DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/856016 filed on 10/10/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Claims 17-18 were cancelled. Claims 1-16, 19-22 are pending.
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 . 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §101 which forms the basis for all patent-ineligible rejections set forth in this Office action:
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.
The factual inquires set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 134 (2014), that are applied for establishing a background for determining patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining whether the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
2A. Determining whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions).
2B. Determining whether the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1-15, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The rationale for this determination is explained below. Claim 1 recites: “A resource configuration method, performed by a network device, comprising: mapping interlaced resource blocks to at least one resource pool; and determining configuration information of each resource pool in the at least one resource pool; wherein the configuration information of each resource pool indicates a number of and positions of interlaced resource block indexes configured for a corresponding resource pool, and two consecutive interlaced resource blocks in the same interlaced resource block index are separated by M resource blocks, M being determined by a size of subcarrier spacing”.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 1-15 are directed to a statutory category subject matter, reciting a method.
Claim 21 (depending on claim 1) is directed to a statutory category subject matter, reciting a non-transitory computer readable medium.
.
Step 2A: Judicial Exception
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim 1 and 21 each recites “A resource configuration method, performed by a network device, comprising: mapping interlaced resource blocks to at least one resource pool; and determining configuration information of each resource pool in the at least one resource pool; wherein the configuration information of each resource pool indicates a number of and positions of interlaced resource block indexes configured for a corresponding resource pool, and two consecutive interlaced resource blocks in the same interlaced resource block index are separated by M resource blocks, M being determined by a size of subcarrier spacing”.
The limitation as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “mapping” and “determining” steps in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally “mapping interlaced resource blocks to at least one resource pool; and determining configuration information of each resource pool in the at least one resource pool; wherein the configuration information of each resource pool indicates a number of and positions of interlaced resource block indexes configured for a corresponding resource pool, and two consecutive interlaced resource blocks in the same interlaced resource block index are separated by M resource blocks, M being determined by a size of subcarrier spacing”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. 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.
In addition – using the “hardware” (a network device or a processor of a network device) to perform the “claimed limitations”. The hardware in the step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing the claimed function, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Additional Steps/Elements Significantly More than the Judicial Exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained with respect to Step 2A, the additional element of using the “hardware” (a network device or a processor of a network device) to perform the claimed limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 2-15 merely contain additional mapping step(s) that can be performed mentally. Claims 2-15, contain no additional steps or limitations, if being incorporated to claim 1, will overcome the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §101 which forms the basis for all patent-ineligible rejections set forth in this Office action:
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.
The factual inquires set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 134 (2014), that are applied for establishing a background for determining patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining whether the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
2A. Determining whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions).
2B. Determining whether the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The rationale for this determination is explained below. Claim 19 recites: “A network device, comprising: a processor; and a memory having stored thereon computer programs executable by the processor, wherein the processor is configured to: map interlaced resource blocks to at least one resource pool; and determine configuration information of each resource pool in the at least one resource pool; wherein the configuration information of each resource pool indicates a number of and positions of interlaced resource block indexes configured for a corresponding resource pool, and two consecutive interlaced resource blocks in the same interlaced resource block index are separated by M resource blocks, M being determined by a size of subcarrier spacing”.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claim 19 is directed to a statutory category subject matter, reciting an apparatus.
.
Step 2A: Judicial Exception
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim 19 recites “A network device, comprising: a processor; and a memory having stored thereon computer programs executable by the processor, wherein the processor is configured to: map interlaced resource blocks to at least one resource pool; and determine configuration information of each resource pool in the at least one resource pool; wherein the configuration information of each resource pool indicates a number of and positions of interlaced resource block indexes configured for a corresponding resource pool, and two consecutive interlaced resource blocks in the same interlaced resource block index are separated by M resource blocks, M being determined by a size of subcarrier spacing”.
The limitation as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “map” and “determine” steps in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally “map interlaced resource blocks to at least one resource pool; and determine configuration information of each resource pool in the at least one resource pool; wherein the configuration information of each resource pool indicates a number of and positions of interlaced resource block indexes configured for a corresponding resource pool, and two consecutive interlaced resource blocks in the same interlaced resource block index are separated by M resource blocks, M being determined by a size of subcarrier spacing”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. 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.
In addition – using the “hardware” (processor and memory) to perform the “claimed limitations”. The hardware in the step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing the claimed function, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Additional Steps/Elements Significantly More than the Judicial Exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained with respect to Step 2A, the additional element of using the “hardware” (processor and memory) to perform the claimed limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §101 which forms the basis for all patent-ineligible rejections set forth in this Office action:
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.
The factual inquires set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 134 (2014), that are applied for establishing a background for determining patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining whether the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
2A. Determining whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions).
2B. Determining whether the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 16, 20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The rationale for this determination is explained below. Claim 16 recites: “A resource configuration method, performed by a terminal, comprising: receiving resource pool configuration information sent by a network device; wherein the resource pool configuration information indicates a number of and positions of interlaced resource block (IRB) indexes configured for a corresponding resource pool, and two consecutive IRBs in the same IRB index are separated by M resource blocks, M being determined by a size of subcarrier interval”.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claim 16 is directed to a statutory category subject matter, reciting a method.
Claim 20 (depending on claim 16) is directed to a statutory category subject matter, reciting an apparatus.
Claim 22 (depending on claim 16) is directed to a statutory category subject matter, reciting a non-transitory computer readable medium.
.
Step 2A: Judicial Exception
Claims 16, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim 16, 20 and 22 each recites “A resource configuration method, performed by a terminal, comprising: receiving resource pool configuration information sent by a network device; wherein the resource pool configuration information indicates a number of and positions of interlaced resource block (IRB) indexes configured for a corresponding resource pool, and two consecutive IRBs in the same IRB index are separated by M resource blocks, M being determined by a size of subcarrier interval”.
The limitation as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “receiving” (i.e. observing/gathering) step in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally “receiving (i.e. observing/gathering) resource pool configuration information sent by a network device; wherein the resource pool configuration information indicates a number of and positions of interlaced resource block (IRB) indexes configured for a corresponding resource pool, and two consecutive IRBs in the same IRB index are separated by M resource blocks, M being determined by a size of subcarrier interval”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. 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. Also, the limitation “receiving resource pool configuration information sent by a network devic….e” are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
In addition – using the “hardware” (a terminal or a processor of a terminal) to perform the “claimed limitations”. The hardware in the step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing the claimed function, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Additional Steps/Elements Significantly More than the Judicial Exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained with respect to Step 2A, the limitation “receiving resource pool configuration information sent by a network device” are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
Furthermore, the additional element of using the “hardware” (a terminal or a processor of a terminal) to perform the claimed limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 1, 2, 16, 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (US Patent Publication # 2024/0276527 A1.)
As per claim 1, ZHAO discloses “A resource configuration method, performed by a network device, comprising:” as [(par. 0101), In order to enable more users to access a channel in a same time as possible, an interlace (interlace)-based resource configuration manner is introduced in this application.] “mapping interlaced resource blocks to at least one resource pool;” [(par. 0101), One interlace includes N RBs, and a total of M interlaces are included in a frequency band range.] “and determining configuration information of each resource pool in the at least one resource pool;” [(par. 0101), in order to enable more users to access a channel in a same time as possible, an interlace (interlace)-based resource configuration manner is introduced in this application.] “wherein the configuration information of each resource pool indicates a number of and positions of interlaced resource block indexes configured for a corresponding resource pool,” [(par. 0101), For a definite an interlace index, the interlace includes a plurality of resource blocks, which are referred to as interlaced resource blocks (IRBs). A quantity of resource blocks between two consecutive interlaced resource blocks in one interlace is fixed as M. Similarly, M interlaces may be orthogonally multiplexed in frequency domain, and the M interlace indexes range from 0 to M-1] “and two consecutive interlaced resource blocks in the same interlaced resource block index are separated by M resource blocks, M being determined by a size of subcarrier spacing.” [(par. 0101), For a definite an interlace index, the interlace includes a plurality of resource blocks, which are referred to as interlaced resource blocks (IRBs). A quantity of resource blocks between two consecutive interlaced resource blocks in one interlace is fixed as M, and a specific value of M is determined based on a subcarrier spacing. When the subcarrier spacing is 15 KHz, M is 10; when the subcarrier spacing is 30 KHz, M is 5. Similarly, M interlaces may be orthogonally multiplexed in frequency domain, and the M interlace indexes range from 0 to M-1.]
As per claim 2, ZHAO discloses “The method of claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein mapping the interlaced resource block to the at least one resource pool, comprises: determining a number of interlaced resource block indexes included in each resource pool and positions of the interlaced resource block indexes according to a mapping rule between the interlaced resource block index and the resource pool; and mapping the interlaced resource blocks to at least one resource pool according to the number of interlaced resource block indexes included in the resource pool and the positions of the interlaced resource block indexes.” [(par. 0101), For a definite an interlace index, the interlace includes a plurality of resource blocks, which are referred to as interlaced resource blocks (IRBs). A quantity of resource blocks between two consecutive interlaced resource blocks in one interlace is fixed as M, and a specific value of M is determined based on a subcarrier spacing. When the subcarrier spacing is 15 KHz, M is 10; when the subcarrier spacing is 30 KHz, M is 5. Similarly, M interlaces may be orthogonally multiplexed in frequency domain, and the M interlace indexes range from 0 to M-1.]
As per claim 16, ZHAO discloses “A resource configuration method, performed by a terminal, comprising:” as [(par. 0101), In order to enable more users to access a channel in a same time as possible, an interlace (interlace)-based resource configuration manner is introduced in this application.] “receiving resource pool configuration information sent by a network device;” [(par. 0101), In order to enable more users to access a channel in a same time as possible, an interlace (interlace)-based resource configuration manner is introduced in this application.] “wherein the resource pool configuration information indicates a number of and positions of interlaced resource block (IRB) indexes configured for a corresponding resource pool,” [(par. 0101), For a definite an interlace index, the interlace includes a plurality of resource blocks, which are referred to as interlaced resource blocks (IRBs). A quantity of resource blocks between two consecutive interlaced resource blocks in one interlace is fixed as M. Similarly, M interlaces may be orthogonally multiplexed in frequency domain, and the M interlace indexes range from 0 to M-1] “and two consecutive IRBs in the same IRB index are separated by M resource blocks, M being determined by a size of subcarrier interval” [(par. 0101), For a definite an interlace index, the interlace includes a plurality of resource blocks, which are referred to as interlaced resource blocks (IRBs). A quantity of resource blocks between two consecutive interlaced resource blocks in one interlace is fixed as M, and a specific value of M is determined based on a subcarrier spacing. When the subcarrier spacing is 15 KHz, M is 10; when the subcarrier spacing is 30 KHz, M is 5. Similarly, M interlaces may be orthogonally multiplexed in frequency domain, and the M interlace indexes range from 0 to M-1.]
As per claim 19, as [see rejection of claim 1.]
As per claim 20, as [see rejection of claim 16.]
As per claim 21, as [see rejection of claim 1.]
As per claim 22, as [see rejection of claim 16.]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publications:
FAKOORIAN et al. (US 2023/0254821 A1) [(par. 0066), According to some aspects, the frequency hopping pattern may be preconfigured (e.g., the group hopping or sequence hopping from the uplink demodulation reference signal (DMRS) hopping pattern may be adapted for sidelink transmissions). In any case, regardless of whether the frequency hopping pattern is preconfigured or indicated in SCI or DCI 410, each interlace index within each time interval 405 indicated by the frequency hopping pattern may depend on one or more factors. For instance, each interlace index within each time interval 405 that corresponds to the set of interleaved frequency resources used by UE 115-a in the time interval 405 may be a function of one or more factors, including a subcarrier spacing of the time interval 405, a sidelink ID of UE 115-a, a pool ID associated with the resources used by UE 115-a, or some higher layer parameters associated with group hopping (e.g., received in higher layer signaling used to enable or disable group hopping). If the frequency hopping pattern is preconfigured, other UEs 115 may determine the frequency hopping pattern used by UE 115-a to transmit the sidelink data 415 based on the one or more factors.
Lei et al. (US 2023/0136864 A1) [(par. 0074), As mentioned above, PSFCH multiplexing may be implemented in frequency domain (e.g., partial interlaces), code domain (e.g., cyclic shift, OCC, or both), or both. In these embodiments, in a given slot within a PSFCH resource pool (e.g., symbols 516 and 517 within slot 511), there are may be Z candidate PSFCH resources, wherein Z may be determined based on one or more of the following: [0075] the number of full interlaces defined based on subcarrier spacing of the carrier (denoted as M), [0076] the number of partial interlaces per full interlace (denoted as N), [0077] the number of cyclic shifts per full or partial interlace (denoted as X), and [0078] the number of frequency domain OCCs per full or partial interlace (denoted as Y).]
NPL
Samsung, “Detail on resource pool design”, R1-164764, 23rd – 27th May 2016. From Applicant’s IDS)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANG HANG YEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7319. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Song can be reached on (571) 270-3667. 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.
/MANG HANG YEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2417
Prosecution Insights