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 .
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.
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US 20260089651 A1) in view of R1-2310355 (MODERATOR (HUAWEI): "FL Summary#6 for Al 8.2.1.2 SL-U Physical Channel Design Framework", 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #114bis, R1-2310355).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao discloses:
“An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the UE to…” ([¶ 0005]: “In a second aspect, there is provided a terminal device including a memory and a processor.”)
“receive configuration information … to carry acknowledgement (ACK)/negative acknowledgement (NACK) feedback” ([¶ 0091]: “The first PSFCH may carry sidelink feedback information or conflict information. The sidelink feedback information may be, for example, hybrid automatic repeat reQuest (HARQ)-acknowledge (ACK) information.”; [¶ 0099]: “In some implementations, the number K3 of dedicated PRBs included in one PSFCH may be determined based on protocol-predefined information, pre-configuration information, configuration information of a network device, or indication information of the terminal device.”)
“between one or more first resource blocks and one or more second resource blocks in a common interlace; and” ([¶ 0081]: “In the first structure, one PSFCH occupies a common interlace and K3 dedicated PRBs in one RB set. The K 3 dedicated PRBs are partial PRBs belonging to the same interlace, and the value of K 3 includes, for example, {1, 2, 5}. In one RB set, common interlaces corresponding to different PSFCHs may be the same, and K3 dedicated PRBs corresponding to different PSFCHs are usually different.”)
“transmit … using a transmission power that depends on whether a downlink pathloss value is indicated in the configuration information, a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) transmission in the one or more first resource blocks and the one or more second resource blocks.” ([¶ 0206]: “After determining the transmission power on the PRB in the common interlace and the transmission power on the dedicated PRB, the terminal device determines whether the sum of “the transmission powers on the PRBs in the common interlaces” and “the transmission powers on the dedicated PRBs” exceeds the first maximum transmission power (i.e., the power value corresponding to P.sub.CMAX), if the sum does not exceed the first maximum transmission power, the terminal device may transmit the PSFCH using the determined transmission power on the PRB in the common interlace and the determined transmission power on the dedicated PRB, otherwise, the terminal device needs to adjust the transmission power on the PRB.”; [¶ 0237]: “In some implementations, the parameter for the power control based on downlink pathloss may include an α value for the power control based on downlink pathloss. This parameter may be denoted by α.sub.PSFCH. α.sub.PSFCH may also be referred to as a downlink pathloss compensation factor. α.sub.PSFCH may be determined based on the parameter dl-Alpha-PSFCH configured by the higher layer. If this parameter is not configured by the higher layer, the value of α.sub.PSFCH may be 1.”)
Zhao does not explicitly disclose “indicating a power offset, per resource block.”
However, R1-2310355 discloses the missing feature “indicating a power offset, per resource block” ([page 13]: “Alt 1-2: (pre-)configure an offset between power on one common PRB and power on one dedicated PRB”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Zhao and R1-2310355, to modify the technique as disclosed by Zhao, to utilize per PRB power offsets as disclosed by R1-2310355. The motivation for doing so is that it allows increased flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhao with R1-2310355 to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Zhao in view of R1-2310355 discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhao further discloses “wherein the downlink pathloss value is absent in the configuration information, and the transmission power for the PSFCH transmission is independent of the downlink pathloss value.” ([¶ 0237]: “In some implementations, the parameter for the power control based on downlink pathloss may include an α value for the power control based on downlink pathloss. This parameter may be denoted by α.sub.PSFCH. α.sub.PSFCH may also be referred to as a downlink pathloss compensation factor. α.sub.PSFCH may be determined based on the parameter dl-Alpha-PSFCH configured by the higher layer. If this parameter is not configured by the higher layer, the value of α.sub.PSFCH may be 1.”)
Regarding claim 3, Zhao in view of R1-2310355 discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhao further discloses “wherein the transmission power is divided among the one or more first resource blocks and the one or more second resource blocks in accordance with the power offset, a first quantity of the one or more first resource blocks, and a second quantity of the one or more second resource blocks.” ([¶ 0096]: “In some implementations, the transmission power of the first PSFCH may be determined based on the number of PRBs in a common interlace included in one PSFCH and the number of dedicated PRBs included in the one PSFCH.”)
Regarding claim 4, Zhao in view of R1-2310355 discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhao further discloses “wherein the configuration information further indicates the downlink pathloss value, and the transmission power for the PSFCH transmission is derived using the downlink pathloss value.” ([¶ 0056]: “In the above formula, P.sub.O_PSFCH denotes a PSFCH transmission power basic operating point configured by a higher layer for power control based on downlink pathloss. α.sub.PSFCH denotes a downlink pathloss compensation factor configured by higher layer signaling.”)
Regarding claim 5, Zhao in view of R1-2310355 discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhao further discloses “wherein the transmission power is independent of a first quantity of the one or more first resource blocks and a second quantity of the one or more second resource blocks.” ([¶ 0186-0187]: “The first PRB is a PRB in the common interlace (or a common PRB), and the transmission power of the first PRB may be determined based on (or may satisfy) the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
23
301
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, P.sub.dedicated denotes the transmission power on the dedicated PRB, which can be determined based on, for example, the First manner; and k is determined based on the ratio of the transmission power on one PRB in the common interlace to the transmission power on one dedicated PRB (e.g., k is equal to the ratio of the transmission power on one PRB in the common interlace to the transmission power on one dedicated PRB).”)
Regarding claim 6, Zhao in view of R1-2310355 discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhao further discloses “wherein the transmission power is derived according to a quantity of the one or more first resource blocks.” ([¶ 0096]: “In some implementations, the transmission power of the first PSFCH may be determined based on the number of PRBs in a common interlace included in one PSFCH and the number of dedicated PRBs included in the one PSFCH.”)
Regarding claim 7, Zhao in view of R1-2310355 discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhao further discloses “wherein the transmission power is divided among the one or more first resource blocks and the one or more second resource blocks in accordance with the power offset, a first quantity of the one or more first resource blocks, and a second quantity of the one or more second resource blocks.” ([¶ 0096]: “In some implementations, the transmission power of the first PSFCH may be determined based on the number of PRBs in a common interlace included in one PSFCH and the number of dedicated PRBs included in the one PSFCH.”)
Regarding claim 8, Zhao in view of R1-2310355 discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhao further discloses “wherein the configuration information is in radio resource control signaling.” ([¶ 0051]: “The NR SL system supports open loop control for transmission power of PSSCH, PSCCH, PSFCH, and sidelink synchronization signal block (S-SSB)… Which power control method is actually to be adopted for PSSCH and PSCCH can be determined by configuration of a higher layer (radio resource control (RRC) layer).” Wherein because the paragraph also refers to PSFCH it is implied that PSFCH configuration too can be sent through RRC.)
Regarding claim 9, Zhao in view of R1-2310355 discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhao further discloses “wherein the PSFCH transmission uses unlicensed spectrum.” ([¶ 0067]: “In the SL-U system, a resource pool may be configured on the unlicensed spectrum (or shared spectrum) through pre-configuration information or configuration information of a network device.”)
Regarding claim 10, Zhao in view of R1-2310355 discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhao does not explicitly disclose “wherein the power offset, per resource block, indicates a difference in the transmission power used for a resource block of the one or more first resource blocks and a resource block of the one or more second resource blocks.”
However, R1-2310355 discloses the missing feature “wherein the power offset, per resource block, indicates a difference in the transmission power used for a resource block of the one or more first resource blocks and a resource block of the one or more second resource blocks.” ([page 13]: “Alt 1-2: (pre-)configure an offset between power on one common PRB and power on one dedicated PRB”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Zhao and R1-2310355, to modify the technique as disclosed by Zhao, to utilize per PRB power offsets as disclosed by R1-2310355. The motivation for doing so is that it allows increased flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhao with R1-2310355 to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 11-30 are substantially similar to claims 1-10, with the differences amounting to that claims 1-10 are directed towards an apparatus, while claims 11-20 are directed towards a method and claims 21-30 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Thus, claims 11-30 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 1-10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights