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 . Claims 1-12 are currently 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, 4-9, 10, and all dependent thereon, 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the QCL relationship” (line 11), thus rending the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, this term is interpreted as “[[the]] a QCL relationship”
This claim is separately rejected as indefinite because it references “the UE” (lines 8, 9, and 11), whereas the preamble sets forth “at least one user equipment (UE).” It is unclear if the later instances of “UE” refer to one or potentially more UEs. For purposes of examination, the later instances of the term “UE” are interpreted as one or more UEs.
The claim is further separately rejected because it is directed to an apparatus, while including functionality and/or potential functionality of a different entity (i.e. a UE or UEs). For instance, the claim reads: a message “is receivable by the UE” (line 8); “the UE is capable of communicating based on direct communication” (lines 9-10); “the QCL relationship between the apparatus (102) and the UE is determinable based on the QCL-discovery message” (lines 11-12). It is unclear if the functionality of the one or more UEs limits the apparatus of claim 1. For purposes of examination, the said limitations (i.e. functionality of different entities) is interpreted as limiting the claim.
Regarding claim 4: the limitation “the QCL-discovery message being associable with a sub-procedure of QCL-determination” (lines 2-3) renders the claim indefinite. The metes and bounds are left highly ambiguous by this language – that the claimed QCL-discovery message is able to be associated with a part of a QCL determination. As a first point, any association with a “sub-procedure [of determination]” appears as if also an association with a full procedure, by nature of the generic definition of the word “associable.” Therefore, it is unclear what role the term “sub-procedure” plays in limiting the claim. As a second point, it is unclear if the “QCL determination” is a reference to the “QCL relationship…[that] is determinable” (claim 1, lines 11-12) based on the said QCL-discovery message. For purposes of examination, claim 4 is interpreted such that the QCL-discovery message is used in some manner of QCL determination.
Regarding claim 5: it is unclear if the term “QCL determination” (line 2) is referring back to a limitation in claim 1 (e.g. “QCL relationship… is determinable; claim 1, lines 11-12). If it is, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. If it is not referring back to a limitation in claim 1, it is nevertheless confusing as to whether this determination, potentially performed outside of the apparatus, limits the claim which is direct to an apparatus. Similarly, it is confusing as to whether the functionality of a node (i.e. “indicated by a node”) limits the claim which is direct to an apparatus. For purposes of examination, the said claim language of the node is interpreted as limiting the claim.
Regarding claim 6: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the node” (line 2). For purposes of examination, this term is interpreted as “[[the]] a node.”
This claim is separately rejected because it is confusing as to whether the functionality of a node (i.e. “indicated by a node”) limits the claim which is direct to an apparatus. For purposes of examination, the said claim language of the node is interpreted as limiting the claim.
Regarding claim 7: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the system” (line 2). For purposes of examination, this term is interpreted as [wherein system information is broadcasted on demand by the apparatus].
Regarding claim 8: the limitation “a plurality of parameters (RS)” (line 3), as well as reference to a singular “RS” (at lines 4 and 6), renders the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, the said limitation is interpreted as at least one reference signal (RS).
Regarding claim 10: the claim is directed to a method including a single discovery step (line 4). The following “wherein” clause (lines 6-8) describes potential functionality (i.e. “determinable”, “generatable”, “communicable”). However, it is unclear if this said clause provides steps of the claimed method, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
The “wherein” clause that follows states “wherein communication… is based on direct communication” (lines 7-9). However, it is unclear if this communication is a step of the claimed method, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
The claim is separately rejected as indefinite because it is directed to a method, while significantly reciting language directed to the architecture of an apparatus, thus blurring the statutory classes. It is unclear if an apparatus or single generic step is being claimed.
For purposes of examination, claim 10 is interpreted such that all claim language is given patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 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 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries 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.
9. Claims 1-6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2020/0413391 A1 (hereinafter “Luo`391”)1 or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Luo`391 in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0413374 A1 (hereinafter “Luo`374”).
Regarding claims 1 and 10: Luo`391 teaches an apparatus suitable for use for direct communication in association with at least one user equipment (UE) proximal to the apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to generate a Quasi Colocation (QCL)-discovery message; and a transmitter coupled to the processor, the transmitter configured to communicate the QCL-discovery message, wherein the QCL-discovery message is receivable by the UE (see, e.g., figure 3, [0005], [0102]-[0105]; QCL generation, signaling, and receiving),
wherein the apparatus and the UE are capable of communicating based on direct communication (see, e.g., [0079], [0086]; direct communication), and
wherein the QCL relationship between the apparatus and the UE is determinable based on the QCL-discovery message (see, e.g., [0073], [0085], [0102]-[0105]).
To the extent the system taught in Luo does not inherently include wherein the signaling is via a “discovery” message, this feature is nevertheless taught in Luo`374 (see, e.g., [0056], [0103], [0109]-[0110]; note also overlapping teaching with respect to QCL parameter signaling). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Luo`374, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Luo`391, in order to improve control information dissemination.
The rationale set forth above regarding the apparatus of claim 1 is applicable to the method of claim 10.
Regarding claim 2: Luo`391 alternatively modified by Luo`374 further teaches [wherein] the processor is configurable to generate the QCL-discovery message based on a Proximity Services (ProSe) framework using vehicle QCL-specific information (see, e.g., Luo`391 [0004], [0028], [0037]; and/or Luo`374 [0054], [0084]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 2.
Regarding claims 3 and 12: Luo`391 alternatively modified by Luo`374 further teaches wherein direct communication corresponds to sidelink communication (see, e.g., Luo`391 [0004], [0005], [0040], [0075]; and/or Luo`374 [0099], [0102]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 3.
The rationale set forth above regarding the apparatus of claim 3 is applicable to the method of claim 12.
Regarding claim 4: Luo`391 alternatively modified by Luo`374 further teaches the QCL-discovery message being associable with a sub-procedure of QCL-determination (see, e.g., Luo`391 figure 3, [0005], [0102]-[0105]; QCL generation, signaling, and receiving; and/or Luo`374 [0075]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 4.
Regarding claim 5: Luo`391 alternatively modified by Luo`374 further teaches QCL-determination being based on dedicated sidelink resources indicated by a node initiating sidelink communication (see, e.g., Luo`391 [0040]; and/or Luo`374 [0099], [0102]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6: Luo`391 alternatively modified by Luo`374 further teaches the node initiating sidelink communication using one of system information and Medium access control (MAC)-level signaling (see, e.g., Luo`391 [0099], [0123], [0156]; and/or Luo`374 [0109]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 6.
Regarding claim 9: Luo`391 alternatively modified by Luo`374 further teaches to generate and communicate a QCL-notification message (see, e.g., Luo`391 figure 3, [0005], [0102]-[0105]; QCL generation, signaling, and receiving; and/or Luo`374 [0005]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 9.
Regarding claim 11: Luo`391 alternatively modified by Luo`374 further teaches at least one of: a determination step wherein a processing task of QCL-determination is performed, QCL-determination being a sub-procedure associated with QCL-discovery; a notification step wherein a QCL-notification message is generatable and communicable from the apparatus; and an output step wherein at least one output signal is communicable from the apparatus, the at least one output signal comprising at least one of the QCL-discovery message and the QCL-notification message (see, e.g., Luo`391 figure 3, [0005], [0102]-[0105]; and/or Luo`374 [0056], [0103], [0109]-[0110]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 10 is applicable to claim 11.
10. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo`391, alternatively in view of by Luo`374, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/035184 A1 (hereinafter “Cirik”).
Regarding claim 7: Luo`391 alternatively modified by Luo`374 does not explicitly state [wherein] the system information [is] capable of being broadcasted on demand. However, this feature is taught by Cirik (see, e.g., [0215]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Cirik, such as the broadcast functionality, within the system of Luo`391 alternatively modified by Luo`374, in order to conserve resources.
11. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo`391, alternatively in view of by Luo`374, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0124753 A1 (hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 8: Luo`391 alternatively modified by Luo`374 further teaches QCL determination being via Medium Access Control (MAC) Control Elements (CE) associable with a plurality of parameters (RS), as well as bit indication (see, e.g., Luo`391 [0076], [0085], [0092], [0099]; and/or Luo`374 [0109]-[0111]), but does not explicitly state wherein usage of an RS is indicated through bit map by manner of using at least one octet, and wherein "1" indicates that the RS is being used and "0" indicates that the RS is not being used. However, this feature is taught by Kim (see, e.g., [0033], [0091], [0102]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Kim, such as the indication functionality, within the system of Luo`391 alternatively modified by Luo`374, in order to enable reference signal selection or indication.
Relevant Art
12. The following prior art not relied upon in this Office action is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See form PTO-892.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
1 Luo`391 was cited in Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement submitted August 28, 2024 (U.S. Patent Application Publications, cite no. 4).
Prosecution Insights