DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) -(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action, 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. See MPEP 2304.01(c).
In particular, the Examiner is unable to find subject matter support in the following foreign application(s): CN202210319594.7. With regard to foreign application, CN202210319594.7, the Examiner is unable to locate a suitable English translation of the document. An English translation of Z is required to obtain the priority date associated with said application number.
Thus, the current benefit accords to the PCT application with filing date 03/20/2023 because the PCT application, PCT/CN2023/082584, provides adequate support or enablement for the subject matter of the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 15-17, and 21 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 17, and 21 recite “LTE,” “V2X,” and “NR.” Acronyms must be specified.
Claims 15 and 16 recite “SCI.” Acronyms must be specified.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a determination module, configured to in claim(s) 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 18 recite the limitations "the content" and “the report” in “wherein the content of the report.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 2, 18 recite the limitations “the type” in “the type of resource conflict” and “the type of interference.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 2, 18 recite the limitation “the level” in “the level of interference.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9, 12 recite the limitations “the granularity” in “wherein the granularity of the.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 2-13 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 2-16 and 18 depend on claim 1 and 17 reciting in part two options: “determining, by a first node, an LTE V2X or NR V2X time-frequency resource to be used in (1) a reporting manner or (2) an autonomous manner.” The claim language provides the option that one of the manner is used. Therefore, one option may be given patentable weight, i.e., option (2), while the other option may not be given patentable weight, i.e., option (1). Claims 2-13 and 18 further limit option (1) “wherein the reporting manner comprises” which was given no patentable weight. Therefore, claims 2-13 and 18 fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, i.e., option (2).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 17-18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1, 17, 20, and 21 recite “determining, by a first node, an LTE V2X or NR V2X time-frequency resource to be used in a reporting manner or an autonomous manner.” The limitation of “determining … an LTE V2X or NR V2X time-frequency resource to be used in a reporting manner or an autonomous manner,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim may encompass a user choosing a time-frequency resource. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements (“by a first node” in claim 1, “A resource coexistence apparatus, comprising: a determination module” in claim 17, “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program stored therein, wherein the computer program is configured to, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to implement the steps of the method as claimed in claim 1” in claim 20, and “An electronic apparatus, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored on the memory and runnable on the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program to:” in claim 21). The first node, and the resource coexistence apparatus, and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and the electronic apparatus are configured to carry out the limitation(s) of the claim(s). But the first node, and the resource coexistence apparatus, and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and the electronic apparatus are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements that provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the claim as a whole describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determine a time-frequency resource. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5 and 18 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements that provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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) 1-14, 17-18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2022/0256525 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 17, 20, and 21, Lin discloses A resource coexistence method, comprising (claim 1), A resource coexistence apparatus, comprising: a determination module, configured to (claim 17), A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program stored therein, wherein the computer program is configured to, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to implement the steps of the method as claimed in claim 1 (claim 20), and An electronic apparatus, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored on the memory and runnable on the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program to (claim 21) (Fig. 1: UE 100 includes processors 102 and a memory 104. [0021]: The memory 104 may store computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the processors 102, may cause the processors 102 to perform operations):
determining, by a first node, an LTE V2X or NR V2X time-frequency resource to be used in ([0015]: The UE may first receive resource pools for LTE and NR sidelink communications, such as V2X communications, via a pre-configuration or a network configuration of a sidelink for the UE and may receive exchanging and reporting resource selection/reservation information in an NR sidelink communication for the UE, where a resource pool is a collection of radio resources in both time and frequency domains for which the UE may use it for sidelink communication (transmission or reception). [0016]: Sidelink resource selection/reservation information of the UE regarding one RA, such as the LTE-V2X, may be provided to another RA, such as the NR-V2X, internally within the UE. Fig. 2, [0023]: The UE 100, operating in the autonomous resource selection mode for one or both of LTE-V2X and NR-V2X communications (i.e., mode 4 in the LTE-V2X and mode 2 in the NR-V2X) … In the second RAT 118, the signaled resource selection/allocation information from the first RAT 116 may be evaluated at step 208, and a selection of sidelink resources for the V2X message TBs utilizing the second RAT 118, i.e., via the NR-V2X communication, may be made).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Lin discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 17 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses wherein the reporting manner comprises:
the first node reporting to a second node or a physical layer of the first node reporting to a high layer of the first node, wherein the content of the report at least comprises one of the following:
whether there is a resource conflict;
the type of resource conflict;
whether there is interference;
the type of interference;
the level of interference;
a time-frequency resource location of the interference;
a desired or candidate time-frequency resource location;
whether to reduce desired power; and
a power absolute value or a power relative value of the desired power reduction (this claim is dependent on claim 1 and further limits the “reporting manner” in claim 1 that was given no patentable weight. Therefore, this claim does not further limit the feature “autonomous manner” that was given patentable weight).
Regarding claim 3, Lin discloses all limitations of claim 2 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses wherein the type of resource conflict at least comprises one of the following: a conflict between LTE V2X transmission and NR V2X transmission resources, a conflict between LTE V2X transmission and NR V2X reception resources, a conflict between LTE V2X reception and NR V2X transmission resources, and a conflict between LTE V2X reception and NR V2X reception resources (this claim is dependent on claim 2 which further limits the “reporting manner” in claim 1 that was given no patentable weight. Therefore, this claim does not further limit the feature “autonomous manner” that was given patentable weight).
Regarding claim 4, Lin discloses all limitations of claim 2 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses wherein the type of interference at least comprises one of the following: LTE V2X being interfered with by NR V2X, and the NR V2X being interfered with by the LTE V2X (this claim is dependent on claim 2 which further limits the “reporting manner” in claim 1 that was given no patentable weight. Therefore, this claim does not further limit the feature “autonomous manner” that was given patentable weight).
Regarding claim 5, Lin discloses all limitations of claim 2 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses wherein the level of interference is divided through a following method: dividing one or more interference levels based on one or more thresholds, wherein the threshold at least comprises one of the following: received signal power and received signal strength (this claim is dependent on claim 2 which further limits the “reporting manner” in claim 1 that was given no patentable weight. Therefore, this claim does not further limit the feature “autonomous manner” that was given patentable weight).
Regarding claim 6, Lin discloses all limitations of claim 3 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses wherein after the first node reports to a second node or a physical layer of the first node reports to a high layer of the first node, the method further comprises:
reconfiguring or reselecting, by the high layer of the second node or the first node, an LTE V2X or NR V2X time-frequency resource (this claim is dependent on claim 2 which further limits the “reporting manner” in claim 1 that was given no patentable weight. Therefore, this claim does not further limit the feature “autonomous manner” that was given patentable weight).
Regarding claim 7, Lin discloses all limitations of claim 6 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses wherein the reconfiguring or reselecting, by the high layer of the second node or the first node, an LTE V2X or NR V2X time-frequency resource comprises:
selecting a set of NR V2X time resources from a plurality of sets of preconfigured NR V2X time resources when there is a resource conflict or interference between the LTE V2X and the NR V2X (this claim is dependent on claim 2 which further limits the “reporting manner” in claim 1 that was given no patentable weight. Therefore, this claim does not further limit the feature “autonomous manner” that was given patentable weight).
Regarding claim 8, Lin discloses all limitations of claim 7 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses wherein divided time resources comprise: resources used only for the LTE V2X, resources used only for the NR V2X, and resources used to be shared by the LTE V2X and the NR V2X (this claim is dependent on claim 2 which further limits the “reporting manner” in claim 1 that was given no patentable weight. Therefore, this claim does not further limit the feature “autonomous manner” that was given patentable weight).
Regarding claim 9, Lin discloses all limitations of claim 8 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses wherein the granularity of the time resources at least comprises one of the following: a short-slot, a slot, a subframe, a half-frame, and a radio frame (this claim is dependent on claim 2 which further limits the “reporting manner” in claim 1 that was given no patentable weight. Therefore, this claim does not further limit the feature “autonomous manner” that was given patentable weight).
Regarding claim 10, Lin discloses all limitations of claim 6 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses wherein the reconfiguring or reselecting, by the high layer of the second node or the first node, an LTE V2X or NR V2X time-frequency resource comprises:
selecting a set of NR V2X frequency resources from a plurality of sets of preconfigured NR V2X frequency resources when there is a resource conflict or interference between the LTE V2X and the NR V2X (this claim is dependent on claim 2 which further limits the “reporting manner” in claim 1 that was given no patentable weight. Therefore, this claim does not further limit the feature “autonomous manner” that was given patentable weight).
Regarding claim 11, Lin discloses all limitations of claim 10 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses wherein divided frequency resources comprise: resources used only for the LTE V2X, resources used only for the NR V2X, and resources used to be shared by the LTE V2X and the NR V2X (this claim is dependent on claim 2 which further limits the “reporting manner” in claim 1 that was given no patentable weight. Therefore, this claim does not further limit the feature “autonomous manner” that was given patentable weight).
Regarding claim 12, Lin discloses all limitations of claim 11 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses wherein the granularity of the frequency resources at least comprises one of the following: a resource block, a resource block group, a bandwidth part, a subchannel, a subband, a carrier, and a band (this claim is dependent on claim 2 which further limits the “reporting manner” in claim 1 that was given no patentable weight. Therefore, this claim does not further limit the feature “autonomous manner” that was given patentable weight).
Regarding claim 13, Lin discloses all limitations of claim 2 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses wherein when the LTE V2X and the NR V2X coexist using frequency division multiplexing, power is allocated for the LTE V2X and the NR V2X using one of the following methods:
determining power allocation based on priorities of the LTE V2X and the NR V2X;
alternately prioritizing power allocation for the LTE V2X and the NR V2X;
prioritizing power allocation for the LTE V2X; and
prioritizing power allocation for the NR V2X (this claim is dependent on claim 2 which further limits the “reporting manner” in claim 1 that was given no patentable weight. Therefore, this claim does not further limit the feature “autonomous manner” that was given patentable weight).
Regarding claim 14, Lin discloses all limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Lin discloses wherein the determining, by a first node, an LTE V2X or NR V2X time-frequency resource to be used through an autonomous manner comprises (Fig. 2, [0023]: The UE 100, operating in the autonomous resource selection mode for one or both of LTE-V2X and NR-V2X communications (i.e., mode 4 in the LTE-V2X and mode 2 in the NR-V2X)):
selecting a set of NR V2X time resources from a plurality of sets of preconfigured NR V2X time resources when there is a resource conflict or interference between the LTE V2X and the NR V2X ([0016]: Sidelink resource selection/reservation information of the UE regarding one RA, such as the LTE-V2X, may be provided to another RA, such as the NR-V2X, internally within the UE. For example, to avoid the UE dropping transmission or reception of overlapping, conflicting, and/or colliding message TBs when the UE is operating in both the LTE and NR sidelink communications concurrently, the UE may exchange resource selection and/or reservation information internally between the two sidelink RAs. The sidelink communicating RA that receives the resource selection and/or reservation information may exclude any overlapping, conflicting, and/or colliding sidelink resource(s) for its V2X transmission. Fig. 2, [0023]: In the second RAT 118, the signaled resource selection/allocation information from the first RAT 116 may be evaluated at step 208, and a selection of sidelink resources for the V2X message TBs utilizing the second RAT 118, i.e., via the NR-V2X communication, may be made to avoid time overlapping transmissions with the first RAT 116 at step 210. For example, the resource allocation/selection information of the selected sidelink resources from the first RAT 116 may be exchanged or signaled to the second RAT 118. Because basic safety messages to be transmitted via the LTE-V2X, i.e., utilizing the first RAT 116, are generally periodic and predicable in nature, the resource allocation/selection information from the first RAT 116 may be used for determining a non-conflicting, or non-overlapping in time, sidelink resource for the NR-V2X message transmission via the second RAT 118 while the first RAT 116 is transmitting the LTE-V2X message TBs).
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 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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2022/0256525 A1) in view of He et al. (US 2020/0037343 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Lin discloses all limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Lin discloses wherein the determining, by a first node, an LTE V2X or NR V2X time-frequency resource to be used through an autonomous manner comprises (Fig. 2, [0023]: The UE 100, operating in the autonomous resource selection mode for one or both of LTE-V2X and NR-V2X communications (i.e., mode 4 in the LTE-V2X and mode 2 in the NR-V2X)).
Lin does not disclose, but He discloses in [0145]: a UE autonomously selects sidelink resource for transmission, and further discloses monitoring, by an NR V2X module of the first node, NR V2X SCI of other nodes and notifying an LTE V2X module of the first node of an available time-frequency resource location ([0202]: When the resources reserved by another UE are used for transmissions by the UE, the channel occupancy time in the SCI of the UE may include the slots that are reserved by another UE so that other UEs performing sensing may know the time duration the UE needs to use the channel. Fig. 30, [0418]: LTE V2X resource allocation module (e.g., circuit) may exclude LTE resources 3 and 4 in the candidate set because NR resource 1 indicates NR resource 2 in the same slot as LTE resource 3 and 4 is reserved by NR. [0419]: LTE resource allocation module (e.g., circuit) may obtain the resource information in the sensing window from NR resource allocation module. If a SCI for NR in the sensing window indicates a periodic resource is not used any more in the next period); and
using, by the LTE V2X module of the first node, the available time-frequency resource (Fig. 30, [0419]: LTE resource allocation module (e.g., circuit) may obtain the resource information in the sensing window from NR resource allocation module. If a SCI for NR in the sensing window indicates a periodic resource is not used any more in the next period. LTE resource allocation module may include the resource in the candidate resource set).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the UE, as taught by Lin, to perform sensing by the NR resource allocation module to obtain SCI indicating NR resources that are reserved and notifying the LTE resource allocation module of the information so that the LTE resource allocation module can include available resources in the candidate resource set, as taught by He.
Doing so allows other UEs to know which resources to use for LTE and/or NR to mitigate collisions (He: [0202], [0373], [0419]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2022/0256525 A1) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2024/0215011 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Lin discloses all limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Lin discloses wherein the determining, by a first node, an LTE V2X or NR V2X time-frequency resource to be used through an autonomous manner comprises (Fig. 2, [0023]: The UE 100, operating in the autonomous resource selection mode for one or both of LTE-V2X and NR-V2X communications (i.e., mode 4 in the LTE-V2X and mode 2 in the NR-V2X)).
Lin does not disclose, but Cheng discloses in [0069]: In NR mode 2 or LTE mode 4 (e.g., shown in FIG. 5D), the UE (e.g., LTE UE 502 or NR UE 504) may autonomously configure resources for SL communication (e.g., for communication with LTE UE 512 or NR UE 514), and further discloses monitoring, by the NR V2X module of the first node, LTE V2X SCI of other nodes to obtain an available time-frequency resource ([0072]: the NR UE 504 may monitor control information for LTE and select resources for NR communication based on the monitoring … The LTE and NR resource pools may be configured (or preconfigured) with at least partial overlapping, where some resources used for LTE communication may overlap with resources used for NR communication, meaning some resources may be available for use for LTE and NR communications … the SL NR UE 504 may monitor the configured NR resource pool (e.g., monitor for NR SCI 704), and the resource pool on which an LTE SCI (e.g., transmitted by UE 502 and addressed to UE 512) is detected may be used to preclude a resource for reservation); and
using, by the NR V2X module of the first node, the available time-frequency resource ([0072]: the NR UE 504 may monitor control information for LTE and select resources for NR communication based on the monitoring … The LTE and NR resource pools may be configured (or preconfigured) with at least partial overlapping, where some resources used for LTE communication may overlap with resources used for NR communication, meaning some resources may be available for use for LTE and NR communications … the SL NR UE 504 may monitor the configured NR resource pool (e.g., monitor for NR SCI 704), and the resource pool on which an LTE SCI (e.g., transmitted by UE 502 and addressed to UE 512) is detected may be used to preclude a resource for reservation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the UE, as taught by Lin, to monitor the resource pool on which an LTE SCI is transmitted by another UE and preclude the resource pool from selecting a resource for NR communications, as taught by Cheng.
Doing so avoids interference with the LTE communications (Cheng: [0072]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THE HY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3813. The examiner can normally be reached on Mo-Fr: 8am-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, Joseph Avellino, can be reached on (571) 272-3905. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THE HY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
TheHy.Nguyen@USPTO.gov
Prosecution Insights