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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on 06 September 2024.
Claims 9-14 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06 September 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 reception unit”, “a control unit” and “a transmission unit” in claims 9-12. The specification discloses control unit140, control unit 240, and the like, may be implemented by the processor 1001, paragraph 182. The transmitting/receiving antenna, the amplifier unit, the transmitting/receiving unit, the transmission line interface, and the like, may be implemented by the communication device 1004. The transmitting/receiving unit may be physically or logically divided into a transmitting unit and a receiving unit, paragraph 186.
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 § 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)(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 9, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Farag et al. (US Publication 2023/0232429).
With respect to claims 9, 13 and 14, Farag teaches A terminal comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive, from a network, configuration information related to a time resource of a positioning reference signal (PRS) in a resource pool used for transmission of both the PRS and a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) in a device-to-device direct communication; (signaling are provided for a network configuration of SL resources to be used for SL positioning reference signal and reporting of SL positioning measurements. In the present disclosure, followings are provided: the network to (1) configure SL resources for the transmission of positioning reference signals on the SL interface (PC5 interface), (2) configuration of SL resources for reporting SL positioning measurements on the SL interface (PC5 interface). The network configures the SL resources to a first UE, paragraph 117. the SCI is transmitted e.g., on PSCCH and/or PSSCH in the same slot as the SL positioning reference signal, paragraph 238)
a control unit configured to identify symbols used for transmitting the PRS from the resource pool, based on the configuration information; (The resources used for the SCI and the corresponding SL positioning reference signal are time division multiplexed, paragraph 247) and
a transmission unit configured to transmit user data to another terminal by using resource elements that are not in the identified symbols in the resource pool. (the RRC signaling and/or MAC CE signaling and/or L1 control signaling (e.g., SCI) informing a SL UE receiving or transmitting the SL positioning reference signal about the SL positioning reference signal configuration is transmitted or received in the same resource pool as the SL positioning reference signal, paragraph 234)
With respect to claim 11, Farag teaches wherein the transmission unit transmits SCI indicating transmission of the PRS via a PSCCH. (the SCI is transmitted e.g., on PSCCH and/or PSSCH in the same slot as the SL positioning reference signal, paragraph 238)
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Farag et al. (US Publication 2023/0232429) in view of Ren et al. (US Publication 2023/0048608).
With respect to claim 10, Farag doesn’t teach wherein the control unit performs control of not transmitting the PRS in symbols used for transmitting a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH), a DM-RS, and an SL CSI-RS
Ren teaches wherein the control unit performs control of not transmitting the PRS in symbols used for transmitting a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH), (when the resources occupied by the S-PRS collide with the resource occupied by at least one physical channel of the PSCCH, the PSFCH and the PSBCH, the S-PRS is not transmitted on the collided resource, paragraph 64) a DM-RS, and an SL CSI-RS. (when the resource occupied by the S-PRS collides with the resource occupied by at least one of the SL DMRS, the SL CSI-RS and the SL PT-RS, the S-PRS is not transmitted on the collided resource, paragraph 65)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement system of Farag with performs control of not transmitting the PRS in symbols used for transmitting a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) as taught by Ren. The motivation for combining Farag and Ren is to be able to reduce number of resources collisions.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Farag et al. (US Publication 2023/0232429) in view of Manolakos et al. (US Publication 2025/0048393).
With respect to claim 12, Farag doesn’t teach wherein the SCI is an SCI format 1-A, and the transmission of the PRS is indicated by "11" in a 2nd stage SCI format field in the SCI format 1-A.
Manolakos teaches wherein the SCI is an SCI format 1-A, and the transmission of the PRS is indicated by "11" in a 2nd stage SCI format field in the SCI format 1-A. (The second stage SCI format information of the SCI format 1-A may include 2 bits. In some implementations, a first value (such as “00”) may indicate a second stage SCI format of SCI format 2-A, a second value (such as “01”) may indicate a second stage SCI format of SCI format 2-B, a third value (such as “10”) may be reserved or indicate an SCI format, and a fourth value (such as “11”) may be reserved or indicate an SCI format, paragraph 80. the SCI-1 may indicate the SCI-2 having a format associated with or for SL-PRS scheduling using the second stage sidelink control information format field, paragraph 97)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement system of Farag with the SCI is an SCI format 1-A, and the transmission of the PRS is indicated by "11" in a 2nd stage SCI format field in the SCI format 1-A as taught by Manolakos. The motivation for combining Farag and Manolakos is to be able to have higher capability, higher data rate, higher bandwidth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shin et al. (US Publication 2024/0414741) discloses a transmission/reception signal time difference of the first terminal on the basis of the second sidelink positioning signal; and measuring terminal positioning on the basis of the transmission/reception signal time difference of the first terminal and the transmission/reception signal time difference of the second terminal, wherein the first sidelink positioning signal can include a first sidelink positioning reference signal (S-PRS), and the second sidelink positioning signal can include a second S-PRS.
Zhang et al. (US Publication 2024/0334455) discloses a terminal device transmits or receives a first positioning reference signal PRS and first control information on a sidelink, where the first control information indicates the first PRS.
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAHI AHMED whose telephone number is (571) 270-3652. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khalid Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3370. 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.
/ABDULLAHI AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights