DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in reply communication filed on 10/17/2024.
Claims 21-40 are pending.
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 .
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filled on 6/02/2026, with respect to Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejection of claims 21-40 have been fully considered and to be held the Double Patenting Rejection in obeyance until the claims are allowable.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filled on 6/02/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 21-22 and 32-33 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 21-22 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over LEE et al. (WO 2020/032698) in view of ZHAO et al. (WO 2023/082356).
Regarding claim 21, LEE discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) [see Fig. 28, page 28 lines 43-47; portable device 100], comprising:
one or more memories [see Fig. 28, page 28 lines 43-47; memory unit 130]; and
one or more processors [see Fig. 28, page 28 lines 43-47; control unit 120], coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
transmit a sidelink synchronization signal block (S-SSB) to an other UE [see Fig. 28, page 28 lines 48-49 lines, 1, 11; transmit signals (eg, data, control signals, etc.) with other wireless devices/(other UE), wherein the transmission of S-SSB (e.g., PSSS, SSSS and PBCH), see page 16 lines 1,11], wherein the S-SSB corresponds to a high priority listen-before-talk (LBT) parameter [see page 16 lines 7-10; wherein the S-SSB of service/packet associated the highest priority ]; and
communicate with the other UE based at least in part on the S-S SB with the high priority LBT parameter [page 17 lines 17-19; the UE perform SL transmission related to the high priority among LTE SL transmission or NR SL transmission].
Although, TSAI discloses all aspect set forth above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the S-SSB corresponds to a high priority listen-before-talk (LBT) parameter, comprising a channel access priority class (CAPC), wherein a priority of the high priority LBT parameter is associated with a highest priority of the S-SSB.
However, ZHAO discloses transmit a sidelink synchronization signal block (S-SSB) to an other UE [see page 15 lines 46-47); sending the S-SSB to the second terminal device], wherein the S-SSB corresponds to a high priority listen-before-talk (LBT) parameter, comprising a channel access priority class (CAPC) [page 13, lines 3-9; the priority information represents a channel access priority class (Channel Access Priority Class, CAPC)], wherein a priority of the high priority LBT parameter is associated with a highest priority of the S-SSB [page 20, lines 6-10; wherein a priority of the high priority LBT parameter is associated with a highest priority of the sidelink data which is a sidelink synchronization signal block (Sidelink Synchronization Signal Block, S-SSB) (see page 15 lines 46-47)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the S-SSB corresponds to a high priority listen-before-talk (LBT) parameter, comprising a channel access priority class (CAPC), wherein a priority of the high priority LBT parameter is associated with a highest priority of the S-SSB” as taught by ZHAO in the system of LEE, so that it would share the channel occupancy time (Channel Occupancy Time, COT) with other terminals to assist other terminals Perform channel access [see ZHAO; background].
Regarding claim 22, the combined system of LEE and ZHAO discloses the apparatus of claim 21.
LEE does not explicitly disclose wherein a priority of the high priority LBT parameter is higher than a highest priority of a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) that carries the S-SSB.
However, ZHAO discloses wherein the priority of the high priority LBT parameter is higher than the highest priority of a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) that carries the S-SSB [page 15, lines 7-8; wherein when the priority corresponding to the side line data to be transmitted is higher than or equal to the priority corresponding to the first priority information corresponding to the i-th COT shared information; wherein the sidelink data to be transmitted is a sidelink synchronization signal block (Sidelink Synchronization Signal Block, S-SSB and Physical Sidelink Shared Channel (PSSCH), see page 15 lines 41-47].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein a priority of the high priority LBT parameter is higher than a highest priority of a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) that carries the S-SSB” as taught by ZHAO in the system of LEE, so that it would share the channel occupancy time (Channel Occupancy Time, COT) with other terminals to assist other terminals Perform channel access [see ZHAO; background].
Regarding claims 32 and 33, the claims recite a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) to perform the functions of the apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) recited as in claims 21 and 22 respectively; therefore, claims 32 and 33 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 21 and 22 respectively.
Claims 23-24, 26, 28-30, 34-35, 37, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over LEE et al. (WO 2020/032698) in view of ZHAO et al. (WO 2023/082356), and further in view of WANG et al. (WO 2023/037004).
Regarding claim 23, the combined system of LEE and ZHAO discloses the apparatus of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter, are configured to: transmit the S-SSB using a category one LBT.
However, WANG discloses wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter, are configured to: transmit the S-SSB using a category one LBT [¶¶ 128, 145; wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter, are configured to: transmit the S-SSB using a category one LBT].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter, are configured to: transmit the S-SSB using a category one LBT” as taught by WANG in the combined system of LEE and ZHAO, so that it would reduce interferences and collisions to other systems and increases probabilities of successful transmissions when the energy in a CCA slot is sensed to be below the ED threshold [see WANG; ¶ 10].
Regarding claim 24, the combined system of LEE and ZHAO discloses the apparatus of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter, are configured to: transmit the S-SSB using a category two LBT.
However, WANG discloses wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter, are configured to: transmit the S-SSB using a category two LBT [¶¶ 128, 145; wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter, are configured to: transmit the S-SSB using a category two LBT].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter, are configured to: transmit the S-SSB using a category two LBT” as taught by WANG in the combined system of LEE and ZHAO, so that it would reduce interferences and collisions to other systems and increases probabilities of successful transmissions when the energy in a CCA slot is sensed to be below the ED threshold [see WANG; ¶ 10].
Regarding claim 26, the combined system of LEE and ZHAO discloses the apparatus of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter, are configured to: transmit the S-SSB using a category four LBT.
However, WANG discloses wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter, are configured to: transmit the S-SSB using a category four LBT [¶¶ 128, 145; wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter, are configured to: transmit the S-SSB using a category four LBT].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter, are configured to: transmit the S-SSB using a category four LBT” as taught by WANG in the combined system of LEE and ZHAO, so that it would reduce interferences and collisions to other systems and increases probabilities of successful transmissions when the energy in a CCA slot is sensed to be below the ED threshold [see WANG; ¶ 10].
Regarding claim 28, the combined system of LEE and ZHAO discloses the apparatus of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter, are configured to: transmit the S-SSB with a highest channel access priority class (CAPC) for S-SSB transmissions.
However, WANG discloses wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter, are configured to: transmit the S-SSB with a highest channel access priority class (CAPC) for S-SSB transmissions [¶¶ 105, 120; transmit the S-SSB with a highest channel access priority class (CAPC) for S-SSB transmissions].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter, are configured to: transmit the S-SSB with a highest channel access priority class (CAPC) for S-SSB transmissions” as taught by WANG in the combined system of LEE and ZHAO, so that it would reduce interferences and collisions to other systems and increases probabilities of successful transmissions when the energy in a CCA slot is sensed to be below the ED threshold [see WANG; ¶ 10].
Regarding claim 29, the combined system of LEE and ZHAO discloses the apparatus of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter, are configured to: transmit the S-SSB in a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) that uses an earliest contention slot or offset of a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH).
However, WANG discloses wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter, are configured to: transmit the S-SSB in a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) that uses an earliest contention slot or offset of a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) [¶ 56; transmit the S-SSB in a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) that uses an earliest contention slot or offset of a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter, are configured to: transmit the S-SSB in a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) that uses an earliest contention slot or offset of a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH)” as taught by WANG in the combined system of LEE and ZHAO, so that it would reduce interferences and collisions to other systems and increases probabilities of successful transmissions when the energy in a CCA slot is sensed to be below the ED threshold [see WANG; ¶ 10].
Regarding claim 30, the combined system of LEE and ZHAO discloses the apparatus of claim 29, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the S-SSB in the PSCCH that uses the earliest contention slot or offset of the PSSCH, are configured to: transmit the S-SSB in the PSCCH that uses the earliest contention slot or offset of the PSSCH based at least in part on a cyclic prefix extension preceding the PSSCH.
However, WANG discloses wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the S-SSB in the PSCCH that uses the earliest contention slot or offset of the PSSCH, are configured to: transmit the S-SSB in the PSCCH that uses the earliest contention slot or offset of the PSSCH based at least in part on a cyclic prefix extension preceding the PSSCH [¶¶ 100, 152; transmit the S-SSB in the PSCCH that uses the earliest contention slot or offset of the PSSCH based at least in part on a cyclic prefix extension preceding the PSSCH].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the S-SSB in the PSCCH that uses the earliest contention slot or offset of the PSSCH, are configured to: transmit the S-SSB in the PSCCH that uses the earliest contention slot or offset of the PSSCH based at least in part on a cyclic prefix extension preceding the PSSCH” as taught by WANG in the combined system of LEE and ZHAO, so that it would reduce interferences and collisions to other systems and increases probabilities of successful transmissions when the energy in a CCA slot is sensed to be below the ED threshold [see WANG; ¶ 10].
Regarding claims 34-35, 37, and 39-40, the claims recite the method of claim 32 to perform the functions of the apparatus recited as in claims 23-24, 26, and 28-29 respectively; therefore, claims 34-35, 37, and 39-40 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 23-24, 26, and 28-29 respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25, 27, 31, 36, and 38 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
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 extension fee 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.
In additional to references cited that are used for rejection as set forth above, SHIN et al. (US 2020/0153574) is also considered as relevant prior arts for rejection of in claims 1, 13, 19 (See Fig. 5A-5D, ¶¶ 115-123)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG LA whose telephone number is (571)272-2588. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IAN MOORE can be reached on 571-272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHONG LA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights