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 .
Double Patenting
Non-Statutory
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are drawn to the “same invention” as patent.
It has been held that the omission an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd.App.1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art. Moreover, the doctrine of double patenting seeks to prevent the unjustified extension of patent exclusivity beyond the term of a patent.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 and 19-25 of Liu et al. (US Patent No 12,052,202) (referred as Liu’s 202).
Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are drawn to the “same invention” as the first application or patent. Moreover, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the instant application are the same scope of the claims of Liu et al. (US Patent No 12,052,202) by adding the well-known elements and functions as set forth below.
Regarding claim 21, Liu’s 202 discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors individually or collectively configured to (see claim 1, lines 1-6):
transmit a sidelink synchronization signal block (S-SSB) to an other UE, wherein the S-SSB corresponds to a high priority listen-before-talk (LBT) parameter (see claim 1, lines 7-10), wherein a priority of the high priority LBT parameter is associated with a highest priority of the S-SSB (see claim 1, lines 10-11); and
communicate with the other UE based at least in part on the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter (see claim 1, lines 14-15).
Regarding claim 22, Liu’s 202 discloses the apparatus of claim 21, 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 (see claim 2).
Regarding claim 23, Liu’s 202 discloses the apparatus of claim 21, 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 (see claim 3).
Regarding claim 24, Liu’s 202 discloses the apparatus of claim 21, 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 (see claim 4).
Regarding claim 25, Liu’s 202 discloses the apparatus of claim 24, wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the S-SSB using the category two LBT, are configured to: transmit the S-SSB using the category two LBT having a duty cycle that is less than 1/20 (see claim 5).
Regarding claim 26, Liu’s 202 discloses the apparatus of claim 21, 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 (see claim 6).
Regarding claim 27, Liu’s 202 discloses the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the S-SSB using the category four LBT, are configured to: transmit the S-SSB in a smallest contention window of the category four LBT (see claim 7).
Regarding claim 28, Liu’s 202 discloses the apparatus of claim 21, 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 (see claim 8).
Regarding claim 29, Liu’s 202 discloses the apparatus of claim 21, 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) that carries the S-SSB (see claim 9).
Regarding claim 30, Liu’s 202 discloses the apparatus of claim 29, 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 (see claim 10).
Regarding claim 31, Liu’s 202 discloses the apparatus of claim 30, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine a plurality of starting positions with different cyclic prefix extension lengths for transmitting the S-SSB (see claim 11).
Regarding claim 32, Liu’s 202 discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) (see claim 19, lines 1-2), comprising:
transmitting a sidelink synchronization signal block (S-SSB) to an other UE , wherein the S-SSB corresponds to a high priority listen-before-talk (LBT) parameter, wherein a priority of the high priority LBT parameter is associated with a highest priority of the S-SSB (see claim 19, lines 3-7); and
communicating with the other UE based at least in part on the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter (see claim 19, lines 9-10).
Regarding claim 33, Liu’s 202 discloses the method of claim 32, 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 (see claim 19, lines 8-9).
Regarding claim 34, Liu’s 202 discloses the method of claim 32, wherein transmitting the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter further comprises: transmitting the S-SSB using a category one LBT (see claim 21).
Regarding claim 35, Liu’s 202 discloses the method of claim 32, wherein transmitting the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter further comprises: transmitting the S-SSB using a category two LBT (see claim 22).
Regarding claim 36, Liu’s 202 discloses the method of claim 35, wherein transmitting the S-SSB using the category two LBT further comprises: transmitting the S-SSB using the category two LBT having a duty cycle that is less than 1/20 (see claim 5).
Regarding claim 37, Liu’s 202 discloses the method of claim 32, wherein transmitting the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter further comprises: transmitting the S-SSB using a category four LBT (see claim 23).
Regarding claim 38, Liu’s 202 discloses the method of claim 37, wherein transmitting the S-SSB using the category four LBT further comprises: transmitting the S-SSB in a smallest contention window of the category four LBT (see claim 7).
Regarding claim 39, Liu’s 202 discloses the method of claim 32, wherein transmitting the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter further comprises: transmitting the S-SSB with a highest channel access priority class (CAPC) for S-SSB transmissions (see claim 24).
Regarding claim 40, Liu’s 202 discloses the method of claim 32, wherein transmitting the S-SSB with the high priority LBT parameter further comprises: transmitting 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) that carries the S-SSB (see claim 25).
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 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 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 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
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