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 .
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 7/10/26.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In each of the independent claims and taking claim 1 as an example, the limitations “determining that the reserved resource is associated with a priority level PRX that is less than a transmission priority level PTX associated with the UE; and
excluding the reserved resource from the candidate resource set based at least in part on the determining” are new matter. The original specification does not provide support for these limitations and in particular, for the newly added limitation “less” in combination with the “excluding …” limitation. In paragraph no. 0082 of the specification, it discloses “At the end of 712, the sample candidate resource set S.sub.A comprises one or more candidate resources. In some embodiments, the one or more candidate resources comprise a set of reserved resources within the resource selection window. In some embodiments, the set of reserved resources comprises an RSRP level less than a predefined exclusion RSRP threshold and has a data priority level P.sub.RX less than a data priority level P.sub.TX of the UE that is choosing the set of reserved resources” (emphasis added). Based on this disclosure, it appears that the claimed “reserved resource” (i.e., the reserved resource that is reserved by at least one other UE) is not excluded from the candidate resource set but rather included in the candidate resource set when the priority level PRX is less than PTX. Hence, the new matter rejection.
The dependent claims fall with their respective independent claims.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
In each of the independent claims and taking claim 1 as an example, the limitations “determining that the reserved resource is associated with a priority level PRX that is less than a transmission priority level PTX associated with the UE; and
excluding the reserved resource from the candidate resource set based at least in part on the determining” are confusing. Typically, when the priority level PRX is less than a transmission priority level PTX of a transmitting UE, the reserved resource of the other UE is not excluded from the candidate resource set but rather, this reserved resource remains in the candidate resource set for use by the transmitting UE. Hence, it is not clear why such a lower priority reserved resource is excluded from the candidate resource set.
The dependent claims fall in view of their respective independent claims. For purposes of applying prior art, the above-identified claim limitations are interpreted to read on the prior art, i.e., the lower priority reserved resource received from another UE is not excluded from the candidate resource set.
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.
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) 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., US 2021/0105760, (“Chen”), in view of Sarkis et al., US 2021/0153167, (“Sarkis”), and Yu et al., US 2022/0394560, (“Yu”), newly cited.
Independent Claims
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches “A method performed by a UE comprising:
selecting a candidate resource set comprising a plurality of candidate resources from a resource selection window, wherein the plurality of candidate resources includes a reserved resource that is reserved by at least one other UE (paragraph no. 0036, “The sensing UE 102 can then select resources for transmission(s) or retransmission(s) from within a resource selection window. For example, the resource selection window starts after the trigger for transmission, and cannot be longer than a remaining latency budget of a to-be-transmitted transport block. Based on the SCIs from the other UEs and the measurements as described above, selected or reserved resources by the other UEs in the selection window with PSSCH-RSRP above a threshold are excluded from being candidates by the sensing UE 102”);
determining that the reserved resource is associated with a priority level PRX that is than a transmission priority level PTX associated with the UE (paragraph no. 0036, “The threshold can be set according to priorities of the traffic (e.g., priorities associated with respective transport blocks) of the sensing UEs and the other transmitting UEs. Thus, a higher priority transmission from the sensing UE 102 can occupy resources which are reserved by a transmitting UE with sufficiently low PSSCH-RSRP and sufficiently lower-priority traffic”); and
excluding the reserved resource from the candidate resource set based at least in part on the determining” (paragraph no. 0036, “Based on the SCIs from the other UEs and the measurements as described above, selected or reserved resources by the other UEs in the selection window with PSSCH-RSRP above a threshold are excluded from being candidates by the sensing UE 102. The threshold can be set according to priorities of the traffic (e.g., priorities associated with respective transport blocks) of the sensing UEs and the other transmitting UEs”).
While Chen discloses comparing the priorities of the transmissions of the sensing UE and other UEs and transmitting a higher priority transmission of the sensing UE, it does not teach the “less” limitation included within the “determining … associated with the UE” claimed feature. In other words, the entirety of the limitation “determining that the reserved resource is associated with a priority level PRX that is less than a transmission priority level PTX associated with the UE” is not taught by Chen.
Sarkis teaches the limitation “determining that the reserved resource is associated with a priority level PRX that is less than a transmission priority level PTX associated with the UE” (paragraph no. 0061, “In some aspects, the UE 502 may compare a priority associated with its transmission with a priority of the transmission on the overlapping resources. If the transmission of the UE 502 has a higher priority, the UE 502 may transmit on the selected resources”; see also, paragraph no. 0070, “if the received reservation has the same or a lower priority, the UE may not reselect the overlapping resources”; in other words, the reserved resource from the other UE is not excluded from the candidate resource set of the UE 502).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Chen by incorporating the teachings of Sarkis to enable the transmitting/sensing UE to not reselect the overlapping resources based on its higher priority, as suggested by Sarkis in paragraph no. 0070.
Regarding the newly added claim limitations in claim 1, Chen does not teach but Yu teaches “wherein selecting the candidate resource set comprises choosing an initial group of reserved resources having at least one reserved resource with a reference signal received power (RSRP) level below an RSRP threshold, and choosing a subsequent group of reserved resources having at least one reserved resource with a RSRP level below a second RSRP threshold, wherein the second RSRP threshold is obtained by increasing the RSRP threshold by 3 decibels (dB)” (see paragraph nos. 0067-0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Chen and Sarkis by incorporating the teachings of Yu to facilitate the resource selection procedure of a UE, as suggested by Yu in paragraph no. 0066.
Regarding independent claims 8 and 15, these independent claims are corresponding BB processor and UE claims of the method claim 1 and recite similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 1 applies with equal force to these independent claims and as further amplified below to highlight the minor differences between the claims.
Regarding further independent claims 8 and 15, see Fig. 11 of Chen for the claimed structural elements of each claim. See also, Fig. 12 of Sarkis.
Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Chen teaches “determining an RSRP associated with the reserved resource is greater than the RSRP threshold; and excluding the reserved resource from the candidate resource set based at least in part on determining that the RSRP associated with the reserved resource is greater than the RSRP threshold” (paragraph no. 0036). Chen does not teach that the RSRP threshold is the “second RSRP threshold” as recited in these claims. Yu teaches such a second RSRP threshold, see paragraph no. 0070. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Chen, Sarkis, and Yu by incorporating the additional teachings of Yu to further facilitate the resource selection procedure of a UE, as suggested by Yu in paragraph no. 0066. In other words, using the higher or second RSRP threshold would lessen the interference from those UEs closer to the transmitting UE.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Chen teaches “determining that the reserved resource is associated with a reference signal received power (RSRP) that is greater than an RSRP threshold; and excluding the reserved resource from the candidate resource set based at least in part on the determination that the RSRP associated with the reserved resource is greater than the RSRP threshold” (paragraph no. 0036).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Chen does not teach but Sarkis teaches “wherein the priority level PRX is received in a sidelink control information (SCI)” (paragraph no. 0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Chen, Sarkis and Yu by incorporating the additional teachings of Sarkis to enable the UE to receive the priority information via a SCI transmitted by another UE and such a means is considered well known in the art for conveying the priority information of one UE to another.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, Chen does not teach but Sarkis teaches “wherein the plurality of candidate resources includes one or more reserved resources that are reserved by the at least one other UE, and in response to the determination, the method further comprises: selecting candidate resources of the candidate resource set based on a lowest data priority level of the one or more reserved resources; and transmitting a transport block (TB) over sidelink using the candidate resource set” (paragraph no. 0070, “if the received reservation has the same or a lower priority, the UE may not reselect the overlapping resources”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Chen, Sarkis and Yu by incorporating the additional teachings of Sarkis to enable the sensing UE to transmit its higher priority transmission using the selected resource.
Claim(s) 7, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Sarkis and Yu as applied to claims 6, 13, 19 above, and further in view of Hui et al., US 2021/0050979, (“Hui”).
Chen does not teach but Hui teaches “wherein the candidate resources are selected by increasing a data priority threshold and repeatedly choosing subsequent sets of the one or more reserved resources with the lowest data priority level until a number of candidate resources chosen from the resource selection window satisfies a predefined candidate resource number” (Fig. 32 and paragraph no. 0250, “In response to excluding the first radio resources and/or the second radio resources from the set of radio resources, the wireless device may determine whether remaining radio resources in the set of radio resources are enough based on a condition. In an example, the condition may be the amount of the remaining radio resources in the set of radio resources being more than a certain percentage of all the candidate radio resources within the second time window. If the condition is not met, the wireless device may increase the priority threshold with a value. The wireless device may repeat the excluding step for the second radio resources iteratively until the condition being met”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Chen, Sarkis and Yu by incorporating the teachings of Hui to enable the sensing UE to obtain a sufficient number of resources for SL transmission with other UEs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 have been 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON TAE C. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/WON TAE C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights