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
This application is a 371 of PCT/SG2023/050159 filed on 3/13/2023.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies have been filed in parent Application No. SINGAPORE 10202204586V field on 4/28/2022 and SINGAPORE 10202250034Y filed on 6/3/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 10/8/2024 and 6/4/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 20-29 are objected because of the following informalities:
In claim 20, it is suggested to amend to read as follows for clarity:
20. (Currently Amended) A communication apparatus, comprising:
circuitryconfigured to determine a New Radio (NR) sidelink resource, a Long Term Evolution (LTE) sidelink, and shared sidelink resource shared by NR sidelink and LTE sidelink; and
a transmitterconfigured to perform transmission using the shared sidelink resource.
In claim 21, it is suggested to amend to read “wherein the shared sidelink resource is indicated by a physical layer signaling or a higher layer signaling for clarity.
In claim 22, it is suggested to amend to read “wherein each of the NR sidelink resource, the LTE sidelink resource, and the shared sidelink resource is indicated by a higher layer signaling.” for clarity.
In claims 23, 25, and 26, it is suggested to amend to read “the circuitryfurther configured to …” for clarity.
In claims 24 and 27, it is suggested to amend to read “the transmitterfurther configured to …” for clarity.
In claim 28, it is suggested to amend to read “determining a plurality of shared resources” in line 2 for clarity.
In claim 29, it is suggested to amend to read “control circuitryconfigured to determine …” in line 2 and “transmitting circuitryconfigured to transmit …” in line 3for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 20-27 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.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 recites a limitation “the shared sidelink resource” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 21:
Claim 21 recites a limitation “defined in a technical specification” in lines 2-3, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which technical specification is being referenced or what characteristics are required by the claimed “shared sidelink resource”. Consequently, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Regarding claims 22-27:
Claims 22-27 are also rejected because they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the rejected claim, as set forth above.
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)(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 20-25 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2024/0008061 A1, hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 20:
Kim teaches a communication apparatus (see, Kim: Fig. 13, first UE), comprising:
circuitry (see, Kim: Fig. 17, Processor(s) 102), which, in operation, determines a New Radio (NR) sidelink resource shared as a Long Term Evolution (LTE) sidelink resource (see, Kim: Fig. 13; para. [0153], “in step S1310, the LTE/NR SL shared resource (and/or the LTE SL ONLY resource) and the NR SL ONLY resource may be configured for a first UE and a second UE. For example, the LTE/NR SL shared resource (and/or the LTE SL ONLY resource) and the NR SL ONLY resource may be pre-configured for the first UE and the second UE.”; and para. [0160], “In step S1320, the first UE may select/determine an SL resource and/or an SL channel/signal, based on the method(s) and/or the condition(s) proposed in various embodiments of the present disclosure.”); and
a transmitter (see, Kim: Fig. 17, Transceiver(s) 106), which in operation, performs transmission using the shared sidelink resource (see, Kim: Fig. 13 and para. [0161], “In step S1330, the first UE may transmit/receive the SL channel/signal to/from the second UE, based on the method(s) and/or the condition(s) proposed in various embodiments of the present disclosure.”).
Regarding claim 21:
As discussed above, Kim teaches all limitations in claim 20.
Kim further teaches wherein the shared sidelink resource is indicated by a physical or higher layer signaling, or defined in a technical specification (see, Kim: para. [0153], “the LTE/NR SL shared resource (and/or the LTE SL ONLY resource) and the NR SL ONLY resource may be configured for a first UE and a second UE. For example, the LTE/NR SL shared resource (and/or the LTE SL ONLY resource) and the NR SL ONLY resource may be pre-configured for the first UE and the second UE. For example, a base station or a network may transmit information related to the LTE/NR SL shared resource (and/or the LTE SL ONLY resource) and information related to the NR SL ONLY resource to the first UE and the second UE. In distinguishing/defining the LTE/NR SL shared resource (and/or the LTE SL ONLY resource) and the NR SL ONLY resource, the following examples may be considered.”; para. [0158], “the term “configured/configuration” may be interpreted as (extended to) a form in which a base station transmits information related to the “configuration” to a UE through a pre-configured signal (e.g., SIB, RRC).”).
Regarding claim 22:
As discussed above, Kim teaches all limitations in claim 20.
Kim further teaches wherein each of the NR sidelink resource and the LTE sidelink resource is indicated by a higher layer signaling (see, Kim: para. [0090], “in the LTE transmission mode 1, the LTE transmission mode 3, or the NR resource allocation mode 1, a BS may schedule an SL resource to be used by the UE for SL transmission. For example, the BS may perform resource scheduling to a UE 1 through a PDCCH (e.g., downlink control information (DCI)) or RRC signaling (e.g., Configured Grant Type 1 or Configured Grant Type 2), and the UE 1 may perform V2X or SL communication with respect to a UE 2 according to the resource scheduling.”; para. [0228], “a rule may be defined so that information on whether or not to apply the proposal methods (or information on the rules of the proposal methods) should be notified from a base station to a UE or from a transmitting UE to a receiving UE through a predefined signal (e.g., a physical layer signal or a higher layer signal).”).
Regarding claim 23:
As discussed above, Kim teaches all limitations in claim 20.
Kim further teaches wherein the circuitry, in operation, determines the shared sidelink resource based on a configuration, preconfiguration, or specified behavior (see, Kim: para. [0091], “in the LTE transmission mode 2, the LTE transmission mode 4, or the NR resource allocation mode 2, the UE may determine an SL transmission resource within an SL resource configured by a BS/network or a pre-configured SL resource. For example, the configured SL resource or the pre-configured SL resource may be a resource pool.”).
Regarding claim 24:
As discussed above, Kim teaches all limitations in claim 20.
Kim further teaches wherein the transmitter, in operation, skips a transmission occasion of the shared sidelink resource based on a reservation or an indication (e.g., PPPP value) (see, Kim: Table 5 and para. [0141], “For example, in the embodiment of Table 5, it is assumed that the UE determines to transmit an LTE SL service A and an NR SL service E, and transmission for the LTE SL service A and transmission for the NR SL service E overlap. For example, the transmission for the LTE SL service A and the transmission for the NR SL service E may partially or entirely overlap on a time domain. In this case, the UE may perform only SL transmission related to a high priority, and may omit SL transmission related to a low priority. For example, the UE may transmit only the LTE SL service A on a first carrier and/or a first channel. Otherwise, the UE may not transmit the NR SL service E on a second carrier and/or a second channel.”).
Regarding claim 25:
As discussed above, Kim teaches all limitations in claim 20.
Kim further teaches wherein the circuitry, in operation, determines the NR sidelink resource based on a priority value associated with the LTE sidelink resource (see, Kim: para. [0139], “if the LTE SL transmission and NR SL transmission overlap, the UE may compare a priority of a packet related to LTE SL transmission and a priority of a packet related to NR SL transmission, and may perform only SL transmission related to a high priority.”; Table 5; para. [0141], “For example, in the embodiment of Table 5, it is assumed that the UE determines to transmit an LTE SL service A and an NR SL service E, and transmission for the LTE SL service A and transmission for the NR SL service E overlap. For example, the transmission for the LTE SL service A and the transmission for the NR SL service E may partially or entirely overlap on a time domain. In this case, the UE may perform only SL transmission related to a high priority, and may omit SL transmission related to a low priority. For example, the UE may transmit only the LTE SL service A on a first carrier and/or a first channel. Otherwise, the UE may not transmit the NR SL service E on a second carrier and/or a second channel.”).
Regarding claim 27:
As discussed above, Kim teaches all limitations in claim 20.
Kim further teaches wherein the transmitter, in operation, transmit the LTE sidelink based on a priority value associated with the LTE sidelink (see, Kim: para. [0139], “if the LTE SL transmission and NR SL transmission overlap, the UE may compare a priority of a packet related to LTE SL transmission and a priority of a packet related to NR SL transmission, and may perform only SL transmission related to a high priority.”; Table 5; para. [0141], “For example, in the embodiment of Table 5, it is assumed that the UE determines to transmit an LTE SL service A and an NR SL service E, and transmission for the LTE SL service A and transmission for the NR SL service E overlap. For example, the transmission for the LTE SL service A and the transmission for the NR SL service E may partially or entirely overlap on a time domain. In this case, the UE may perform only SL transmission related to a high priority, and may omit SL transmission related to a low priority. For example, the UE may transmit only the LTE SL service A on a first carrier and/or a first channel. Otherwise, the UE may not transmit the NR SL service E on a second carrier and/or a second channel.”).
Regarding claim 28:
Claim 28 recites the method which corresponds to the apparatus of claim 20, and contains no additional limitations. Therefore, claim 28 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 20 above.
Regarding claim 29:
Claim B is directed towards an integrated circuit (see, Kim: Fig. 17, First Device 100; Also see: para. [0243], “Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs)”), comprising: control circuitry (see, Kim: Fig. 17, Processor(s) 102); and transmitting circuitry (see, Kim: Fig. 17, Transceiver(s) 106), configured to perform the features of claim 20. Therefore, claim 29 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 20 above.
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.
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.
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 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 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Ye et al. (WO 2020/033628 A1, hereinafter Ye).
Regarding claim 26:
As discussed above, Kim teaches all limitations in claim 20.
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the circuitry, in operation, prioritizes a priority value associated with the NR sidelink resource than a priority value associated with the LTE sidelink resource.
In the same field of endeavor, Ye teaches wherein the circuitry, in operation, prioritizes a priority value associated with the NR sidelink resource than a priority value associated with the LTE sidelink resource (see, Ye: para. [0165], “The NR sidelink resource selection may (e.g., also) consider the reliability requirements of the NR sidelink data, together with the PPPP of the NR sidelink data. In examples, the PPPP is considered first and the reliability of the NR sidelink resource is considered second. If the NR sidelink data has a smaller value of PPPP than the LTE sidelink data (e.g., NR sidelink data has higher priority than LTE sidelink data), then the NR sidelink resource may be selected before LTE sidelink resource. Otherwise, the LTE sidelink resource may be selected before LTE sidelink resource. If the PPPP value of NR sidelink data is equal to the PPPP value of LTE sidelink data, then the WTRU may check the reliability value relTX of the NR sidelink data. If this value is larger than a threshold relthres, then the NR sidelink resource may be selected before the LTE sidelink resource.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Kim in combination of the teachings of Ye in order to consider a higher reliability value of NR sidelink data when the PPPP value of NR sidelink data is equal to the PPPP value of LTE sidelink data (see, Ye: para. [0165]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, ET.
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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights