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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: METHOD AND TERMINAL FOR TRANSMISSION OF INFORMATION WITH HIGHEST PRIORITY
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.
None of the instant claims invoke U.S.C. 112(f). A “processor” as claimed is a structural modifier.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-11, 23, 28, 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2022/0225469 A1 to LEE et al. (“Lee”).
As to claim 1, see similar rejection to claim 23. The apparatus teaches the method.
As to claim 2, Lee further discloses the method according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1; Examiner notes: this claim contains and also depends from claim 1 which includes contingent limitation pertaining to the phrase “in the case.” Per MPEP 2111.04, The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Examiner’s position is that none of the cases claimed must be performed, therefore, all of the following limitations are optional and do not need to be given patentable weight ), wherein performing the comparison of the priorities of the first transmission information, the second transmission information and the third transmission information in the case that the time-domain resource of the first transmission information, the time-domain resource of the second transmission information and the time-domain resource of the third transmission information are overlapped comprises: comparing the priorities of pieces of information transmitted on a same transmission channel firstly to determine one piece of transmission information with a higher priority in the case that the time-domain resource of the first transmission information, the time- domain resource of the second transmission information and the time-domain resource of the third transmission information are overlapped; and comparing the one piece of transmission information with the higher priority with a piece of transmission information transmitted on a different transmission channel.
As to claim 3, Lee further discloses the method according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1; Examiner notes: this claim contains and also depends from claim 1 which includes contingent limitation pertaining to the phrase “in the case.” Per MPEP 2111.04, The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Examiner’s position is that none of the cases claimed must be performed, therefore, all of the following limitations are optional and do not need to be given patentable weight ), wherein performing the comparison of the priorities of the first transmission information, the second transmission information and the third transmission information in the case that the time-domain resource of the first transmission information, the time-domain resource of the second transmission information and the time-domain resource of the third transmission information are overlapped comprises: comparing the priorities of the first transmission information and the second transmission information transmitted on the PSFCH to determine one piece of transmission information with a higher priority in the case that the time-domain resource of the first transmission information, the time-domain resource of the second transmission information and the time-domain resource of the third transmission information are overlapped; and comparing the one piece of transmission information with the higher priority with the third transmission information.
As to claim 4, see similar rejection to claim 28. The apparatus teaches the method.
As to claim 5, Lee further discloses the method according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1; Examiner notes: this claim contains and also depends from claim 1 which includes contingent limitation pertaining to the phrase “in the case.” Per MPEP 2111.04, The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Examiner’s position is that none of the cases claimed must be performed, therefore, all of the following limitations are optional and do not need to be given patentable weight ), wherein performing the comparison of the priorities of the first transmission information, the second transmission information and the third transmission information in the case that the time-domain resource of the first transmission information, the time-domain resource of the second transmission information and the time-domain resource of the third transmission information are overlapped comprises: performing the comparison of the priorities of the first transmission information, the second transmission information and the third transmission information in a predetermined sequence in the case that the time-domain resource of the first transmission information, the time-domain resource of the second transmission information and the time-domain resource of the third transmission information are overlapped.
As to claim 6, see similar rejection to claim 30. The apparatus teaches the method.
As to claim 8, see similar rejection to claim 31. The apparatus teaches the method.
As to claim 9, Lee further discloses the method according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1; Examiner notes: this claim contains and also depends from claim 1 which includes contingent limitation pertaining to the phrase “in the case.” Per MPEP 2111.04, The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Examiner’s position is that none of the cases claimed must be performed, therefore, all of the following limitations are optional and do not need to be given patentable weight ), wherein the first transmission information comprises the first transmission information received by the first terminal and the first transmission information sent by the first terminal, and the second transmission information comprises the second transmission information received by the first terminal and the second transmission information sent by the first terminal.
As to claim 10, Lee further discloses the method according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1; Examiner notes: this claim contains and also depends from claim 1 which includes contingent limitation pertaining to the phrase “in the case.” Per MPEP 2111.04, The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Examiner’s position is that none of the cases claimed must be performed, therefore, all of the following limitations are optional and do not need to be given patentable weight ), wherein the priorities are represented by priority values, and the priority values are inversely proportional to the priorities.
As to claim 11, Lee further discloses the method according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1; Examiner notes: this claim contains and also depends from claim 1 which includes contingent limitation pertaining to the phrase “in the case.” Per MPEP 2111.04, The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Examiner’s position is that none of the cases claimed must be performed, therefore, all of the following limitations are optional and do not need to be given patentable weight ), wherein the first transmission information is sidelink potential conflict indication information indicating that a transmission resource of a second terminal is overlapped with a transmission resource of another terminal, and the second transmission information is sidelink hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback information.
As to claim 23, Lee discloses a terminal (fig. 11, RX UE), comprising: a processor (para. 0272, processor); and a transceiver connected to the processor (para. 0272, transceiver); wherein the processor is configured to (para. 0272, processes controlled by the processor): perform a comparison of priorities of first transmission information, second transmission information and third transmission information in a case that a time-domain resource of the first transmission information, a time-domain resource of the second transmission information and a time-domain resource of the third transmission information are overlapped (para. 0157, a plurality of PSFCH transmissions overlap on the same time point (i.e. first and second)…priority; para. 0159, a PSFCH transmission (i.e. first or second) and a UL control/data transmission (i.e. third) overlap on the same time point…priority; para. 0191, various embodiments of the present disclosure may be combined with each other); and transmit, based on the comparison, one with a highest priority among the first transmission information, the second transmission information and the third transmission information (para. 0157, when a plurality of PSFCH transmissions overlap at the same time point, some or all of the plurality of PSFCH transmissions may be skipped/omitted based on a priority of PSSCH and/or SL data related to the PSFCH; para. 0159, from the viewpoint of a specific UE, when a PSFCH transmission and a UL control/data transmission overlap on the same time point, the PSFCH transmission may be skipped/omitted based on a priority of PSSCH and/or SL data related to the PSFCH (i.e. UL control has highest priority), a priority of UL control/data, and the maximum number of PSFCHs capable of simultaneous transmission by the UE. Here, for example, the UL control/data may include a UL channel through which SL HARQ feedback, SL BSR, and/or SL SR are transmitted/piggybacked); wherein the first transmission information and the second transmission information are both carried on a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) (para. 0157, plurality of PSFCH transmissions), and the third transmission information is transmission information other than transmission information carried on the PSFCH (para. 0159, UL control/data transmission).
As to claim 28, Lee further discloses the terminal according to claim 23, wherein the processor is further configured to: sort, according to the priorities, the first transmission information, the second transmission information and the third transmission information in the case that the time-domain resource of the first transmission information, the time-domain resource of the second transmission information and the time-domain resource of the third transmission information are overlapped (para. 0157, when a plurality of PSFCH transmissions overlap at the same time point, some or all of the plurality of PSFCH transmissions may be skipped/omitted based on a priority of PSSCH and/or SL data related to the PSFCH; para. 0159, from the viewpoint of a specific UE, when a PSFCH transmission and a UL control/data transmission overlap on the same time point, the PSFCH transmission may be skipped/omitted based on a priority of PSSCH and/or SL data related to the PSFCH (i.e. UL control has highest priority), a priority of UL control/data, and the maximum number of PSFCHs capable of simultaneous transmission by the UE. Here, for example, the UL control/data may include a UL channel through which SL HARQ feedback, SL BSR, and/or SL SR are transmitted/piggybacked); and transmit, based on the sorting, the one with the highest priority among the first transmission information, the second transmission information and the third transmission information (para. 0157, when a plurality of PSFCH transmissions overlap at the same time point, some or all of the plurality of PSFCH transmissions may be skipped/omitted based on a priority of PSSCH and/or SL data related to the PSFCH; para. 0159, from the viewpoint of a specific UE, when a PSFCH transmission and a UL control/data transmission overlap on the same time point, the PSFCH transmission may be skipped/omitted based on a priority of PSSCH and/or SL data related to the PSFCH (i.e. UL control has highest priority), a priority of UL control/data, and the maximum number of PSFCHs capable of simultaneous transmission by the UE. Here, for example, the UL control/data may include a UL channel through which SL HARQ feedback, SL BSR, and/or SL SR are transmitted/piggybacked).
As to claim 30, Lee further discloses the terminal according to claim 23, wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit other transmission information that is remaining in sequence according to the priorities; or abandon transmissions of other transmission information that is remaining (para. 0157, when a plurality of PSFCH transmissions overlap at the same time point, some or all of the plurality of PSFCH transmissions may be skipped/omitted based on a priority of PSSCH and/or SL data related to the PSFCH; para. 0159, from the viewpoint of a specific UE, when a PSFCH transmission and a UL control/data transmission overlap on the same time point, the PSFCH transmission may be skipped/omitted based on a priority of PSSCH and/or SL data related to the PSFCH (i.e. UL control has highest priority), a priority of UL control/data, and the maximum number of PSFCHs capable of simultaneous transmission by the UE. Here, for example, the UL control/data may include a UL channel through which SL HARQ feedback, SL BSR, and/or SL SR are transmitted/piggybacked).
As to claim 31, Lee further discloses the terminal according to claim 23, wherein the third transmission information comprises at least one of fourth transmission information carried on an uplink transmission channel (para. 0157, when a plurality of PSFCH transmissions overlap at the same time point, some or all of the plurality of PSFCH transmissions may be skipped/omitted based on a priority of PSSCH and/or SL data related to the PSFCH; para. 0159, from the viewpoint of a specific UE, when a PSFCH transmission and a UL control/data transmission overlap on the same time point, the PSFCH transmission may be skipped/omitted based on a priority of PSSCH and/or SL data related to the PSFCH (i.e. UL control has highest priority), a priority of UL control/data, and the maximum number of PSFCHs capable of simultaneous transmission by the UE. Here, for example, the UL control/data may include a UL channel through which SL HARQ feedback, SL BSR, and/or SL SR are transmitted/piggybacked) or long-term evolution technology (LTE) sidelink transmission information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26, 27, 29, 32-34 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200351057 A1 at para. 0336 discloses: If the priority value that is included in the SCI included in the PSCCH 2612 transmitted together when terminal 1 transmits the PSSCH in slot 1 is “1”, and the priority value included in the PSCCH for scheduling the PSSCH 2612 received from terminal 2 in slot is “4” (it is assumed that priority 1 is higher than priority 4), terminal 1 receives the PSFCH in the slot 4 2620, terminal 2 transmits the PSFCH in the slot 4 2620, and the PSFCH may include the HARQ-ACK feedback information for the PSSCH transmitted by terminal 1 in the slot 1 2600. If the QoS values corresponding to the PSSCHs transmitted by the terminals are equal to each other, whether to transmit the PSFCH may be determined so that the PSFCH including the HARQ-ACK information for the earlier transmitted PSSCH is transmitted based on the earlier transmitted PSSCH.
US 20220286243 A1 at para. 0088 discloses: In cases of overlap for transmissions and reception of the PSFCH, the UE 115-b may compare the priority field values for the PSFCH transmissions such that if the highest priority is associated with the transmitted PSFCH, then the UE 115-b may transmit the PSFCH, and if the highest priority is associated with the received PSFCH, then the UE 115-b may receive the PSFCH.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR J GHOWRWAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5691. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, ASAD NAWAZ can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
/OMAR J GHOWRWAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights