches: wherein the indication of radar capabilities of the first UE includes an indication of a respective range of supported values for each of one or more radar parameters slope (Para 0105: “Upon completing this preparation phase, discovery radio resource selection is performed at MAC layer (Step 75) to broadcast the RRC layer SL discovery request message to the proximity potential receiving UEs over the PC5 interface (Step 76). One embodiment of the content of the SL discovery request message can consist of SL discovery intension code, UE location info, UE driving velocity and direction, and the Tx UE radio capability information.”), and wherein the one or more radar parameters include at least one of a bandwidth and a chirp slope (Para 0105: “Upon completing this preparation phase, discovery radio resource selection is performed at MAC layer (Step 75) to broadcast the RRC layer SL discovery request message to the proximity potential receiving UEs over the PC5 interface (Step 76). One embodiment of the content of the SL discovery request message can consist of SL discovery intension code, UE location info, UE driving velocity and direction, and the Tx UE radio capability information. Tx UE L2 global ID is also included in the SL discovery request message or in the MAC header. One embodiment of Tx UE's radio capability information can be the UE processing latency capability, the UE MIMO capability, the UE's supported carrier frequencies, the UE's supported CA band combinations, the UE's supported MCS schemes.”).
The reason for combining Kelkar with Hu is similar to the one given in claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 8 the combination of Kelkar and Hu discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Hu further teaches: wherein the indication of radar capabilities of the first UE includes a bitmap that indicates a set of supported radar configurations from one or more codebooks (Para 0105: “Upon completing this preparation phase, discovery radio resource selection is performed at MAC layer (Step 75) to broadcast the RRC layer SL discovery request message to the proximity potential receiving UEs over the PC5 interface (Step 76). One embodiment of the content of the SL discovery request message can consist of SL discovery intension code, UE location info, UE driving velocity and direction, and the Tx UE radio capability information. Tx UE L2 global ID is also included in the SL discovery request message or in the MAC header. One embodiment of Tx UE's radio capability information can be the UE processing latency capability, the UE MIMO capability, the UE's supported carrier frequencies, the UE's supported CA band combinations, the UE's supported MCS schemes.”).
The reason for combining Kelkar with Hu is similar to the one given in claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 9 the combination of Kelkar and Hu discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Hu further teaches: wherein the indication of radar capabilities of the first UE includes an indication of at least one of an oscillator stability or a clock stability for the first UE codebooks (Para 0105: “Upon completing this preparation phase, discovery radio resource selection is performed at MAC layer (Step 75) to broadcast the RRC layer SL discovery request message to the proximity potential receiving UEs over the PC5 interface (Step 76). One embodiment of the content of the SL discovery request message can consist of SL discovery intension code, UE location info, UE driving velocity and direction, and the Tx UE radio capability information. Tx UE L2 global ID is also included in the SL discovery request message or in the MAC header. One embodiment of Tx UE's radio capability information can be the UE processing latency capability, the UE MIMO capability, the UE's supported carrier frequencies, the UE's supported CA band combinations, the UE's supported MCS schemes.”).
The reason for combining Kelkar with Hu is similar to the one given in claim 6 above.
Claims 17, 23 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kelkar (US20200042013A1) in view of Bowers (WO2014011545A1).
Regarding claim 17 Kelkar discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kelkar does not teach “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: perform radar sensing, during the cooperative radar sensing session, using first reflected radar signals transmitted by the first UE and second reflected radar signals transmitted by the second UE “.
However, Bowers in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: perform radar sensing, during the cooperative radar sensing session (Para 0114: “Figure 5A depicts one embodiment 500 of a collision detection system 101 configured to coordinate sensor operation with other sensing systems. In example 500, the sensing system 110 comprises a detection signal emitter 512 and receiver 514. The emitter 512 may comprise a radar transmitter, EO emitter, acoustic emitter, ultrasonic emitters, or the like. The receiver 514 may be configured to detect one or more returned detection signals. Accordingly, the receiver 514 may comprise one or more antennas, EO detectors, acoustic receivers, ultrasonic receivers, or the like.”), using first reflected radar signals transmitted by the first UE and second reflected radar signals transmitted by the second UE (Figure 5A; Para 0113: “In some embodiments, the collision detection system 101 may be further configured to operate the sensing system 110 in cooperation with sensing systems of other vehicles. The cooperative operation may comprise forming a multistatic sensor comprising the sensing system 110 and one or more sensing systems of other land vehicles. As used herein, a “multistatic sensor” refers to a sensor comprising two or more spatially diverse sensing systems, which may be configured to operate cooperatively. For example, one or more of the sensing systems may be configured to emit respective detection signals, which may be received by receivers of one or more of the sensing systems. Sensor cooperation may comprise coordinating one or more detection signals emitted by one or more sensing systems (e.g., beamforming, forming a phased array, or the like).”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kelkar with Bowers to incorporate the feature of: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: perform radar sensing, during the cooperative radar sensing session, using first reflected radar signals transmitted by the first UE and second reflected radar signals transmitted by the second UE. Kelkar and Bowers are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose methods for cooperation remote sensing. However, Kelkar fails to disclose a feature of sensing using radar. This feature is disclosed by Bowers. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kelkar with Bowers to incorporate the feature of: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: perform radar sensing, during the cooperative radar sensing session, using first reflected radar signals transmitted by the first UE and second reflected radar signals transmitted by the second UE. Such a feature would enable the system to function in all-weather conditions thereby increasing its efficiency.
Claims 23 and 29 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 17, therefore claims 23 and 29 are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bongani J. Mashele whose telephone number is (703)756-5861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00AM-5:00PM (CT).
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 Resha H. Desai, can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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.
/BONGANI JABULANI MASHELE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights