DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Park et al. (US 2023/0254862, “Park”).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a baseband processor, comprising: one or more processors configured to:
- receive, via sidelink (SL) transmission from another UE, one or more inter-UE coordination (IUC) request messages (See S810 & S820 Fig.8, receiving IUC information request; See S1010 & S1020 Fig.10), each IUC request message of the one or more IUC request messages corresponding to a different periodicity (See ¶.94, periodic resource reservation execution, a case in which a request-based IUC operation is performed, a case in which a condition-based IUC operation is performed; See ¶.5, receiving, from a second device, latency bound related to an inter UE coordination (IUC) information report; receiving, from the second device, an IUC request; triggering the IUC information report, based on the IUC request; starting an IUC report timer related to a transmission of IUC information, based on the triggered IUC information report, wherein a timer value of the IUC report timer may be the same as the latency bound; transmitting, to the second device, the IUC information, based on the IUC report timer being running; stopping the IUC report timer, based on the IUC information being transmitted; and canceling the triggered IUC information report, based on the IUC information being transmitted); and
- respond, to the other UE via SL transmission, using one or more IUC information messages corresponding to the one or more IUC request messages (See S850 Fig.8, sending IUC response information), each IUC information message of the one or more IUC information messages indicating at least one wireless resource, associated with a time-domain validity, that the other UE is permitted to use to communicate with the UE (See ¶.94, periodic resource reservation execution, a case in which a request-based IUC operation is performed, a case in which a condition-based IUC operation is performed; See ¶.5, receiving, from a second device, latency bound related to an inter UE coordination (IUC) information report; receiving, from the second device, an IUC request; triggering the IUC information report, based on the IUC request; starting an IUC report timer related to a transmission of IUC information, based on the triggered IUC information report, wherein a timer value of the IUC report timer may be the same as the latency bound; transmitting, to the second device, the IUC information, based on the IUC report timer being running; stopping the IUC report timer, based on the IUC information being transmitted; and canceling the triggered IUC information report, based on the IUC information being transmitted),
- wherein the one or more IUC information messages are latency bound with respect to the one or more IUC request messages (See S810 Fig.8, receiving ‘latency bound related to IUC information report’; See further Figs.9-11 for latency bound), such that the one or more IUC information messages are to be received, by the other UE, within a duration of time of the latency bound (See ¶.145, referring to FIG. 8, in step S810, a transmitting UE may transmit a latency bound related to an IUC information report to a receiving UE. For example, the latency bound may be transmitted through RRC signaling. For example, the receiving UE may set a timer value for reporting the IUC information to be the same as the latency bound; See further ¶.106 and ¶.110).
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses “the latency bound is based on a resource selection window received from the other UE (See ¶.97, in the case of condition-based IUC, a selection window may be determined by a UE implementation. For example, for resource selection for transmitting IUC information, the following operation may be possible; See further Table #5).”
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses “the latency bound is based on a configured time value received via Uu radio resource control (RRC) signaling by a base station or PC5 RRC signaling by the other UE (See ¶.132-135, UE B Sets a Timer Value to UE A Through PC5 RRC Signaling. For example, UE B may determine a timer value (latency bound) and transmit the timer value to UE A through PC5 RRC signaling. The Timer is Set Based on (Pre)Configuration of a Network. For example, a timer value (latency bound) may be set by a base station and informed to the UE or may be preset).”
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses “the latency bound comprises a processing gap corresponding to a duration of time for the other UE to process IUC information messages (See ¶.168, a processor of a first device may control a transceiver to receive, from a second device, latency bound related to an inter UE coordination (IUC) information report. And, the processor of the first device may control the transceiver to receive, from the second device, an IUC request. And, the processor of the first device may trigger the IUC information report, based on the IUC request. And, the processor of the first device may start an IUC report timer related to a transmission of IUC information, based on the triggered IUC information report. For example, a timer value of the IUC report timer may be the same as the latency bound. And, the processor of the first device may control the transceiver to transmit, to the second device, the IUC information, based on the IUC report timer being running. And, the processor of the first device may stop the IUC report timer, based on the IUC information being transmitted. And, the processor of the first device may cancel the triggered IUC information report, based on the IUC information being transmitted).”
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses “the processing gap is configured by the base station (See ¶.134-135, the Timer is Set Based on (Pre)Configuration of a Network. For example, a timer value (latency bound) may be set by a base station and informed to the UE or may be preset).”
Regarding claim 11, it is a user equipment claim corresponding to the baseband processor claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claims 12-14, they are claims corresponding to claims 2, 3, & 3, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Regarding claim 15, it is a method claim corresponding to the claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
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 of this title, 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 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Khoryaev et al. (US 2025/0287399, “Khoryaev”; Provisional 63/230,016, hereinafter “Prov’016”; Provisional 63/230,557, hereinafter “Prov’557”).
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses “the one or more IUC information messages comprise a plurality of IUC information messages, each IUC information message of the plurality of IUC information messages indicating a wireless resource with a different periodicity and the plurality of IUC information messages being multiplexed using a single media access control (MAC) control element (CE) (Park, See ¶.94, (a)periodic resource reservation execution, a case in which a request-based IUC operation is performed, a case in which a condition-based IUC operation is performed, a case in which preferred resource set information is transmitted through IUC information MAC CE, a case in which non-preferred resource set information is transmitted through IUC information MAC CE)”, but Park does not explicitly disclose the limitations “the plurality of IUC information messages being multiplexed.”
However, Khoryaev discloses “the plurality of IUC information messages being multiplexed (Khoryaev, See ¶.88, the MAC CE may be desirable to use as since the MAC CE may provide flexibility in payload size as well as reasonable latency and can multiplex multiple inter-UE coordination feedback transmissions in a single transmission together with other sidelink data; Prov’557, pg.4, Aspect #6: UE procedures/methods for resource selection with inter-UE coordination feedback. UE procedures/methods for resource selection with inter-UE coordination feedback. Each TX UE may receive inter-UE coordination feedbacks from one or multiple UEs. Additionally, feedbacks may arrive at different time instances and may include assistance information having different delay / aging time and/or generated for different reference configuration settings used for feedback generation parameters. To optimize TX based resource selection procedure by considering inter-UE coordination feedback, TX UE behavior /procedures on how to process feedback information should be defined; Prov’016
PNG
media_image1.png
178
881
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “the plurality of IUC information messages being multiplexed” as taught by Khoryaev into the system of Park, so that it provides a way of being able to multiplex a plurality of inter-UE coordination feedback (Khoryaev, See ¶.88).”
Regarding claim 16, it is a claim corresponding to the claim 6 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Khoryaev and further in view of Ganesan et al. (US 2024/0430917, “Ganesan”).
Regarding claim 7, Park and Khoryaev does not explicitly disclose what Ganesan discloses “respond to the plurality of IUC request messages within a single delay bound associated with the plurality of IUC request messages (Ganesan, See Fig.5, same min latency for IUC report 1 & report 2; Examiner’s Note: Provisional 63/275,352 shows the same Figure.5).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “respond to the plurality of IUC request messages within a single delay bound associated with the plurality of IUC request messages” as taught by Ganesan into the system of Park and Khoryaev, so that it provides a way of considering the processing time at UE to do the sensing for preparing the IUC reports (Ganesan, See Fig.5 and ¶.207).
Regarding claim 17, it is a claim corresponding to the claim 7 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Khoryaev and further in view of Hui et al. (US 2023/0397168, “Hui”).
Regarding claim 8, Park does not explicitly disclose what Khoryaev and Hui disclose “the one or more IUC information messages comprise a plurality of IUC information messages (Khoryaev, as rejected in claim 6, Khoryaev discloses the multiplexing of IUC information message), each IUC information message of the plurality of IUC information messages indicating a wireless resource with a different periodicity and the plurality of IUC information messages being multiplexed in a single transport block (TB) (Hui, See 221 Fig.4A and ¶.79, the MAC 222 may multiplex a number of RLC PDUs and may attach a MAC sub-header to an RLC PDU to form a transport block; See Fig.20 and Fig.24-25, resource with a different periodicity in time domain/axis).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “each IUC information message of the plurality of IUC information messages indicating a wireless resource with a different periodicity and the plurality of IUC information messages being multiplexed” as taught by Khoryaev “multiplexing in a single transport block (TB)” as taught by Hui into the system of Park, so that it provides a way of multiplexing a number of RLC PDUs and may attach a MAC sub-header to form a signal transport block (Hui, See ¶.79).
Regarding claim 9, Park and Khoryaev do not explicitly disclose what Hui discloses “the plurality of IUC information messages are multiplexed using multiple MAC CEs (Hui, See Fig.4B and ¶.81, MAC CEs).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, Park and Khoryaev do not explicitly disclose what Hui discloses “respond to a first IUC request message, of the plurality of IUC request messages, using a first MAC CE that includes a first IUC information message corresponding to a periodicity of the first IUC request message; and respond to a second IUC request message, of the plurality of IUC request messages, using a second MAC CE that includes a second IUC information message corresponding to a periodicity of the second IUC request message that is different than the periodicity of the first IUC request message (Hui, See Fig.4B, a plurality of MAC CEs; See claim 1 and abstract, MAC CE requesting for an inter-UE coordination; See ¶.232, selecting periodic resource units; See ¶.272, time periodic of a processing delay). Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claims 18-20, they are claims corresponding to claims 8-10, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jung H Park whose telephone number is 571-272-8565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM-3:00 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/JUNG H PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights