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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/26 have been fully considered.
Applicant's arguments, starting on page 7, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Applicant argues that it would not be obvious to combine Orsino with Faccin because Orsino is directed to transmitting identification through sidelink and thus would not be obvious to combine with Faccin. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Orsino is not directed towards only transmitting through sidelink. Paragraphs 122-123 of Orsino clearly show that the UAV can broadcast its own identification information. The only feature missing is that the identification information is remote ID. Remote ID is being interpreted as a term of art referring specifically to the FAA’s required identification solution. In Orsino, this solution was not implemented. See Orsino ¶ 7 (“The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has not yet selected a technical solution.”). However, it is implemented in Faccin. See Faccin ¶ 75 (“For example, in the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) implemented Remoted Identification (Remote ID) for unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) to enable public and civil identification of UASs for safety, security, and compliance purposes. Specifically, Remote ID may enable a UAS to broadcast information that includes an identity (ID) of the UAV (e.g., an aircraft ID) in addition to various parameters related to the movement of the UAV (including location/vector, latitude/longitude, speed, direction, altitude, etc.).” It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that Orsino intends to implement remote ID, but has not yet, and then implement it according to the teachings of references that have, such as Faccin, because it is necessary for operating in the United States per the FAA. The associated rejection has been improved for clarity.
Regarding claim 2-4, 11, 13, and 17, Applicant argues that there would be no motivation to combine Bhadauria with Orsino and Faccin. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding claim 3, Applicant further argues that Examiner is taking improper official notice. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner is not taking official notice. The feature is taught by Bhadauria implicitly in paragraph 30. Regarding claim 4, Applicant further argues that Orsino does not teach an SIB dedicated to BRID. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant further argues that Orsino does not teach the features of claim 11. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Orsino teaches this feature in paragraph 126.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant argues that Zhang does not teach the BRID as in the instant claim, nor is there any motivation to combine Zhang with Orsino and Faccin, and thus the combination of Orsino in view of Faccin and Zhang does not teach this claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, 10, 14-15, and 18, Applicant argues that Zhang does not teach the BRID as in the instant claim, nor is there any motivation to combine Zhang with Orsino and Faccin, and thus the combination of Orsino in view of Faccin and Zhang does not teach this claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Applicant further argues that Orsino does not teach the features of claim 10, 14, and 15. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Orsino teaches this feature in the paragraphs cited further in this action.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orsino (US 20230394980 A1) in view of Faccin (US 20210343154 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Orsino discloses:
“A first user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the first UE to:” ([¶ 0198]: “The embodiments herein in the UAV 111 may be implemented through one or more processors, such as a processor 906 in the UAV 111 depicted in FIG. 9a, together with computer program code for performing the functions and actions of the embodiments herein.”)
“receive a first system information block (SIB) from a first cell; determine a first resource pool for transmitting a broadcast … identification based on the first SIB; and” ([¶ 0030]: “In particular, when the UE is in RRC_CONNECTED mode, the SL resource pool may be configured with dedicated RRC signalling, while for IDLE or INACTIVE mode operations, the UE may need to rely on the SL resource pool provisioned in a broadcasting signal, e.g., SIB.”)
“transmit the broadcast remote identification with the first resource pool.” ([¶ 0111]: “The first indication, that is, the information reported by the drone, and in the above referred to as “own information” to another device, e.g., UE or gNB, may comprise at least one of: i) an identifier of the UAV 111, e.g., a Drone ID, ii) a serial number of the UAV 111, e.g., Drone serial number, and iii) a location of the UAV 111, e.g., Drone location.”; [¶¶ 0122-0123]: “In some embodiments, the providing in this Action 504 may be performed via a sidelink, e.g., to a wireless device such as the wireless device 150. The sidelink may be performed via a PC5 interface. For example, in another group of examples, the UAV 111 may share its own information with nearby devices by using the PC5 interface, sidelink. In this case, the procedure may be done by using sidelink unicast, broadcast, or groupcast.”)
Orsino does not explicitly disclose the ID is a “remote” ID, wherein remote ID is being interpreted as a term of art.
However, Faccin discloses the missing feature “remote” ID ([¶ 0004]: “For example, a UAV may broadcast information to surrounding devices in a broadcast remote identification (BRID) message. The BRID message may include various parameters or indications associated with the UAV and used by other devices to detect and learn information about the UAV (e.g., including the UAV's location, identity (ID), flight information, and the like).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Orsino and Faccin, to modify the ID as disclosed by Orsino, to be part of a BRID as disclosed by Faccin. The motivation for utilizing BRID is that it is a standard means of doing so. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Orsino with Faccin to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Orsino discloses:
“A first base station (BS) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the first BS to:” ([¶ 0232]: “In other embodiments, the device 120, 121, 122, 123 may comprise the following arrangement depicted in FIG. 10b. The device 120, 121, 122, 123 may comprise a processing circuitry 1005, e.g., one or more processors such as the processor 1005, in the device 120, 121, 122, 123 and the memory 1006.”)
“transmit a first system information block (SIB), wherein the first SIB indicates a first resource pool for transmitting a broadcast … identification.” ([¶ 0030]: “In particular, when the UE is in RRC_CONNECTED mode, the SL resource pool may be configured with dedicated RRC signalling, while for IDLE or INACTIVE mode operations, the UE may need to rely on the SL resource pool provisioned in a broadcasting signal, e.g., SIB.” ; [¶ 0111]: “The first indication, that is, the information reported by the drone, and in the above referred to as “own information” to another device, e.g., UE or gNB, may comprise at least one of: i) an identifier of the UAV 111, e.g., a Drone ID, ii) a serial number of the UAV 111, e.g., Drone serial number, and iii) a location of the UAV 111, e.g., Drone location.”; [¶¶ 0122-0123]: “In some embodiments, the providing in this Action 504 may be performed via a sidelink, e.g., to a wireless device such as the wireless device 150. The sidelink may be performed via a PC5 interface. For example, in another group of examples, the UAV 111 may share its own information with nearby devices by using the PC5 interface, sidelink. In this case, the procedure may be done by using sidelink unicast, broadcast, or groupcast.”)
Orsino does not explicitly disclose the ID is a “remote” ID, wherein remote ID is being interpreted as a term of art.
However, Faccin discloses the missing feature “remote” ID ([¶ 0004]: “For example, a UAV may broadcast information to surrounding devices in a broadcast remote identification (BRID) message. The BRID message may include various parameters or indications associated with the UAV and used by other devices to detect and learn information about the UAV (e.g., including the UAV's location, identity (ID), flight information, and the like).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Orsino and Faccin, to modify the ID as disclosed by Orsino, to be part of a BRID as disclosed by Faccin. The motivation for utilizing BRID is that it is a standard means of doing so per FAA regulations, as discussed in paragraph 75. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Orsino with Faccin to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 16 and 20 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim(s) 2-4, 11, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orsino (US 20230394980 A1) in view of Faccin (US 20210343154 A1) and Bhadauria (WO2021004621A1).
Regarding claim 2, Orsino in view of Faccin discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Orsino in view of Faccin do not disclose “wherein the first resource pool is associated with a first area including coverages of a plurality of base stations (BS) or a plurality of cells.”
However, Bhadauria discloses the missing feature “wherein the first resource pool is associated with a first area including coverages of a plurality of base stations (BS) or a plurality of cells.” ([pages 11-12]: “The present invention provides (see for example claim 1) a wireless communication system, comprising a plurality of user devices, UEs, for a sidelink or direct communication using resources from a set of sidelink resources of the wireless communication system, wherein the wireless communication system is to provide a common set of sidelink resources, the common set of sidelink resources being • associated with or shared among two or more of a plurality of cells/base stations of the wireless communication system, or associated with a particular geographical area.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Orsino and Bhadauria, to modify the resource pool as disclosed by Orsino, to be associated with a plurality of cells as disclosed by Bhadauria. The motivation for doing so is that it allows the vehicle to maintain the resource pool while moving, thus decreasing unnecessary signalling and thus improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Orsino with Bhadauria to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Orsino in view of Faccin discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Orsino further discloses “wherein the first SIB includes a first ID indicating the first area associated with the first resource pool, and wherein, when the UE receives a second SIB from a second cell, the at least one processor is further configured to cause the first UE to: transmit the broadcast remote identification with the first resource pool if the second SIB includes the first ID indicating the first area; and transmit the broadcast remote identification with a second resource pool if the second SIB includes a second ID indicating a second area associated with the second resource pool, where the second area is different from the first area.” ([¶ 0030]: “In particular, when the UE is in RRC_CONNECTED mode, the SL resource pool may be configured with dedicated RRC signalling, while for IDLE or INACTIVE mode operations, the UE may need to rely on the SL resource pool provisioned in a broadcasting signal, e.g., SIB.” Wherein it is implied that the UE will use whatever the most recently assigned pool is.)
Regarding claim 4, Orsino in view of Faccin discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Orsino further discloses “the first SIB is dedicated to the broadcast remote identification and different from a third SIB for sidelink configuration.” ([¶ 0111]: “The first indication, that is, the information reported by the drone, and in the above referred to as “own information” to another device, e.g., UE or gNB, may comprise at least one of: i) an identifier of the UAV 111, e.g., a Drone ID, ii) a serial number of the UAV 111, e.g., Drone serial number, and iii) a location of the UAV 111, e.g., Drone location.”; [¶¶ 0122-0123]: “In some embodiments, the providing in this Action 504 may be performed via a sidelink, e.g., to a wireless device such as the wireless device 150. The sidelink may be performed via a PC5 interface. For example, in another group of examples, the UAV 111 may share its own information with nearby devices by using the PC5 interface, sidelink. In this case, the procedure may be done by using sidelink unicast, broadcast, or groupcast.”)
Regarding claim 11, Orsino in view of Faccin discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Orsino further discloses “wherein, when the first UE is in an idle or inactive mode, the at least one processor is further configured to cause the first UE to: enter a connected mode based on at least one of the following: a frequency for broadcast remote identification is provided by a network without a resource pool configuration; a frequency for broadcast remote identification is provided by the network without a resource pool configuration dedicated to transmitting the broadcast remote identification; a frequency for broadcast remote identification is provided by the network without an area-based resource pool configuration dedicated to transmitting the broadcast remote identification; a frequency for broadcast remote identification is provided by the network without a SIB dedicated to broadcast remote identification; a frequency for broadcast remote identification is provided by the network without a height-based resource pool configuration dedicated to transmitting the broadcast remote identification; an elevation of the first UE is greater than an elevation threshold; or a flight plan of the first UE includes a waypoint above the elevation threshold.” ([¶ 0126]: “If the UAV 111 is in RRC_IDLE/INACTIVE, when the information may need to be sent to the network, the UAV 111 may perform a cell (re)selection and start the RACH procedure in order to transit to RRC_CONNECTED.”)
Regarding claim 13, Orsino in view of Faccin discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Orsino in view of Faccin do not disclose “wherein the first resource pool is associated with a first area including coverages of a plurality of base stations (BS) or a plurality of cells.”
However, Bhadauria discloses the missing feature “wherein the first resource pool is associated with a first area including coverages of a plurality of base stations (BS) or a plurality of cells.” ([pages 11-12]: “The present invention provides (see for example claim 1) a wireless communication system, comprising a plurality of user devices, UEs, for a sidelink or direct communication using resources from a set of sidelink resources of the wireless communication system, wherein the wireless communication system is to provide a common set of sidelink resources, the common set of sidelink resources being • associated with or shared among two or more of a plurality of cells/base stations of the wireless communication system, or associated with a particular geographical area.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Orsino and Bhadauria, to modify the resource pool as disclosed by Orsino, to be associated with a plurality of cells as disclosed by Bhadauria. The motivation for doing so is that it allows the vehicle to maintain the resource pool while moving, thus decreasing unnecessary signalling and thus improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Orsino with Bhadauria to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 17 is substantially similar to claim 2 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orsino (US 20230394980 A1) in view of Faccin (US 20210343154 A1), Bhadauria (WO2021004621A1), and Zhang (US 20200264636 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Orsino in view of Faccin and Bhadauria discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Orsino in view of Faccin and Bhadauria do not disclose “wherein the first resource pool is associated with a first area including coverages of a plurality of base stations (BS) or a plurality of cells.”
However, Zhang discloses the missing feature “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the first UE to: transmit the broadcast remote identification with the first resource pool when an elevation of the first UE is greater than an elevation threshold; and transmit the broadcast remote identification with a third resource pool for sidelink transmission when the elevation of the first UE is not greater than the elevation threshold.” ([¶ 0308]: “As an example, one or more resource pools are obtained by dividing based on one or more height thresholds. FIG. 36 is a schematic diagram showing an example of a resource pool division manner based on a height interval.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Orsino and Zhang, to modify the resource pool as disclosed by Orsino, to be separated based on elevation/height thresholds as disclosed by Zhang. The motivation for doing so is that it allows further reuse of resources, thus improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Orsino with Zhang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 14-15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orsino (US 20230394980 A1) in view of Faccin (US 20210343154 A1), and Zhang (US 20200264636 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Orsino in view of Faccin discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Orsino in view of Faccin do not disclose “wherein, when at least one resource pool each associated with a height range is configured, the at least one processor is further configured to cause the first UE to determine the first resource pool based on a height of the first UE; and to transmit the broadcast remote identification with a third resource pool for sidelink transmission when the height of the first UE is not in any height range of the at least one resource pool.”
However, Zhang discloses the missing feature “wherein, when at least one resource pool each associated with a height range is configured, the at least one processor is further configured to cause the first UE to determine the first resource pool based on a height of the first UE; and to transmit the broadcast remote identification with a third resource pool for sidelink transmission when the height of the first UE is not in any height range of the at least one resource pool.” ([¶ 0308]: “As an example, one or more resource pools are obtained by dividing based on one or more height thresholds. FIG. 36 is a schematic diagram showing an example of a resource pool division manner based on a height interval.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Orsino and Zhang, to modify the resource pool as disclosed by Orsino, to be separated based on elevation/height thresholds as disclosed by Zhang. The motivation for doing so is that it allows further reuse of resources, thus improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Orsino with Zhang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, Orsino in view of Faccin discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Orsino in view of Faccin do not disclose “the at least one processor is further configured to cause the first UE to: determine whether the first resource pool is used to transmit the broadcast remote identification in a target cell based on a received handover command.”
However, Zhang discloses the missing feature “the at least one processor is further configured to cause the first UE to: determine whether the first resource pool is used to transmit the broadcast remote identification in a target cell based on a received handover command.” ([¶ 0288]: “Moreover, preferably, the device 1400 may also assist in resource allocation in the case of a cell handover. Specifically, the device 1400 may directly or indirectly forward the acquired height information of the user equipment to a handover target base station in response to a handover request from the user equipment, for the handover target base station to perform resource allocation for the user equipment.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Orsino and Zhang, to modify the used resource pool as disclosed by Orsino, to be based on handover as disclosed by Zhang. The motivation for doing so is that it prevents failed communications, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Orsino with Zhang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 14, Orsino in view of Faccin discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Orsino in view of Faccin do not disclose “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the first BS to: determine at least one resource pool each associated with a height range, and the first resource pool is included in the at least one resource pool.”
However, Zhang discloses the missing feature “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the first BS to: determine at least one resource pool each associated with a height range, and the first resource pool is included in the at least one resource pool.” ([¶ 0308]: “As an example, one or more resource pools are obtained by dividing based on one or more height thresholds. FIG. 36 is a schematic diagram showing an example of a resource pool division manner based on a height interval.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Orsino and Zhang, to modify the resource pool as disclosed by Orsino, to be separated based on elevation/height thresholds as disclosed by Zhang. The motivation for doing so is that it allows further reuse of resources, thus improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Orsino with Zhang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 15, Orsino in view of Faccin discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Orsino in view of Faccin do not disclose “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the first BS to: determine whether a first resource pool is applicable for a UE during and after handover, and transmit a flag indicating whether the first resource pool is applicable for the UE during and after the handover.”
However, Zhang discloses the missing feature “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the first BS to: determine whether a first resource pool is applicable for a UE during and after handover, and transmit a flag indicating whether the first resource pool is applicable for the UE during and after the handover.” ([¶ 0288]: “Moreover, preferably, the device 1400 may also assist in resource allocation in the case of a cell handover. Specifically, the device 1400 may directly or indirectly forward the acquired height information of the user equipment to a handover target base station in response to a handover request from the user equipment, for the handover target base station to perform resource allocation for the user equipment.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Orsino and Zhang, to modify the used resource pool as disclosed by Orsino, to be based on handover as disclosed by Zhang. The motivation for doing so is that it prevents failed communications, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Orsino with Zhang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 18 is substantially similar to claim 8 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 9, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, of the closest prior arts Orsino (US 20230394980 A1) in view of Faccin (US 20210343154 A1) and Bhadauria (WO2021004621A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Orsino in view of Faccin and Bhadauria does not disclose “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the first UE to: transmit the broadcast remote identification with the first resource pool when the number of neighboring cells detected by the first UE is greater than a cell threshold; and transmit the broadcast remote identification with a third resource pool for sidelink transmission when the number of neighboring cells detected by the first UE is not greater than the cell threshold.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 6 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Regarding claim 7, of the closest prior arts Orsino (US 20230394980 A1) in view of Faccin (US 20210343154 A1) and Bhadauria (WO2021004621A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Orsino in view of Faccin and Bhadauria does not disclose “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the first UE to: transmit the broadcast remote identification with the first resource pool when the number of neighboring cells meeting a condition of a measurement event is greater than a cell threshold; and the broadcast remote identification with a third resource pool for sidelink transmission when the number of neighboring cells meeting a condition of a measurement event is not greater than a cell threshold.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 7 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Regarding claim 9, of the closest prior arts Orsino (US 20230394980 A1) in view of Faccin (US 20210343154 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Orsino in view of Faccin does not disclose “wherein, when at least one resource pool each associated with a combination of a waypoint and a timestamp in a flight path of the first UE is configured, the first resource pool is selected from the at least one resource pool based on a current waypoint of the first UE and a current timestamp of the first UE.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 9 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 9 and contains allowable subject matter for similar reasons.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights