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 .
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, 2 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Selvanesan et al. (U.S. 2024/0414743), hereinafter Selvanesan.
With respect to Claim 1, Selvanesan teaches an electronic device for a user equipment (UE) (¶ 0353, “a method for operating a user device, UE, for a wireless communication system, like a 3rd Generation Partnership Project, 3GPP”), comprising:
at least one processor (figure 13, #602 memory); and
at least one memory including computer program code, where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the electronic device (figure 13, #606 or #608, memory) to:
determine, based on resource configuration information, a licensed frequency band resource pool and an unlicensed frequency band resource pool that are available to a sidelink transmission of the UE (¶ 0493, “In the system one or more resource pools 420a in the unlicensed spectrum 418 are provided and one or more resource pools 420b in the licensed spectrum 416 are provided. It is noted that each of the resource pools 420a and 420b may be only within the unlicensed/licensed spectrum.”); and
determine, from the licensed frequency band resource pool and the unlicensed frequency band resource pool, a candidate resource set for the sidelink transmission of the UE (¶ 0058, “the UE may determine which of the received sets of resources to use for the transmission, for example to use only the set of resources for a transmission which the UE judges to be not occupied.”)
With respect to Claim 2, Selvanesan teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the resource configuration information is preconfigured and/or is dynamically configured by a signaling from a base station (¶ 0009, “both UEs may be served by the same base station so that the base station may provide sidelink resource allocation configuration or assistance for the UEs.”)
With respect to Claim 22, the claims are the method corresponding to the device of Claim 1 and is rejected accordingly.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selvanesan et al. (U.S. 2024/0414743), hereinafter Selvanesan, in view of Si et al (U.S. 2025/0240772), hereinafter Si.
With respect to Claim 20, Selvanesan teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
select, from the candidate resource set, one or more resources to perform the sidelink transmission of the UE (¶ 0058, “the UE may determine which of the received sets of resources to use for the transmission, for example to use only the set of resources for a transmission which the UE judges to be not occupied.”); and
Selvanesan fails to explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
receive, from a base station, a signaling instructing the UE to enable the licensed frequency band resource pool and/or the unlicensed frequency band resource pool; and
enable the resource pools as indicated by the signaling.
Si teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
receive, from a base station, a signaling instructing the UE to enable the licensed frequency band resource pool and/or the unlicensed frequency band resource pool; and (¶ 0085, “the resource allocation of PSSCH, PSCCH, and PSFCH within the interlace based resource pool, and the associated signaling for the enabling the interlace based resource allocation and the corresponding indication of frequency domain resources when the interlace based resource allocation is enabled.”)
enable the resource pools as indicated by the signaling (¶ 0085, “the resource allocation of PSSCH, PSCCH, and PSFCH within the interlace based resource pool, and the associated signaling for the enabling the interlace based resource allocation and the corresponding indication of frequency domain resources when the interlace based resource allocation is enabled.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Si which teaches enabling or disabling the allocation as it allows better control of devices in the network in the system of Selvanesan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-13 and 15-19 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 ANGELA NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jae Y Lee can be reached at 571-270-3936. 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.
/ANGELA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights