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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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. The cited art of records do not teach “…wherein an RB in which a reference signal received power (RSRP) greater than or equal to a threshold is measured among the set of RBs for the SL PRS is excluded from the set of RBs for the SL PRS” of claim 11.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Ko Woosuk et al. (hereainafter Ko) WO 2021/066592 A1 as translated in US 2022/0353035 A1 (Examiner cites to the US publication).
Regarding claim 1, Ko teaches a method, comprising:
obtaining information related to a set of resource blocks (RBs) for a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) (Fig. 13 & ¶0130; each sidelink entity transmits a PSFCH and multiplex it with PRS in the related RBs [obtains info on PSFCH RBs]);
obtaining sidelink (SL) positioning reference signal (PRS) configuration information including information related to a set of RBs for a SL PRS (Fig. 13 & ¶0130; the SL entity transmits PRS on allocated RBs [RBS are configured to be allocated for PRs])
and transmitting, by a first device, the SL PRS to a second device, within the set of RBs for the SL PRS, based on the SL PRS configuration information (Fig. 13 & ¶0130),
wherein the set of RBs for the SL PRS does not overlap with the set of RBs for the PSFCH (Fig. 13 show that RBs for SL PRS are not overlap with RBs for PSFCH. Also see ¶0156; the plurality of PRS resources may not overlap with the plurality of PSFCH resources).
Regarding Claim 12, Ko further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the SL PRS is transmitted interleaved in units of resource block (RB) or resource element (RE) based on a comb size (Fig. 13).
Claims 14-15 are substantially similar to claim 1, thus the same rationale applies.
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 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.
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.
Claims 2-10, 13 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Hwang et al. (hereinafter Hwang) US 2021/0084462 A1.
Regarding Claim 2, Ko teaches the method of claim 1, but does not expressly teach wherein the set of RBs for the PSFCH is a set of RBs related to a value of 1 in a first bitmap. Ko however, teaches that the RBs are in #1 which suggests value of 1 in a bitmap. Despite that, Examiner uses a secondary art for support.
Hwang teaches wherein the set of RBs for the PSFCH is a set of RBs related to a value of 1 in a first bitmap (obvious from ¶0174-¶0180 & Fig. 16; because bitmap is configured per resource pool for the UE in advance. Since bitmap is used to indicate the RBs for PSFCH, the use of ones in a bitmap to indicate the RBs used for PSFCH is an obvious design choice. For example, Hwang teaches using a bitmap related to RB for PSFCH transmission. For example, when the bit of the bitmap is 1, the UE may use an RB corresponding to bit 1 for PSFCH transmission. For example, when the bit of the bitmap is 0, the UE may not use an RB corresponding to bit 0 for PSFCH transmission. For example, the UE may exclude the RB corresponding to bit 0 from RBs available for PSFCH transmission).
Regarding Claim 3, Ko in view of Hwang teaches the method of claim 2, Hwang further teaches wherein the set of RBs for the SL PRS is a set of RBs related to a value of 0 in the first bitmap (obvious from ¶0174-¶0180 & Fig. 16; because bitmap is configured per resource pool for the UE in advance. Since bitmap is used to indicate the RBs for PSFCH, the use of ones in a bitmap to indicate the RBs used for PSFCH is an obvious design choice. For example, Hwang teaches using a bitmap related to RB for PSFCH transmission. For example, when the bit of the bitmap is 1, the UE may use an RB corresponding to bit 1 for PSFCH transmission. For example, when the bit of the bitmap is 0, the UE may not use an RB corresponding to bit 0 for PSFCH transmission. For example, the UE may exclude the RB corresponding to bit 0 from RBs available for PSFCH transmission).
Regarding Claim 4, Ko in view of Hwang teaches the method of claim 2, Hwang further teaches wherein the set of RBs for the SL PRS is a set of RBs related to a value of 1 in a second bitmap, and wherein the set of RBs related to the value of 1 in the first bitmap and the set of RBs related to the value of 1 in the second bitmap do not overlap (Ko teaches not overlap, see claim 1. Also, the limitation is obvious from ¶0174-¶0180 & Fig. 16; because bitmap is configured per resource pool for the UE in advance. For example, Hwang teaches using a bitmap related to RB for PSFCH transmission. For example, when the bit of the bitmap is 1, the UE may use an RB corresponding to bit 1 for PSFCH transmission. For example, when the bit of the bitmap is 0, the UE may not use an RB corresponding to bit 0 for PSFCH transmission. For example, the UE may exclude the RB corresponding to bit 0 from RBs available for PSFCH transmission).
Regarding Claim 5, Ko in view of Hwang teaches the method of claim 1, Hwang further teaches wherein the SL PRS is transmitted within at least one PSFCH symbol within one PSFCH slot (see ¶0148, ¶0172, & ¶0181-¶0182, TABLE-US-00008, Fig. 17; see PSFCH slot).
Regarding Claim 6, Ko in view of Hwang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the SL PRS is transmitted within in a plurality of PSFCH symbols within a PSFCH aggregation slot in which a plurality of PSFCH slots are aggregated (Fig. 17, TABLE-US-00008 & ¶0152-¶0154; PSFCH slots are aggregated e.g., slot groups may be indicated using the number of slots or bitmap when the UE determines that the PSFCG can be transmitted in slots repeated every the PSFCH transmission period. See the example, in ¶0181-¶0183).
Regarding Claim 7, Ko in view of Hwang teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising: transmitting control information related to the SL PRS to the second device (¶0242; transmitting control information. See also Id in ¶0129).
Regarding Claim 8, Ko in view of Hwang teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the control information is transmitted within the first PSFCH slot among the plurality of PSFCH slots within the PSFCH aggregation slot (obvious from ¶0242 in view of Fig. 17, TABLE-US-00008 & ¶0152-¶0154; because PSFCH slots are aggregated e.g., slot groups may be indicated using the number of slots or bitmap when the UE determines that the PSFCG can be transmitted in slots repeated every the PSFCH transmission period. See the example, in ¶0181-¶0183).
Regarding Claim 9, Ko in view of Hwang teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the control information includes information related to a number of the plurality of PSFCH slots included in the PSFCH aggregation slot (obvious from ¶0242 in view of Fig. 17, TABLE-US-00008 & ¶0152-¶0154; because PSFCH slots are aggregated e.g., slot groups may be indicated using the number of slots or bitmap when the UE determines that the PSFCG can be transmitted in slots repeated every the PSFCH transmission period. See the example, in ¶0181-¶0183) or information related to an aggregation order of a PSFCH slot in which the SL PRS is transmitted among the plurality of PSFCH slots included in the PSFCH aggregation slot (¶0116, ¶0197, ¶0242; obvious from the cited paragraphs above. Also note that UE may transmit HARQ feedback in response to the PSSCH to the transmitting UE by using a sidelink feedback control information (SFCI) format through a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH)).
Regarding Claim 10, Ko in view of Hwang teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the control information includes information related to a PSFCH aggregation slot after the PSFCH aggregation slot (Fig. 17, TABLE-US-00008 & ¶0152-¶0154; PSFCH slots are aggregated e.g., slot groups may be indicated using the number of slots or bitmap when the UE determines that the PSFCG can be transmitted in slots repeated every the PSFCH transmission period. See the example, in ¶0181-¶0183).
Regarding Claim 13, Ko in view of Hwang teaches the PSFCH symbols within one PSFCH slot, (obvious from Ko because timing gap for a PSCCH/PSSCH transmitted in slot #5 may be two slots. In this case, a minimum value of two slots may be selected as a representative timing gap value. Furthermore, when a PSFCH is transmitted in one slot for a plurality of PSCCHs/PSSCHs, a slot set (i.e., slot #1 to slot #5) related to a PSFCH slot (i.e., slot #7) may be referred to as an HARQ related set. In addition, slots #6 to #8 may be included in another HARQ related set, see Fig. 17 & ¶0183) the second PSFCH symbol is duplicated in the first PSFCH symbol (obvious from Hwang because inFig. 17, TABLE-US-00008 & ¶0152-¶0154; PSFCH slots are aggregated e.g., slot groups may be indicated using the number of slots or bitmap when the UE determines that the PSFCG can be transmitted in slots repeated every the PSFCH transmission period. See the example, in ¶0181-¶0183).
Claims 21-25 are substantially similar to the above claims, thus the same rationale applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHRAN ABU ROUMI whose telephone number is (469)295-9170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
MAHRAN ABU ROUMI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2455
/MAHRAN Y ABU ROUMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights