DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an application filed on 07/10/2024, in which claims 1-6 are pending and ready for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted was filed before the mailing date of the Office Action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 claim limitations are: (1) “transmission unit configured to …”, “reception unit configured …” in claims 1, (2) “control unit configured …” in claims 1-3, (3) “reception unit configured …”, “transmission unit configured …” in claim 4-5.
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
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, in view of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, and the respective dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency on the above-identified claims.
Claim limitations (1) “transmission unit configured to …”, “reception unit configured …” in claims 1, (2) “control unit configured …” in claims 1-3, (3) “reception unit configured …”, “transmission unit configured …” in claims 4-5 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.
The specification lacks adequate structure to perform the claimed function. Particularly, the specification repeats, in different paragraphs, the claimed functions, which are identified in the claim interpretation session above, but lacks corresponding description of particular structures for carrying out or executing the 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, in view of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as failing to comply with the written description requirement, and the respective dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency on the above-identified claims. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As stated previously, the specification lacks the corresponding description of particular structures for carrying out the claimed functions as previously identified in the claim interpretation session. Thus, the specification does not demonstrate the Applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because there is not sufficient detail that would lead to the conclusion that the inventor was in possession of the claimed functions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gohigh (“Remaning issues on Inter-UE coordination for Mode 2 enhancememts”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #107bis-e, 01/17/2022, IDS submitted on 07/10/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Gohigh, in a first embodiment, discloses a terminal comprising:
a transmission unit configured to transmit, to a first terminal, a signal for reserving a plurality of resources in a resource pool (Gohigh; Heading “3.1 Trigger signaling of inter-UE coordination scheme 2”. A UE-B is used to transmit signal for reserving different resources of all resources to a UE-A via a transmission unit.);
a reception unit configured to receive, from the first terminal, an indication related to a collision indicating that at least one of the plurality of resources reserved by the signal overlaps with a resource reserved by a second terminal (Gohigh; Heading “3.1 Trigger signaling of inter-UE coordination scheme 2”. A UE-B is used to receive an indication related to a conflict of reserved resources with another UE from a UE-A.), but a control unit configured to determine which one of the reserved resources is to overlap with the resources reserved by the second terminal, based on the indication related to the collision, wherein after excluding the determined reserved resource from a candidate resource set, the control unit reselects a resource from the candidate resource set.
However, Gohigh, in a second embodiment, teaches a control unit configured to determine which one of the reserved resources is to overlap with the resources reserved by the second terminal, based on the indication related to the collision (Gohigh; Heading “3.4 UE-B’s behavior upon receiving a conflict indication from UE-A”. A UE-B is used to determine the resources in conflict with another UE in accordance with an indication related to a conflict.),
wherein after excluding the determined reserved resource from a candidate resource set, the control unit reselects a resource from the candidate resource set (Gohigh; Heading “3.4 UE-B’s behavior upon receiving a conflict indication from UE-A”. A UE-B is used to reselect a resource from a set of resources after excluding the resources in conflict among a set of resources.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Gohigh in a first embodiment to adapt a resource management approach, by incorporating Gohigh’s teaching in a second embodiment wherein an indication received is used to perform resource reselection, for the motivation to allow inter-UE coordination (Gohigh; Heading “1 Introduction”.).
Regarding claim 2, modified Gohigh further teaches the control unit determines that the overlap with the resource reserved by the second terminal occurs in a first reserved resource after a time point at which a certain time has elapsed from a time point at which the indication related to the collision is received (Gohigh; Heading “3.4 UE-B’s behavior upon receiving a conflict indication from UE-A”. After a time for reporting an indication of conflict received previously, a UE-B is used to determine the conflict of resourced with another UE via a control unit.).
Regarding claim 3, modified Gohigh further teaches the control unit determines that the overlap with the resource reserved by the second terminal occurs in a first reserved resource after a time point at which the indication related to the collision is received (Gohigh; Heading “3.4 UE-B’s behavior upon receiving a conflict indication from UE-A”. After a time for reporting an indication of conflict received previously, a UE-B is used to determine the conflict of resourced with another UE via a control unit.).
Regarding claim 4, Gohigh discloses, in a first embodiment, a terminal comprising: a reception unit configured to receive, from a plurality of terminals, a plurality of signals for reserving resources in a resource pool (Gohigh; Heading “3.1 Trigger signaling of inter-UE coordination scheme 2”. A UE-A is used to received signals for reserving resources of a set of resources via a receiving unit.); and, but a transmission unit configured to, in a case where a first reserved resource: after a time point at which an indication related to a collision is to be transmitted; or after a time point at which a certain time has elapsed from the time point at which the indication related to the collision is to be transmitted, overlaps with another reserved resource, transmit the indication related to the collision to a terminal that transmits the first reserved resource.
However, Gohigh teaches, in a second embodiment, a transmission unit configured to, in a case where a first reserved resource: after a time point at which an indication related to a collision is to be transmitted; or after a time point at which a certain time has elapsed from the time point at which the indication related to the collision is to be transmitted, overlaps with another reserved resource, transmit the indication related to the collision to a terminal that transmits the first reserved resource (Gohigh; Heading “3.6 Timeline of inter-UE coordination scheme 2”. A UE-A is used to transmit an indication of conflict of resources to a UE-B that transmitting a reservation/request of resource in an event a reserved resource is in conflict after a time at which an indication of conflict to be transmitted.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Gohigh in a first embodiment to adapt a resource management approach, by incorporating Gohigh’s teaching in a second embodiment wherein timing between transmissions is managed among UEs, for the motivation to allow inter-UE coordination (Gohigh; Heading “1 Introduction”.).
Regarding claim 5, modified Gohigh further teaches in a case where a first reserved resource: after a time point at which an indication related to a collision is to be transmitted; or after a time point at which a certain time has elapsed from the time point at which the indication related to the collision is to be transmitted, is detected not to overlap with another reserved resource, the transmission unit does not transmit the indication related to the collision to a terminal that transmits the first reserved resource (Gohigh; Heading “3.6 Timeline of inter-UE coordination scheme 2”. A UE-A is not used to transmit an indication of conflict of resources to a UE-B that transmitting a reservation/request of resource in an event a reserved resource is not in conflict after a time at which an indication of conflict to be transmitted.).
Claim 6 is directed to a communication method performed by a terminal, the communication method comprising a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claim 1, and is non-patentable over the prior art for the same reason as previously indicated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ganesan (US Pat. 12052726 B2) teaches a communication system that uses a configured feedback resource for feedback.
Shilov (US Pat. 11956782 B2) teaches a communication system that performs resource allocation and processing behabior for NR V2X sidelink communications
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT KIR whose telephone number is (571)272-6245. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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.
/ALBERT KIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights