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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, 17-20 in the reply filed on 06/10/2026 is acknowledged.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NTT DOCOMO ET AL (“NTT”): "Resource allocation for reliability and latency enhancements", 3GPP DRAFT; R1-2112127, [provided by Applicant].
As to claim 1, see similar rejection to claim 17. The apparatus teaches the method.
As to claim 2, see similar rejection to claim 18. The apparatus teaches the method.
As to claim 8, NTT further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the IUC request signal #1 is included in sidelink control information (SCI) #1 transmitted by the UE #1, and the IUC request signal #2 is included in SCI #2 transmitted by the UE #2 (See "UE-Y" and "UE-Z" in Fig. 2; Section 2.2.2.1, page 8: "Now the initial situation is that UE-A detects two UE's SCls that indicated resource fully/partially overlapped each other"; It should be noted that SCI is listed in the present application as an example of IUC request, see page 37 line 13: "The IUC request signal may refer to SCI").
As to claim 17, NTT discloses a user equipment (UE) #3 (referred to as "UE-A" in Fig. 2) comprising a processor (fig. 1, illustrating vehicle hardware as UEs, i.e. processor is implicit), wherein the processor causes the UE #3 to perform: performing an operation of receiving an inter-UE coordination (IUC) request signal #1 from a UE #1 and an operation of receiving an IUC request signal #2 from a UE #2 (See "UE-Y" and "UE-Z" in Fig. 2; Section 2.2.2.1, page 8: "Now the initial situation is that UE-A detects two UE's SCls that indicated resource fully/partially overlapped each other"; It should be noted that SCI is listed in the present application as an example of IUC request, see page 37 line 13: "The IUC request signal may refer to SCI"); determining one of the UE #1 and the UE #2 as a reception target of IUC information based on priorities (Section 2.2.2.1, page 8: "Step A. which UE is UE-B among the two UEs)?" ; Section 2.2.2.1, paragraph on middle of page 9: "UE-A transmits collision indication to UE reserving the overlapped resource with lower priority, i.e. this UE becomes UEB" ; Proposal 12 at end of page 9: "UE-B is determined before RSRP comparison. The determination criteria can be the following. UE that indicated lower priority is UE-B"); and transmitting the IUC information generated based on the IUC request signal #1 or the IUC request signal #2 to the reception target (Section 2.2.2.1, page 8: "Step A. which UE is UE-B among the two UEs)?" ; Section 2.2.2.1, paragraph on middle of page 9: "UE-A transmits collision indication to UE reserving the overlapped resource with lower priority, i.e. this UE becomes UEB" ; Proposal 12 at end of page 9: "UE-B is determined before RSRP comparison. The determination criteria can be the following. UE that indicated lower priority is UE-B" ; Section 2.1.1: "A UE that sends an explicit request for inter-UE coordination information can be UE-B. A UE that received an explicit request from UE-B and sends inter-UE coordination information to the UE-B can be UE-A").
As to claim 18, NTT further discloses the UE #3 of claim 17, wherein the IUC request signal #1 includes information on a priority #1 of the UE #1, the IUC request signal #2 includes information on a priority #2 of the UE #2, the IUC information is transmitted to the UE #1 when the priority #1 is higher than the priority #2, and the IUC information is transmitted to the UE #2 when the priority #2 is higher than the priority # 1 (2.2.2.1, UE-A detects two UE’s SCIs; UE-A transmits collision indication to UE-Y, UE-Y’s priority is higher; UE-A transmits collision indication to UE-Z; UE-Z’s priority is higher).
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 (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 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) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NTT DOCOMO ET AL (“NTT”): "Resource allocation for reliability and latency enhancements", 3GPP DRAFT; R1-2112127, [provided by Applicant] in view of U.S. Publication No. 2024/0267893 A1 to VAN PHAN et al. (“Van Phan”).
As to claim 6, NTT does not expressly disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, to the UE #1, a HARQ feedback #1 for the IUC request signal #1; and transmitting, to the UE #2, a HARQ feedback #2 for the IUC request signal #2, wherein when the HARQ feedback #1 indicates ACK and the HARQ feedback #2 indicates negative ACK (NACK), the UE #1 transmitting the IUC request signal #1 associated with the ACK is determined as the reception target.
Van Phan discloses in step 404, the first apparatus is configured to receive positive or negative hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgements from the group of apparatuses in response to transmitting the inter-UE coordination request. For example, the ACKs and/or NACKs may be received from the second apparatus and the at least one other first apparatus (fig. 4A, para. 0051). Further, the apparatus terminates the designated HARQ process based on ACK received from the second apparatus (i.e. UE-A 306) of the group (i.e. reception target).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the HARQ process of Van Phan into the
invention of NTT. The suggestion/motivation would have been to enable the group members to provide feedback in an efficient manner (Van Phan, para. 0073). Including the HARQ process of Van Phan into the invention of NTT was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Van Phan.
As to claim 7, NTT does not expressly disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, to the UE #1, a HARQ feedback #1 for the IUC request signal #1; and transmitting, to the UE#2, a HARQ feedback #2 for the IUC request signal #2, wherein when the HARQ feedback #1 indicates NACK and the HARQ feedback #2 indicates ACK, the UE #2 transmitting the IUC request signal #2 associated with the ACK is determined as the reception target.
Van Phan discloses in step 404, the first apparatus is configured to receive positive or negative hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgements from the group of apparatuses in response to transmitting the inter-UE coordination request. For example, the ACKs and/or NACKs may be received from the second apparatus and the at least one other first apparatus (fig. 4A, para. 0051). Further, the apparatus terminates the designated HARQ process based on ACK received from the second apparatus (i.e. UE-A 306) of the group (i.e. reception target).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the HARQ process of Van Phan into the
invention of NTT. The suggestion/motivation would have been to enable the group members to provide feedback in an efficient manner (Van Phan, para. 0073). Including the HARQ process of Van Phan into the invention of NTT was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Van Phan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 19-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230389002 A1 discloses at para. 0346: In an example, the first wireless device may prioritize the first inter-UE coordination and/or the second inter-UE coordination based on a first priority value of the one or more first sidelink transmissions and a second priority value of the one or more second sidelink transmissions. For example, the first wireless device may prioritize the first inter-UE coordination over the second inter-UE coordination (e.g., the first inter-UE coordination has a high priority to be processed by the first wireless device) based on the first priority value being less than the second priority value. In an example, the first request may comprise/indicate the first priority value. The second request may comprise/indicate the second priority value.
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