DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment filed 9/3/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 14-17, and 20 have been amended. The previous rejections under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn in light of the present amendments.
Claims 1-4 and 7-20 remain pending.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The amended language added to claims 1, 17, and 20 describes characteristics of “a conclusion of transmissions in a shared portion of the COT” and “a duration of the second wireless device transmission”, but the claims do not positively recite any transmissions by the second wireless device in a shared portion of the COT”.
Claims 2-4, 7-16, 18, and 19 are rejected based on dependence from claims 1 and 17, respectively.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 17-20 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganesan et al. (US20250287421A1), hereafter Ganesan, in view of Abreu et al. (US20250365742A1), hereafter Abreu.
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 20,
Ganesan (Title: Sidelink LBT Type Indication for UE to UE COT Sharing) discloses a wireless device (Fig. 1-2B and 10, UE 104) comprising an antenna (Fig. 1; paragraph 104), a radio operably coupled to the antenna (Transmitter/Receiver 1010-1012); and baseband processor comprising processing elements and interfaces (Fig. 10, processing subsystem 1006) operably coupled to the radio (Fig. 10, via bus) configured to perform a method (i.e. Fig. 4, 5, 11-13) for sharing a COT in a SL channel comprising performing a CCA (i.e. LBT) to initialize the COT (paragraph 8, 73, 108; LBT based on clear channel assessment procedure); determininga portion of the COT (Fig. 3A, portions 312-318) may be shared and transmitting (Fig. 4, step 405; Fig. 5, step 505; Fig. 11, step 1105), by the first wireless device (Fig. 4, 5; UE-1) to one or more qualifying wireless devices (Fig. 5, UE-2/104b and UE-3/104c), first SCI comprising: a destination ID of the one or more qualifying devices, an offset, and a SL duration that defines a duration of time available for the one or more qualifying wireless devices to share the COT (paragraph 55-56, 67-73, 113; COT sharing indicators include CO duration, destination ID offset).
Ganesan discloses indicating a conclusion of transmissions in a shared portion of the COT (Fig. 3A; paragraph 60-; each of COT shared portions 314-318 defines starting/ending times within COT 310) and an expected value of the duration of the second wireless device transmission indicated as an offset (paragraph 84; offset period defines time UE is expected to transmit data) but does not expressly disclose receiving information by the first device from one of the qualifying devices indicating a conclusion and expected duration of transmissions in a shared portion of the COT.
Abreu discloses analogous art (paragraph 69, 70; CCA/LBT/SL including 1st and 2nd stage SCIs) including receiving information by the first device from one of the qualifying devices indicating a conclusion and expected duration of transmissions in a shared portion of the COT (Fig. 12; paragraphs 177; response to acquiring shared COT includes expected time interval of the channel access based on the sharing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Ganesan by receiving information by the first device from one of the qualifying devices indicating a conclusion and expected duration of transmissions in a shared portion of the COT, as shown by Abreu, thereby enabling the remaining duration of the shared COT to be fully utilized as suggested in Ganesan (Fig. 5; paragraphs 85-86).
Regarding claims 2 and 18,
The combination of Ganesan and Abreu discloses the SL duration indicates the remaining duration of the COT (paragraph 31, 48, 56, 71-73; “remaining duration”).
Regarding claims 3-4,
The combination of Ganesan and Abreu discloses resuming transmission in the COT, by the first wireless device, after or prior to the end of the SL duration (Fig. 3B, paragraph 70-71; initiating UE-1 continues to transmit in the remaining CO duration if a second UE does not utilize the allocated/shared COT resources).
Regarding claims 7 and 19,
The combination of Ganesan and Abreu discloses performing a second CCA, by the first wireless device, prior to resuming transmission/in the COT prior to the end of the SL duration (Fig. 3B, paragraph 70-71; initiating UE-1 continues to transmit in the remaining CO duration after monitoring the shared COT for a preset duration showing that the second UE does not utilize the allocated/shared COT resources).
Regarding claim 8,
The combination of Ganesan and Abreu discloses the resumed transmission has a Channel Access Priority Class (CAPC) value indicating a higher priority than potential transmissions from the one or more qualifying wireless devices (paragraph 65).
Regarding claim 9,
The combination of Ganesan and Abreu discloses the first SCI further comprising a second offset and a second SL duration, wherein the second offset and second SL duration define a second duration of time available for the one or more qualifying wireless devices to share the COT (paragraph 62-71, 113; SL duration/offset for each of multiple UEs).
Regarding claims 10 and 11,
The combination of Ganesan and Abreu discloses the offset and SL duration are repeated at regular intervals across the COT (Fig. 6-9; paragraph 48, 61-63, 74, 88-93, 112-120; interlacing scheme among plurality of UEs) and the destination ID indicates a second wireless device (Fig. 2B, 4, 5, 11-13; paragraph 56-72, 111-113).
Regarding claim 12-13,
The combination of Ganesan and Abreu discloses the first SCI further comprising: a second offset and a second SL duration, wherein the offset and SL duration indicate a first slot available for sharing associated with a first qualifying wireless device of the one or more qualifying wireless devices, and the second offset and second SL duration indicate a second slot available for sharing associated with a second qualifying wireless device of the one or more qualifying wireless devices (paragraph 62-71, 113; SL duration/offset for each of multiple UEs).
3. Claims 14-16 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganesan and Abreu, as shown above in rejecting claim 1, and further in view of Zhu et al. (US20250071564A1), hereafter Zhu.
Regarding claims 14 and 15,
The combination of Ganesan and Abreu does not expressly show default values of zero offset and duration indicating the second wireless device is not sharing COT.
Zhu discloses analogous art (Title: Sharing a COT of FBE) including default values of zero offset and duration indicating that second wireless device is not sharing the COT (paragraph 163-166; when downlink transmission exactly occupies the COT, updated duration of 0 signaled indicating device not sharing the COT).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Ganesan and Abreu by providing default values of zero offset and duration indicating that the second wireless device is not sharing the COT, as shown by Zhu, thereby improving channel efficiency of frame-based equipment to ensure devices accurately occupy a COT segment that is capable of being shared.
Regarding claim 16,
The combination of Ganesan, Abreu, and Zhu discloses the default values comprise an offset value indicating an expected duration of a transmission from the second wireless device (Zhou: paragraph 163-166; when downlink transmission exactly occupies the COT, updated duration of 0 signaled indicating device not sharing the COT). See motivation above.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on the newly-cited Abreu reference for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
5. Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 8-10 of the Amendment, Applicant contends the present amendments “allow the initiating UE that it can resume transmissions earlier, if needed. Applicant further contends the European counterpart of the present application indicated the analogous subject matter now added to claims 1, 17, and 20 as not disclosed nor rendered obvious by the prior art.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, findings in the European counterpart application and non-binding to prosecution under U.S. practice, and these documents have not been submitted in an appropriate IDS in the present application. The claim rejections above based on the combination of Ganesan and Abreu are proper.
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 GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
