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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 07/07/2026.
Claims 1, 3-8, 14, 16-21, 26 and 28-29 have been amended.
Claim 31 has been added.
Claims 2, 15 and 27 have been canceled.
Rejection to claims 29-30 under 35 USC § 101 is withdrawn since the claims have been amended accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims filed on 07/07/2026 have been fully considered and deemed persuasive. Therefore, the rejections in the previous Office Action mailed 04/08/2026 have been withdrawn hereby. However, up further search and consideration, previously and newly identified prior art is found to have relevant teachings for more clarification and thus applied in the instant Office Action as detailed below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7, 13-14, 16-17, 20, 26 and 28-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 2024/0031994, “Zhao) in view of Adjakple et al. (US 2024/0172325, “Adjakple”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Zhao unless otherwise mentioned.
Zhao comprises the following features:
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 1, an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory ([0398] “FIG. 44 shows a schematic structural diagram of a terminal according to an exemplary embodiment of the disclosure, and the terminal includes a processor 101, a receiver 102, a transmitter 103, a memory 104 and a bus 105.”) and configured to:
select, based on a capacity of the UE, a set of resources for sidelink (SL) transmissions ([0278] “At operation 328, the first terminal selects z carriers from candidate carriers, z does not exceed the number of carriers where the first terminal supports simultaneous transmission of SL data, or z does not exceed the number of carriers where the first terminal supports simultaneous reception of SL data, and z is an integer greater than or equal to 1.”),
wherein the set of resources for SL transmissions comprises at least one of (1) resources in a plurality of carriers ([0281] “UE1 and UE2 form a user pair for unicast communication, the UE1 supports simultaneous transmission of SL data on two carriers, and when the UE1 needs to transmit the SL data to the UE2, the UE1 performs carrier selection, and the UE1 may select one or two carriers and perform the data transmission simultaneously on the selected carrier(s).”) or (2) a set of SL resource pools in the plurality of carriers (This alternative is not examined.);
measure a channel busy ratio (CBR) for the set of resources for SL transmissions ([0314] “When the first terminal performs carrier selection, the first terminal may perform carrier selection according to the CBR of the carrier. Optionally, the first terminal compares a measured CBR with the CBR threshold”).
It is noted that while disclosing carrier reselection, Zhao does not specifically teach about evaluating CR. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Adjakple as follows;
evaluate a channel occupancy ratio (CR) for the set of resources for SL transmissions, the CR being associated with at least one planned SL transmission in the set of resources for SL transmissions ([Adjakple, 0068] “Another measurement, CR defined in TS 36.214 [12, clause 5.1.31], counts the total number of subchannels a UE has and will transmit in during a window of up to 1000 ms including the current subframe. CR is thus a measurement of how much resource a UE has recently, and will soon, claim.); and
adjust, based on the measured CBR and the evaluated CR, the at least one planned SL transmission in the set of resources for SL transmissions ([Adjakple, 0069] “A UE can be (pre-)configured with a set of CBR ranges to each of which is linked a CR-limit. When a UE finds its CR exceeds the CR-limit for the CBR range it currently measures, it must reduce its CR to not exceed the limit. …, and can include increasing MCS to reduce resource occupation, dropping (re-)transmissions, etc.”).
It would have been obvious to apply Adjakple’s CBR/CR congestion control to Zhao’s UE capability limited multi-carrier SL selection. The predictable result is a UE that selects a carrier/resource set within its operational capability and reduces planned occupancy – e.g., by reducing occupied resources or dropping a retransmission when that occupancy is excessive for the current congestion level.
Regarding claim 14, it is a method claim corresponding to the method claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 26, it is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations, “means” ([0399] “The processor 101 includes one or more processing cores, and executes various functional applications and information processing by running software programs and modules.”), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 29, it is a CRM claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations, “a computer-readable medium storing computer executable code” ([0402] “The memory 104 may be configured to store at least one instruction, and the processor 101 is configured to execute the at least one instruction to implement each of the operations”), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claims 3 and 16, the apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 14, respectively, wherein the set of resources for SL transmissions is selected based on a communication between the UE and a second UE ([0281] “UE1 and UE2 form a user pair for unicast communication, the UE1 supports simultaneous transmission of SL data on two carriers, and when the UE1 needs to transmit the SL data to the UE2”).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, the apparatus of claim 2 and the method of claim 15, respectively, wherein selecting the set of resources for SL transmissions corresponds to an autonomous SL resource selection process ([Adjakple, 0042] “Transmission resources may be allocated to the UE by the gNB (for e.g., NR mode 1 resource allocation) or may be autonomously selected by the UE (for e.g., NR mode 2 resource allocation).”).
Regarding claims 7, 20, 28 and 30, the apparatus of claim 2, the method of claim 15, the apparatus of claim 27 and the CRM of claim 29, respectively, wherein the at least one processor is configured to adjust the at least one planned SL transmission by:
identifying, based on the measured CBR and a priority associated with the at least one planned SL transmission, that the evaluated CR is above a CR threshold ([Adjakple, 0069] “A UE can be (pre-)configured with a set of CBR ranges to each of which is linked a CR-limit. When a UE finds its CR exceeds the CR-limit for the CBR range it currently measures, it must reduce its CR to not exceed the limit.”, and [Adjakple, 0227] “UE 102 may randomly select resource from the allowed candidate pool of resources. The allowed candidate pool of resource may be determined based on RRC configuration, taking into account the QoS attributes of the traffic such as priority, latency, congestion control criteria based on CBR measurement versus configured CBR threshold, CR measurement versus configured CR threshold”); and
at least one of: (1) skipping the at least one planned SL transmission in the set of resources for SL transmissions ([Adjakple, 0069] “How this is done is up to UE implementation, and can include increasing MCS to reduce resource occupation, dropping (re-)transmissions, etc.”) or (2) reducing a set of resources associated with the at least one planned SL transmission to reduce the evaluated CR to a value below the CR threshold (This alternative is not examined.).
Regarding claim 13, the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (See Fig. 44.).
Claim(s) 5, 18 and 32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 2024/0031994, “Zhao) in view of Adjakple et al. (US 2024/0172325, “Adjakple”) and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0078761, “Kim”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Zhao unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, it is noted that while disclosing carrier reselection, Zhao does not specifically teach about averaging CBRs. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Kim as follows;
the apparatus of claim 2 and the method of claim 15, respectively, wherein the at least one processor is configured to measure the CBR for the set of resources for SL transmissions by one of (1) measuring a first CBR for the selected set of resources for SL transmissions as a whole (This alternative is not examined.) or (2) measuring a second CBR for the selected set of resources for SL transmissions in each carrier in the plurality of carriers and calculating an average CBR of the selected set of resources for SL transmissions based on the measured second CBRs ([Kim, 0122] “if any one of the average, maximum, and minimum CBR values of the selected carriers is lower than a predetermined threshold, one of the fully-simultaneous transmission and partially-simultaneous transmission may be allowed.”).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to apply Kim’s average CBR criterion to Zhao’s selection of plural SL carriers subject to UE capability and CBR conditions. Doing so would permit the UE to evaluate the average congestion condition across the selected carriers when determining whether fully or partially simultaneous sidelink transmission is appropriate. The result would have been predictable because Kim expressly uses the average CBR of selected carriers to determine whether a multicarrier simultaneous transmission mode is permitted.
Regarding claim 32, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to measure the CBR for the set of resources for SL transmissions, the at least one processor is configured to measure a second CBR for the selected set of resources for SL transmissions in each carrier in the plurality of carriers and calculated an average CBR of the selected set of resources for SL transmissions based on the measured second CBRs ([Kim, 0122] “if any one of the average, maximum, and minimum CBR values of the selected carriers is lower than a predetermined threshold, one of the fully-simultaneous transmission and partially-simultaneous transmission may be allowed.”).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Kim are the same as for claim 5.
Claim(s) 6, 19 and 33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 2024/0031994, “Zhao) in view of Adjakple et al. (US 2024/0172325, “Adjakple”) and further in view of Chae et al. (US 2020/0107330, “Chae”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Zhao unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 6 and 19, it is noted that while disclosing carrier reselection, Zhao does not specifically teach about evaluating CR as a whole. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Chae as follows;
the apparatus of claim 2 and the method of claim 15, respectively, wherein the at least one processor is configured to evaluate the CR for the set of resources for SL transmissions by one of (1) evaluating a first CR for the selected set of resources for SL transmissions as a whole ([Chae, 0082] “It is proposed that the UE sum or commonly evaluate CRs between carriers/pools that provide the same service/application/use or between carriers for which the UE is instructed to add CRs by the network (or pre-indicated carriers), and set CR_limit for the summed CRs.”, and [Chae, 0083] “when two carriers/pools are configured for a Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V) service, the two carriers/pools are evaluated by summing the CRs.”) or (2) evaluating a second CR for the selected set of resources for SL transmissions in each carrier in the plurality of carriers and evaluating an average CR of the selected set of resources for SL transmissions based on the evaluated second CRs (This alternative is not examined.).
It would have been obvious to apply Chae’s combined multi-carrier CR evaluation to the UE capability constrained multicarrier SL resource selection of Zhao and the CR congestion control mechanism of Adjakple. The predictable result is that the UE evaluates its aggregate occupancy across the selected carriers and applies congestion control based on the aggregate resource usage.
Regarding claim 33, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to evaluate the CR for the set of resources for SL transmissions, the at least one processor is configured to evaluate a second CR for the selected set of resources for SL transmissions in each carrier in the plurality of carriers and evaluate an average CR of the selected set of resources for SL transmissions based on the evaluated second CRs ([Chae, 0105] “the measured CR may be a CR average of a plurality of resource pools configured on the corresponding carrier.”).
Chae teaches evaluating CR for each carrier in a plurality of carriers. Specifically, Chae teaches that “for each of a plurality of carriers, the UE measures … a channel occupancy ratio (CR) representing the amount of resources used by the UE on the corresponding carrier during the predetermined period” as described in [Chae, 0105].
Chae further teaches combining the per-carrier CR values. Specifically, Chae teaches that “the UE sum or commonly evaluate CRs between carriers/pools that provide the same service/application/use or between carriers for which the UE is instructed to add CRs by the network (or pre-indicated carriers), and set CR_limit for the summed CRs.”, as described in [Chae, 0082]. In an example with two carriers, Chae teaches that a CR of 0.01 on carrier A and a CR of 0.02 on carrier B results in a corresponding UE CR of 0.03” as described in [Chae, 0083]. Chae further teaches applying carrier-specific weights to combine CRs.
Chae does not expressly use the term “average CR”. However, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to calculate an average CR from Chae’s respective per carrier CRs when combining the CR values. An average is a predictable normalized form of the disclosed combined CR calculation, obtained by dividing the combined CR by the number of carriers or by applying normalized carrier weights. The average CR would provide a normalized multi-carrier occupancy metric and would allow a common CR threshold to be applied despite changes in the number of selected carriers.
Therefore, Chae teaches or renders obvious evaluating a second CR for the selected SL resource set in each carrier and evaluating an average CR of the selected SL resource set based on the respective evaluated second CRs as recited in claim 33.
Claim(s) 8 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 2024/0031994, “Zhao) in view of Adjakple et al. (US 2024/0172325, “Adjakple”) and further in view of Wang (US 2024/0414745).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Zhao unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 8 and 21, it is noted that while disclosing carrier reselection, Zhao does not specifically teach about evaluating CR. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Wang as follows;
the apparatus of claim 2 and the method of claim 15, respectively,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to measure the CBR for the set of resources for SL transmissions by measuring the CBR for the selected set of resources for SL transmissions in each carrier of the plurality of carriers, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to evaluate the CR for the set of resources for SL transmissions by evaluating the CR for the selected set of resources for SL transmissions in each carrier in the plurality of carriers ([Wang, 0104] “the first UE 10 may select the SL carrier with a lowest congestion among all SL carriers. The congestion may be measured in terms of metrics including such as channel busy ratio, channel usage ratio, received signal strength indicator (RSSI), etc. For each SL carrier, the measured channel busy ratio (CBR) or channel occupancy ratio (CR) of the resource pools associated with the SL carrier may be used to indicate congestion situation of the SL carrier.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Zhao by using the features of Wang in order to effectively handle sidelink communications such that “To achieve a high connection density, congestion control and thus the quality of service (QOS) management is supported in NR SL transmissions.” [Wang, 0006].
Claim(s) 9 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 2024/0031994, “Zhao) in view of Adjakple et al. (US 2024/0172325, “Adjakple”) and Wang (US 2024/0414745), and further in view of Ji et al. (US 2023/0171796, “Ji”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Zhao unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 9 and 22, it is noted that while disclosing carrier reselection, Zhao does not specifically teach about a CR threshold based on CBR. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Ji as follows;
the apparatus of claim 8 and the method of claim 21, respectively, the at least one processor further configured to:
identify, based on the measured CBR for the set of resources for SL transmissions in each carrier in the plurality of carriers, a set of CR thresholds for the set of resources for SL transmissions in each carrier in the plurality of carriers, wherein the set of CR thresholds comprises one or more CR thresholds for one or more SL transmission priorities ([Ji, 0145] “a channel occupancy ratio threshold is determined according to the channel busy ratio value CBR obtained by the current measurement and the first mapping table; the first mapping table includes a correspondence between the priorities, the CBR and the channel occupancy ratio threshold, the channel occupancy ratio threshold is determined according the first/second transmission priority(priorities) and the CBR obtained through calculation”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Hong by using the features of Ji in order to reduce traffic collision and increase reliability such that “an enhanced mechanism is proposed to reduce collision probability and increase reliability.” [Ji, 0006].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 10-12, 23-25 and 31 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The claims contain the following underlined features which, when combined with other features of the claim, prior art of record failed to anticipate or render obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application was filed:
Regarding claims 10-12 and 23-25, said claims were objected with allowable subject matter in the previous office action dated 04/08/2026 with reasons for allowance given then, and said claims remain objected now.
Regarding claim 31,
31. (New) The computer-readable medium of claim 29, wherein the at least one planned SL transmission is associated with the set of resources for SL transmissions in a first carrier in the plurality of carriers, and wherein the code when executed by the processor causes the processor to: measure the CBR for the set of resources for SL transmissions in each carrier of the plurality of carriers; evaluate the CR for the set of resources for SL transmissions in each carrier in the plurality of carriers; identify, based on the measured CBR for the set of resources for SL transmissions in each carrier in the plurality of carriers, a set of CR thresholds for the set of resources for SL transmissions in each carrier in the plurality of carriers, wherein the set of CR thresholds comprises one or more CR thresholds for one or more SL transmission priorities; identify, based on a first SL transmission priority associated with the at least one planned SL transmission, that the evaluated CR for the set of resources for SL transmissions in the first carrier is above a CR threshold of the set of CR thresholds for the first SL transmission priority; and select, based on (1) the measured CBR for the set of resources for SL transmissions in each carrier in the plurality of carriers, (2) the first SL transmission priority, and (3) the evaluated CR for the set of resources for SL transmissions in each carrier in the plurality of carriers, at least one resource in the set of resources for SL transmissions in a second carrier in the plurality of carriers to associate with the at least one planned SL transmission instead of the set of resources for SL transmissions in the first carrier.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry H. Kim whose telephone number and email address are as follows; 571-272-5009, harry.kim2@uspto.gov.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from www.uspto.gov. For questions or assistance, 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.
/HARRY H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights