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 17 May 2024, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1-12 are amended.
Claims 13-18 are newly added.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 19 August 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the processor comprising at least one controller coupled with at least one memory (see Claim 13) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. The Office Notes that Figure 6 depicts a UE comprising a processor coupled with a memory, but does not show further structure of the processor such that it comprises a controller coupled with a memory. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such a claim limitations is “controller” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “controller” in Claim 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, paragraph 0089 does not clearly show the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the controller performing the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 14-18 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claim 13.
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)(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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoshioka et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0376831), hereinafter Yoshioka.
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).
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, comprising at least one controller coupled with at least one memory configured to cause the processor 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhao et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0073867) discloses excluding resources reserved for other terminal devices during resource selection to avoid resource collision (paragraph 0045 and Figures 9-19).
Ko et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0045750) discloses determination of PSFCH resources (Figure 20 and paragraphs 0180-0190).
Hu et al (“Enhanced Resource Selection Mechanism for LTEV2X Sidelink Multi-carrier Operation”) is directed to resource selection, including excluding resources from candidate resource sets.
Garcia et al (“A Tutorial on 5G NR V2X Communications”) discloses a identifying candidate resources to exclude (page 1976, 2001-2002).
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
Prosecution Insights