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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary amendment filed 11/18/2024 has been acknowledged. Claims 31-35 are canceled. Claims 1-30 are pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 11/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 23 recites various “means for” languages which are interpreted based on the originally filed specification and drawing, as follows:
means for transmitting is interpreted as transceiver 1032 of UE 105, see fig. 10;
means for determining is interpreted as processors 1010 of UE 105, see fig. 10 and [0066];
means for measuring is interpreted as processors 1010 of UE 105, see fig. 10 and [0030];
means for selecting is interpreted as processors 1010 of UE 105, see fig. 10 and [0110];
means for communicating is interpreted as processors 1030 of UE 105, see fig. 10 and [0032].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae; Hyukjin et al. (US 20200351705, hereinafter Chae) in view of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #109-e: "Discussion on potential solutions for SL positioning", May 9-May 20, 2022 (hereinafter 3GPP).
Claims 1, 12, 23, 25. Chae discloses a method, an apparatus and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for wireless communication by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising:
transmitting a message indicating a sidelink congestion control processing capability of the UE ([0004][0365][0388][0389]);
determining, in accordance with the sidelink congestion control processing capability of the UE, an applicable congestion control processing time value for congestion control of a first sidelink (SL) resource pool, the first SL resource pool comprising SL resources ([0357][0361][0389]);
measuring a channel busy ratio (CBR) of the first SL resource pool for a first slot ([0357][0382]);
selecting, based on the measured CBR, a resource of the first SL resource pool for use to communicate during a second slot, wherein the second slot is offset in time from the first slot by the applicable congestion control processing time value (Fig. 10, 22, [0319] [0327] [0389] [0391][0393][0394]); and
communicating using the selected resource during the second slot ([0391]).
Chae discloses sidelink congestion control but does not specifically disclose sidelink positioning reference signal (SL-PRS) congestion control.
In a similar endeavor, 3GPP discloses congestion control is applied to sidelink positioning reference signal resources (page 11, last paragraph to page 12, 1st paragraph).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, to modify congestion control strategy for SL, as taught by Chae, to handle SL-PRS congestion, as disclosed by 3GPP.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to provide an enhanced method to reduce instant congestion level by distributing resources across the time span, as suggested by 3GPP (page 12, 1st paragraph).
Claims 2, 13, 24, 26. Chae in view of 3GPP discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the applicable congestion control processing time value is determined based on a congestion control processing time value set corresponding to the SL-PRS congestion control processing capability of the UE (Fig. 10, 22, [0319] [0327] [0389] [0391][0393][0394]).
Claims 3, 14, 27. Chae in view of 3GPP discloses the method of claim 2, comprising identifying a value in the congestion control processing time value set as the applicable congestion control processing time value based on a sub- carrier spacing of the first SL resource pool (Fig. 10, 22, [0319] [0327] [0389] [0391][0393][0394]).
Claims 4, 15, 28. Chae in view of 3GPP discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the message comprises: a first information element indicating a first congestion control processing capability that constitutes the SL-PRS congestion control processing capability of the UE; and a second information element indicating a second congestion control processing capability that constitutes a congestion control processing capability of the UE for congestion control of a second SL resource pool, the second SL resource pool not comprising SL-PRS resources (Fig. 10, 22, [0319] [0327] [0389] [0391][0393][0394]).
Claims 5, 16, 29. Chae in view of 3GPP discloses the method of claim 4, comprising determining, in accordance with the second congestion control processing capability, an applicable congestion control processing time value for congestion control of the second SL resource pool (Fig. 10, 22, [0319] [0327] [0389] [0391][0393][0394]).
Claims 6, 17, 30. Chae in view of 3GPP discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the message comprises an information element indicating a common congestion control processing capability that constitutes both the SL-PRS congestion control processing capability of the UE and a congestion control processing capability of the UE for congestion control of a second SL resource pool, the second SL resource pool not comprising SL-PRS resources (Fig. 10, 22, [0319] [0327] [0389] [0391][0393][0394]).
Claims 7, 18. Chae in view of 3GPP discloses the method of claim 6, comprising: determining, in accordance with the common congestion control processing capability: a first congestion control processing time value constituting the applicable congestion control processing time value for congestion control of the first SL resource pool; and a second congestion control processing time value constituting an applicable congestion control processing time value for congestion control of the second SL resource pool (Fig. 10, 22, [0319] [0327] [0389] [0391][0393][0394]).
Claims 8, 19. Chae in view of 3GPP discloses the method of claim 7, comprising modifying the second congestion control processing time value according to one or more modification factors to determine the first congestion control processing time value (Fig. 10, 22, [0319] [0327] [0389] [0391][0393][0394]).
Claims 9, 20. Chae in view of 3GPP discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the modifying the second congestion control processing time value according to the one or more modification factors includes scaling the second congestion control processing time value based on a ratio between a bandwidth of the first SL resource pool and a bandwidth of the second SL resource pool ([0066] channel occupancy ratio).
Claims 10, 21. Chae in view of 3GPP discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the message indicates a sidelink congestion control SL-PRS resource processing capability of the UE ([0004][0365][0388][0389]).
Claims 11, 22. Chae in view of 3GPP discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the message indicates an SL-PRS buffering capability of the UE ([0245][0354] buffer).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miao et al. (US 20240114543) disclose embodiments of the present disclosure provide a solution for sidelink communications. In a method for communications, a first terminal device determines from a resource pool configured for the first terminal device, first resources in a time window before a first slot based on a resource selection scheme of the first terminal device. The first terminal device determines a first number of occupied resources in the first resources. The first terminal device determines a congestion level indicator of a sidelink channel for the first slot based at least in part on the first number and a number of the first resources. The sidelink channel is associated with the first terminal device. With the proposed mechanism, the sidelink congestion level indicator, such as, a channel busy ratio (CBR) is determined with consideration of the resource selection scheme and the reception capability of the terminal device. As such, the accuracy of CBR measurement can be improved, which is beneficial to sidelink congestion control and a reduction of the power consumption at the terminal device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHY W WANG-HURST whose telephone number is (571)270-5371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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.
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.
/KATHY W WANG-HURST/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights