DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application filed on 05/09/2025, in which claims 1-15 are pending and ready for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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, 6, 9-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by GUO et al. (hereinafter, “GUO”; 20240267891).
In response to claim 1,
Guo teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: identifying a number of consecutive slots configured with a value larger than 1 (paragraph 71, UE is equated to a UE, fig. 5A, please see the entire figure, paragraph 71 and this figure teaches using a number of consecutive slots configured with a value larger than 1, fig. 5B, element 525, paragraph 71,using a current slot and reserving future slots is interpreted as identifying); and
identifying a candidate multi-slot resource to be applied (fig. 5B, element 525, paragraph 71, future slots are equated to a candidate multi-slot resource, reserving future slots is interpreted as identifying a candidate multi-slot resource to be applied),
wherein, in case that the consecutive slots configured with the value larger than 1 are consecutive in time, the candidate multi-slot resource is configured in the consecutive slots (fig. 5A, please see the entire figure, paragraph 71 and this figure teaches the consecutive slots configured with the value larger than 1 are consecutive in time, fig. 5B, element 525, paragraph 71, future slots are equated to a candidate multi-slot resource, reserving future slots is interpreted the candidate multi-slot resource is configured in the consecutive slots).
In response to claims 2 and 10,
Guo teaches in case of performing periodic-based partial sensing (PBPS), monitoring slots associated with PBPS occasions (paragraph 82 teaches using a (PBPS), paragraph 83, monitoring SCI using one or more side link resource reservation periods are interpreted as monitoring slots associated with PBPS occasions).
In response to claims 6 and 14,
Guo teaches wherein the PBPS occasions are configured based on periodicity values (paragraph 105, TA and TB are equated to periodicity values, performing partial sensing using n+TA and n+TB is interpreted as the PBPS occasions are configured based on periodicity values).
In response to claim 9,
Guo teaches a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the UE comprising: a transceiver; and a controller coupled with the transceiver and configured to (paragraph 57, UE is equated to a UE, paragraph 64 teaches this limitation):
identify a number of consecutive slots configured with a value larger than 1; and identify a candidate multi-slot resource to be applied, wherein, in case that the consecutive slots configured with the value larger than 1 are consecutive in time, the candidate multi-slot resource in configured is the consecutive slots (these limitations are identical to claim 1, therefore, these limitations are rejected as claim 1).
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.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 (a) as being anticipated by GUO et al. (hereinafter, “GUO”; 20240267891) in view of Ye et al. (hereinafter; “Ye” 20240298337).
In response to claims 3 and 11,
Guo does not teach explicitly about claims 3 and 11.
YE in view of GUO teaches performing contiguous partial sensing (CPS) based on a sensing window (paragraph 102, a resource selection window is equated to a sensing window, this paragraph teaches using a contiguous partial sensing (CPS) based on a sensing window),
wherein the sensing window starts at M consecutive logical slots earlier than a start slot of a selected candidate slots, where M is a positive integer (fig. 6, elements 610, 612 and 614, paragraph 102, element 612 is equated to a selected candidate slots, element 614 is equated to sensing window, element 610 is equated to M consecutive logical slots where M is a positive integer, earlier that a start slot of a selected candidate slots, figure 6 and paragraph 102 teaches sending window 614 starts at element 612 or M consecutive logical slots earlier than element 612 or a start slot of a selected candidate slots, where M is a positive integer).
It would have been obvious within the scope of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify GUO for performing contiguous partial sensing (CPS) based on a sensing window, wherein the sensing window starts at M consecutive logical slots earlier than a start slot of a selected candidate slots, where M is a positive integer as taught by YE because it would allow determining side link sensing resources for direct communication.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7-8, 12-13 and 15 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.
As for dependent claims 4 and 12, these claims are objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitations “wherein the sensing window ends at (a first processing time + a second processing time) slots earlier than the start slot of the selected candidate slots.”
The closest prior art in the record GUO et al. (20240267891) teaches in paragraph 105 about performing partial sensing using n+TA and n+TB , but he fails to teach the above cited limitations.
As for dependent claims 5 and 13, these claims are objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitations “excluding the candidate multi-slot resource which is not monitored, among a set of slots of a resource pool.”
The closest prior art in the record GUO et al. (20240267891) teaches in figures 5A and 5B and paragraph 71 about using a number of consecutive slots and using a current slot and reserving future slots is interpreted as identifying, but he fails to teach the above cited limitations.
As for dependent claims 7 and 15, these claims are objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitations “e determining identifying the value according to channel conditions.”
The closest prior art in the record GUO et al. (20240267891) teaches in figures 5A and 5B and paragraph 71 about using a number of consecutive slots and using a current slot and reserving future slots is interpreted as identifying, but he fails to teach the above cited limitations.
Claim 8 is objected, because it depends on claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20280328693………......paragraphs 88 and 94.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABUSAYEED HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-7252. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -7:30 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/ABUSAYEED M HAQUE/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
