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 .
Priority
Applicant states that this application is a continuation or divisional application of the prior-filed application. A continuation or divisional application cannot include new matter. Applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship (continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part because this application contains the following matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application: claim 3’s “a second measurement of a channel busy ratio (CBR)”, claim 5’s “transmitting (which may not be referring to the transmitting in the independent claim)…”, claim 6’s “the CBR indicated by a …(SIB)”, claim 7’s “decreases…”, claim 10’s “a second measurement of a channel busy ratio (CBR)”, claim 12, “transmit (which may not be referring to the transmit in the independent claim) based…”, claim 13’s “the CBR indicated by a …(SIB)”, claim 14’s “decreases…”, claim 17’s “a second measurement of a channel busy ratio (CBR)”, claim 19’s “transmit (which may not be referring to the transmit in the independent claim) based…”, and claim 20’s “the CBR indicated by a …(SIB)” and “decreases…CBR increases”.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) was/were submitted on 7/17/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 (for claim 1), 1 (for claim 2), 1 (for claim 3), 1-3 (for claim 4), 1 (for claim 5), 11 (for claim 8), 11 (for claim 9), 11 (for claim 10), 11-13 (for claim 11), 11 (for claim 12), 11 (for claim 15), 11 (for claim 16), 11 (for claim 17), 11-13 (for claim 18), and 11 (for claim 19) of U.S. Patent No. 11,510,079. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the above claims of the instant application are a broader variation of claim(s) of the Patent.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 10 (for claim 1), 10 (for claim 2), 10 (for claim 3), 10-12 (for claim 4), 10 (for claim 5), 10 (for claim 8), 10 (for claim 9), 10 (for claim 10), 10-12 (for claim 11), 10 (for claim 12), 10 (for claim 15), 10 (for claim 16), 10 (for claim 17), 10-12 (for claim 18), and 10 (for claim 19) of U.S. Patent No. 12,003,989. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the above claims of the instant application are a broader variation of claim(s) of the Patent.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: indicate what “RSRP” stands for. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “to;” in line 2 to “to:”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 13-14 is/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.
Regarding claim(s) 10, the boundaries of “a first measurement of a first RSRP” and “a second measurement of a channel busy ratio” is/are unclear because the claim(s) does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function(s). The recited function(s) does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., one or more processors or memory, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the wireless device in a certain manner. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim(s). See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. Claims 11 and 13-14 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 10 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim(s) 13, the boundaries of “a configuration message received” is/are unclear because the claim(s) does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function(s). The recited function(s) does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., one or more processors or memory, so it is unclear whether the function(s) requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the wireless device in a certain manner. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim(s). See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
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, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190306835 by Hoang et al. (hereinafter Hoang) in view of US 20220312422 by Lee et al. (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 8, Hoang teaches a wireless device comprising (¶ 40, WTRU):
one or more processors (¶ 40, processor);
and memory (¶ 40, non-removable memory)
cause the wireless device to:
receive, from a second wireless device, sidelink control information indicating resource assignment of a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) (¶ 100, WTRU may be configured to decode the sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by other WTRUs. The WTRU may determine the location of PSSCH. For example, the WTRU may determine the location of PSSCH based on decoding information in the SCI…The WTRU may determine the reserved resource…of the transmitting WTRU by decoding the SCI. The WTRU may determine whether the channel indicated in PSSCH is available based on this information; ¶ 103, resource associated with the decoded SCI if the RSRP_PSSCH of the resources indicated in the SCI is greater than a threshold. If the RSRP_PSSCH of the resources indicated in the SCI is not greater than the threshold (e.g., less than or equal to the threshold), the WTRU may determine not to exclude the resource from being a reselection candidate; ¶ 105, WTRU may determine that a resource with a measured RSRP_PSSCH of a resource reserved by the SCI greater than a threshold is unavailable. If the RSRP_PSSCH of the resource reserved by the SCI is less than a threshold, the WTRU may consider the resource available for selection/reselection);
determine based on a channel busy ratio, a signal quality of the PSSCH (¶ 92, WTRU may perform sensing when the channel busy ratio (CBR) over a subset of subchannels becomes larger than a threshold; ¶ 94, WTRU may determine its intended sensing resources (e.g., which may be referred to as preferred resources) to perform sensing…WTRU may determine its intended sensing resources based on resources from a past sensing result. For example, the resources from the past sensing result may include resources with CBR and/or channel occupation ratio (CR) statistics that meet a pre-configured threshold; ¶ 80, sensing (e.g., measurements); ¶ 10, WTRU may evaluate a sensing result. For example, the WTRU may determine channel availability (e.g., the availability of one or more time and/or frequency resources) based on a sensing result. The WTRU may interpret results of a sensing event to determine whether a channel is available (e.g., able to be used for a transmission) or unavailable (e.g., unable to be used for a transmission). The WTRU may use a channel that it has determined to be available to transmit one or more scheduled packets; ¶ 123, WTRU may determine the availability and/or unavailability of the resource based on the RSRP or RSSI of the resource; ¶ 83, (e.g., PSSCH) resources; ¶ 100, WTRU may measure the RSSI/RSRP of the PSSCH; ¶ 123, RSRP or RSSI of the PSSCH; ¶ 124, RSRP measured for the PSSCH; ¶ 159, PSSCH resource…measured RSRP or RSSI of the PSSCH resource);
select one or more resources based on the signal quality of the PSSCH (¶ 102, WTRU may determine channel availability based on a sensing result. Channel availability may include the availability of one or more time and/or frequency resources. The WTRU may interpret results of a sensing event to determine whether a channel is available or unavailable. A channel may be considered available if it is able to be used for a transmission and unavailable if it is not able to be used for a transmission. The WTRU may use a channel that it has determined to be available to transmit one or more scheduled packets; ¶ 92, 94, 80, 10, 123, 83, 100, 123, 124, and 159),
and transmit one or more packets via the one or more resources (¶ 102, 92, 94, 80, 10, 123, 83, 100, 123, 124, and 159).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoang’s teachings with Hoang’s one or more other embodiments’ teachings. The motivation is enabling multiple wireless users to access voice, data, video, messaging, broadcast, etc., through sharing of system resources (Hoang ¶ 26).
Although Hoang teaches memory, the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to perform the above processes and transmit one or more packets via the one or more resources, Hoang does not explicitly disclose memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to: perform the above processes and transmit one or more transport blocks via the one or more resources.
Lee in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches memory storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a wireless device to: perform processes (¶ 246, Firmware or software configured to perform the descriptions, functions, procedures, proposals, methods, and/or operational flowcharts disclosed in this document may be included in the one or more processors 102 and 202 or stored in the one or more memories 104 and 204 so as to be driven by the one or more processors 102 and 202; ¶ 242, a first wireless device 100 and a second wireless device 200 may transmit radio signals through a variety of RATs (e.g., LTE and NR). Herein, {the first wireless device 100 and the second wireless device 200} may correspond to {the wireless device 100x and the BS 200} and/or {the wireless device 100x and the wireless device 100x} of FIG. 19) and transmit one or more transport blocks (¶ 132, a packet or traffic may be substituted/replaced with a transport block (TB); ¶ 146, sidelink information may include at least one of…a sidelink packet…a sidelink transport block (TB); ¶ 14, a transmission terminal having a packet or traffic to be transmitted; ¶ 148, a transmission UE having a packet or traffic to be transmitted; ¶ 34, a second device to receive sidelink information from a first device). By modifying Hoang’s teachings of memory, the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to perform the above processes and transmit one or more packets via the one or more resources with Lee’s teachings of memory storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a wireless device to: perform processes and transmit one or more transport blocks, the modification results in memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to: perform the above processes and transmit one or more transport blocks via the one or more resources.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoang’s teachings with Lee’s above teachings. The motivation is efficiently selecting N transmission resources or retransmission resources for packet or traffic transmission (Lee ¶ 14). Known work in one field of endeavor (Lee prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Hoang prior art) based on design incentives (efficiently selecting N transmission resources or retransmission resources for packet or traffic transmission) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches the wireless device of claim 8, wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to transmit based on the signal quality of the PSSCH (Lee ¶ 246 and 242; Hoang ¶ 102, 92, 94, 80, 10, 123, 83, 100, 123, 124, and 159).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Hoang’s one or more other embodiments’ teachings. The motivation is enabling multiple wireless users to access voice, data, video, messaging, broadcast, etc., through sharing of system resources (Hoang ¶ 26).
Claims 1 and 5 recite similar limitations of claims 8 and 12, respectively and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15, Hoang teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (¶ 40, non-removable memory)
comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a wireless device,
cause the wireless device to;
receive, from a second wireless device, sidelink control information indicating resource assignment of a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) (¶ 100, WTRU may be configured to decode the sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by other WTRUs. The WTRU may determine the location of PSSCH. For example, the WTRU may determine the location of PSSCH based on decoding information in the SCI…The WTRU may determine the reserved resource…of the transmitting WTRU by decoding the SCI. The WTRU may determine whether the channel indicated in PSSCH is available based on this information; ¶ 103, resource associated with the decoded SCI if the RSRP_PSSCH of the resources indicated in the SCI is greater than a threshold. If the RSRP_PSSCH of the resources indicated in the SCI is not greater than the threshold (e.g., less than or equal to the threshold), the WTRU may determine not to exclude the resource from being a reselection candidate; ¶ 105, WTRU may determine that a resource with a measured RSRP_PSSCH of a resource reserved by the SCI greater than a threshold is unavailable. If the RSRP_PSSCH of the resource reserved by the SCI is less than a threshold, the WTRU may consider the resource available for selection/reselection);
determine based on a channel busy ratio, a signal quality of the PSSCH (¶ 92, WTRU may perform sensing when the channel busy ratio (CBR) over a subset of subchannels becomes larger than a threshold; ¶ 94, WTRU may determine its intended sensing resources (e.g., which may be referred to as preferred resources) to perform sensing…WTRU may determine its intended sensing resources based on resources from a past sensing result. For example, the resources from the past sensing result may include resources with CBR and/or channel occupation ratio (CR) statistics that meet a pre-configured threshold; ¶ 80, sensing (e.g., measurements); ¶ 10, WTRU may evaluate a sensing result. For example, the WTRU may determine channel availability (e.g., the availability of one or more time and/or frequency resources) based on a sensing result. The WTRU may interpret results of a sensing event to determine whether a channel is available (e.g., able to be used for a transmission) or unavailable (e.g., unable to be used for a transmission). The WTRU may use a channel that it has determined to be available to transmit one or more scheduled packets; ¶ 123, WTRU may determine the availability and/or unavailability of the resource based on the RSRP or RSSI of the resource; ¶ 83, (e.g., PSSCH) resources; ¶ 100, WTRU may measure the RSSI/RSRP of the PSSCH; ¶ 123, RSRP or RSSI of the PSSCH; ¶ 124, RSRP measured for the PSSCH; ¶ 159, PSSCH resource…measured RSRP or RSSI of the PSSCH resource);
select one or more resources based on the signal quality of the PSSCH (¶ 102, WTRU may determine channel availability based on a sensing result. Channel availability may include the availability of one or more time and/or frequency resources. The WTRU may interpret results of a sensing event to determine whether a channel is available or unavailable. A channel may be considered available if it is able to be used for a transmission and unavailable if it is not able to be used for a transmission. The WTRU may use a channel that it has determined to be available to transmit one or more scheduled packets; ¶ 92, 94, 80, 10, 123, 83, 100, 123, 124, and 159),
and transmit one or more packets via the one or more resources (¶ 102, 92, 94, 80, 10, 123, 83, 100, 123, 124, and 159).
Although Hoang teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium, one or more processors of a wireless device (¶ 40), cause the wireless device to perform the above processes and transmit one or more packets via the one or more resources, Hoang does not explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a wireless device, cause the wireless device to: perform the above processes and transmit one or more transport blocks via the one or more resources.
Lee in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a wireless device, cause the wireless device to: perform processes (¶ 246, Firmware or software configured to perform the descriptions, functions, procedures, proposals, methods, and/or operational flowcharts disclosed in this document may be included in the one or more processors 102 and 202 or stored in the one or more memories 104 and 204 so as to be driven by the one or more processors 102 and 202; ¶ 242, a first wireless device 100 and a second wireless device 200 may transmit radio signals through a variety of RATs (e.g., LTE and NR). Herein, {the first wireless device 100 and the second wireless device 200} may correspond to {the wireless device 100x and the BS 200} and/or {the wireless device 100x and the wireless device 100x} of FIG. 19) and transmit one or more transport blocks (¶ 132, a packet or traffic may be substituted/replaced with a transport block (TB); ¶ 146, sidelink information may include at least one of…a sidelink packet…a sidelink transport block (TB); ¶ 14, a transmission terminal having a packet or traffic to be transmitted; ¶ 148, a transmission UE having a packet or traffic to be transmitted; ¶ 34, a second device to receive sidelink information from a first device). By modifying Hoang’s teachings of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, one or more processors of a wireless device, cause the wireless device to perform the above processes and transmit one or more packets via the one or more resources with Lee’s teachings of a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a wireless device, cause the wireless device to: perform processes and transmit one or more transport blocks, the modification results in a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a wireless device, cause the wireless device to: perform the above processes and transmit one or more transport blocks via the one or more resources.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoang’s teachings with Lee’s above teachings. The motivation is efficiently selecting N transmission resources or retransmission resources for packet or traffic transmission (Lee ¶ 14). Known work in one field of endeavor (Lee prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Hoang prior art) based on design incentives (efficiently selecting N transmission resources or retransmission resources for packet or traffic transmission) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 19 recite similar limitations of claim 12 and is thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoang and Lee and in further view of US 20200146000 by Shin et al. (hereinafter Shin).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the wireless device of claim 8.
Although the combination teaches the sidelink control information, the combination does not explicitly disclose but Shin in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the sidelink control information further comprises a number of demodulation reference signal (DMRS) antenna ports (¶ 182 and Table 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Shin’s above teachings. The motivation is efficiently performing AGC in an NR sidelink communication system (Shin ¶ 69). Known work in one field of endeavor (Shin prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Hoang prior art) based on design incentives (efficiently perform AGC in an NR sidelink communication system) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 2 and 16 recite similar limitations of claim 9 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 20 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.
Claims 3-4, 10-11, 13-14, and 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and/or would be allowable if Applicant files terminal disclaimer(s) to alleviate the double patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER P CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7152. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 A.M - 6 P.M. ET M-F.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/PETER P CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476 /AYAZ R SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2476