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 .
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. 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.
Status of Claims
1. The following is a non-final office action in response to the applicant’s submission received 08/12/2024.
2. Claims 1 - 30 are currently pending and has been examined.
Foreign Priority/Domestic benefit
There is no claim to foreign priority according to the application data sheet and filing receipt.
Domestic benefit has been claimed with regards to National Stage of PCT Application No. PCT/CN2022/087580, filed on April 19, 2022.
Oath/Declaration
1. The applicant’s oath/declaration filed on 08/12/2024 has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statements filed on 08/12/2024 is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
1. The applicant’s drawings submitted on 08/12/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim interpretation
1. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily) [MPEP 2106 Sec I, C]. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). [MPEP 2111.01 Sec II]. Thus, the Examiner interprets Applicant’s claims "in view of the specification" and does not “import into a claim limitation that are not part of the claim”.
2. When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations does not have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 25 - 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Software per se and Signal per se.
Claim 25, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because “A computer-readable medium” typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer program product, particularly when the specification is silent. Thus, a claim drawn to such a computer program product that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation of "non-transitory" to the claim.
Claims 26 – 30 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected based claim.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 19:
“…means for configuring…”
“…means for receiving…”
“…means for transmitting…”
Claims 23 and 24:
“…means for transmitting…”
Claims 20 and 21:
“…further comprising means for…”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 10 – 12, 19 – 21 and 25 – 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kaikkonen et al. (US 2022/0217717 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kaikkonen discloses: An apparatus for wireless communication (¶ 0072, the UE (figure 6) being the apparatus), comprising:
a transceiver; [¶ 0072, “TRANS10D”]
a memory configured to store instructions; and [¶ 0072, Memory 10B]
one or more processors communicatively coupled with the transceiver and the memory, [¶0072: “The UE 10 includes one or more processors DP 10A, one or more memories MEM 10B, and one or more transceivers TRANS 10D interconnected through one or more buses.”] wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
configure resources in one or more slots for communicating a sidelink synchronization signal (SLSS) while maintaining a logical numbering of multiple consecutive slots including the one or more slots; and [¶ 0083 -¶ 0084: the configuration is provided or determined from the serving cell, the UE determine such configuration to maintains the logical index sequential numbering in which the SL SSB are sent in one or more slots. See also ¶ 0093 - ¶ 0094. Taking a look at figure 1 (10ms radio frame that contains 20 slots)), the UL slots 150 are logical index sequentially numbered from 0 – 3 and are consecutive. These slots are configured with resources for the transmission of SL SSB. The same idea is applied for DL slot label 135 of figure 1]
at least one of:
receive, during at least one slot of the one or more slots, a SLSS from a node; or
transmit, during at least one slot of the one or more slots, a SLSS to one or more nodes [Figure 1 and Figure 2 in view of ¶ 0083 - ¶ 0084: This configuration is for the UE to know when to transmit/receive (DL/UL) SL SS in the designated logical indexed slot(s)].
Claims 10, 19 and 25 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 1. Such element as a computer-readable storage medium is seen in ¶ 009 of Kaikkonen.
NOTE to applicant:
The following reference also covers the limitation of the independent claims:
Wang et al. (WO 2020/199933A1), see the description of figure 5 (pattern 6, 7 and 8).
Si et al. (US 2021/0076341 A1), see abstract, ¶ 0178 - ¶0187.
Claim 2, Kaikkonen further discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, based on receiving the SLSS from the node, synchronize at least one of timing or frequency of a transceiver based on the SLSS. [See figures 1 and 2: the slots for SL SSB transmission are done in UL/DL time slot configuration, the SL SSB is used primarily in the art for synchronization in time and frequency at the receiving/transmitting UE. In other words, ¶ 0024 states that the sidelink SSB which possess PSSS is/are used primarily for initial time and frequency alignment, this is well known in the technology].
Claims 11, 20 and 26 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 2.
Claim 3, Kaikkonen further discloses: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, based on synchronizing at least one of the timing or frequency of the transceiver based on the SLSS, transmit, during at least a second slot of the one or more slots, a second SLSS to one or more nodes. [See figures 1 and 2: the slots for SL SSB transmission are done in UL/DL time slot configuration, the SL SSB is used primarily in the art for synchronization in time and frequency at the receiving/transmitting UE. In other words, ¶ 0024 states that the sidelink SSB which possess PSSS is/are used primarily for initial time and frequency alignment, this is well known in the technology].
Claims 12, 21 and 27 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 3.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 13, 22 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaikkonen et al. (US 2022/0217717 A1) in view of Si et al. (US 2021/0076341 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kaikkonen discloses: The apparatus of claim 1 (see rejected claim 1).
Kaikkonen does not disclose: wherein the resources include two or three resources over a time period of a duration that is a multiple of 100 or 160 milliseconds. However, in the same field of endeavor, Si discloses the above missing feature, see ¶ 0109, Abstract and ¶ 0178.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kaikkonen’s system in view of Si. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to apply a different periodicity of S-SSB for sidelink transmission [see ¶0177 and ¶ 109 of Si].
Claims 13, 22 and 28 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 – 9, 14 – 18, 23 - 24 and 29 – 30 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7909. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 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, Nawaz M Asad can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
MAHARISHI V. KHIRODHAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights