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
Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed 27 July 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 are amended.
Claims 19 and 20 are newly added.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
The outstanding objection to the drawings is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claim 13.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 13-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claim 13.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1, 7 and 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 7 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0376831), hereinafter Yoshioka, in view of Zhao et al (WIPO Publication 2020191769), hereinafter Zhao. Citations to Zhao are taken from the attached machine translation of the reference.
Regarding Claim 7, Yoshioka discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising:
at least one memory (Figure 20 – processor 1001; paragraph 0119); and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (Figure 20 – storage devices 1002 and 1003 coupled to processor 1001; paragraph 0123 – the processor reads a program stored in either of the storage devices to perform the disclosed functions) and configured to cause the UE to:
exclude, from a candidate resource set for a first carrier, one or more resources based at least in part on reception of at least one Physical Sidelink Feedback Channel (PSFCH) resource on the first carrier or on a second carrier, and based at least in part on transmission of one or more selected resources on the second carrier (Figure 15 and paragraph 0091 - particular resource candidates to be excluded may be resource candidates in a case where the corresponding PSFCH overlaps in time domain with the PSFCH corresponding to the previously selected resource); and
select, from the candidate resource set for the first carrier in which the one or more resources are excluded based at least in part on reception of the at least one PSFCH resources on the first carrier or on the second carrier, and based at least in part on transmission of the one or more selected resources on the second carrier, one or more resources on the first carrier for transmission by the UE (paragraph 0091 – the selected resources from the resource candidates are utilized for HARQ responses; see also Figure 10 and paragraphs 0065-0069 for the terminal performing transmissions based on the selected resources).
However, Yoshioka does not disclose transmitting data on the first carrier using the selected one or more resources. In an analogous art, Zhao discloses this. Specifically, Zhao discloses performing resource selection for periodic services to avoid conflicts between PSSCH transmission resources and SSB transmission resources (page 11, lines 9-12). Further, the at least one candidate resource further includes a third candidate resource, the third candidate resource overlaps the first transmission resource, and the first transmission resource is reserved for use by the second terminal device. For transmitting the resources of the second sideline channel, optionally, the second sideline transmission channel may be a PSCCH, a PSSCH, or a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH). Specifically, if the first terminal detects in the listening window that the second terminal device reserves the first transmission resource in the resource selection window (that is, the first resource set), the first terminal device matches the second terminal device candidate resources with overlapping first transmission resources of the device are excluded from the first resource set, where the second terminal device refers to any terminal device other than the first terminal device (page 11, lines 13-22). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yoshioka and Zhao. One would have been motivated to do so in order to conserve resources and avoid collisions in NR V2X systems (refer to page 1, lines 12-24 of Zhao).
Claim 1 is a method claim comprising the same functions performed by the user equipment of Claim 7. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 7.
Claim 13 is directed to a processor for wireless communication, wherein the processor is coupled with at least one memory configured to perform the same functions as the user equipment of Claim 7. Noting that Yoshioka discloses a processor connected to a memory (Figure 20 –storage devices 1002 and 1003 coupled to processor 1001; paragraphs 0119-0123 - the processor reads a program stored in either of the storage devices to perform the disclosed functions), the remaining limitations are rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 7.
Regarding Claims 2, 8 and 14, Yoshioka discloses wherein, if a resource on the first carrier overlaps in time domain with reception of the at least one PSFCH resource associated with a selected resource on the second carrier, the resource is excluded from the candidate resource set for the first carrier (Figure 15 and paragraph 0091 - particular resource candidates to be excluded may be resource candidates in a case where the corresponding PSFCH overlaps in time domain with the PSFCH corresponding to the previously selected resource).
Regarding Claims 3, 9 and 15, Yoshioka discloses wherein, if the at least one PSFCH resource associated with a resource on the first carrier overlaps in time domain with at least one of the one or more selected resources on the second carrier, the resource is excluded from the candidate resource set for the first carrier (Figure 15 and paragraph 0091 - particular resource candidates to be excluded may be resource candidates in a case where the corresponding PSFCH overlaps in time domain with the PSFCH corresponding to the previously selected resource).
Regarding Claims 4, 10 and 16, Yoshioka discloses wherein, the at least one PSFCH resource is used for Hybrid Automatic Repeat-reQuest (HARQ) feedback (paragraphs 0068 and 0091 – the selected resource is used for HARQ transmissions) or resource conflict indicator (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claims 5, 11 and 17, Yoshioka discloses wherein, for each of the one or more resources, if any of multiple criteria is met (Note: the Office interprets the phrase “if any of multiple criteria is met” to constitute an alternative limitation), the resource is excluded from the candidate resource set for the first carrier if the resource on the first carrier overlaps in time domain with reception of the at least one PSFCH resource associated with the selected resource on the second carrier (Figure 15 and paragraph 0091 – particular resource candidates to be excluded may be resource candidates in a case where the corresponding PSFCH overlaps in time domain with the PSFCH corresponding to the previously selected resource), wherein the multiple criteria include: a priority of the transmission on the first carrier is lower than priorities of all transmissions associated with PSFCH on the second carrier (paragraph 0091 - Note that among the overlapping PSFCHs to which priorities are assigned, the resource candidate corresponding to a lower priority PSFCH may be excluded), the priority of the transmission on the first carrier is lower than a first configured priority threshold (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation), and each of the priorities of all transmissions associated with the PSFCH on the second carrier is higher than a second configured priority threshold (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claims 6, 12 and 18, Yoshioka discloses wherein, for each of the one or more resources, if any of multiple criteria is met (Note: the Office interprets the phrase “if any of multiple criteria is met” to constitute an alternative limitation), the resource is excluded from the candidate resource set for the first carrier if the at least one PSFCH resource associated with the resource on the first carrier overlaps in time domain with a selected resource on the second carrier (Figure 15 and paragraph 0091 - particular resource candidates to be excluded may be resource candidates in a case where the corresponding PSFCH overlaps in time domain with the PSFCH corresponding to the previously selected resource), wherein the multiple criteria include: a priority of the transmission associated with PSFCH on the first carrier is lower than priorities of all transmissions on the second carrier (paragraph 0091 - Note that among the overlapping PSFCHs to which priorities are assigned, the resource candidate corresponding to a lower priority PSFCH may be excluded), the priority of the transmission associated with the PSFCH on the first carrier is lower than a third configured priority threshold (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation), and each of the priorities of all transmissions associated with the PSFCH on the second carrier is higher than a fourth configured priority threshold (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of Zhao, as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Lee et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20220201654), hereinafter Lee. The combination of Yoshioka and Zhao discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 7, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose performing rate-matching or punching for the transmission of the one or more resources on the first carrier if the one or more resources on the first carrier overlap in time domain with the reception of the at least one PSFCH resource; and indicating whether the rate-matching or the punching is performed to a receiving UE via Sidelink Control Information (SCI). In an analogous art, Lee discloses this. Specifically, Lee discloses a WTRU sensing PSFCH resources in a dedicated PSFCH resource pool and exclude PSSCH resources that may result in the same PSCFCH resource in the dedicated PSFCH resource pool within a HARQ timing period to avoid potential collision of PSFCH transmissions (paragraph 0111). Further, a WTRU may perform rate matching/puncturing (i.e., punching as claimed) and/or may adjust the MCS for a transmission, for example, if the WTRU has to transmit PSSCH/PSCCH and transmit/receive a PSFCH in the same time slot (paragraph 0195). The rate matched/punctured resource can be explicitly indicated in SCI (paragraph 0196). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yoshioka/Zhou with Lee. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid potential collision of PSFCH transmissions (refer to paragraph 0111 of Lee).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Yoshioka et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20220038217) discloses puncturing and rate matching to overlapping resources (paragraphs 0056-0058).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
