DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-4 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jeong et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0049286 (hereinafter Jeong).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong discloses a wireless communication method (disclosed is a communication method for sidelink (SL) UEs, according to [0088], Fig. 9) comprising:
detecting, by a first wireless communication terminal, a consistent listen-before-talk (LBT) failure for a sidelink transmission (an SL UE’s MAC layer detects a consistent LBT failure, according to [0098]); and
performing, by the first wireless communication terminal, at least one of the following operations in response to the consistent LBT failure for the sidelink transmission being detected: reselecting a sidelink resource for the sidelink transmission; transmitting, to a second wireless communication terminal, a request of a channel occupancy time (COT) message; resetting one or more sidelink consecutive Discontinuous Transmission (DTX) counters for one or more destination identifiers (IDs) associated to at least one of a failed sidelink resource or a failed sidelink carrier; or resetting or restarting one or more radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration related timers for one or more destination IDs associated to at least one of a failed sidelink resource or a failed sidelink carrier (in response to the detected consistent LBT failure, the SL UE performs SL resource reselection [“reselecting a sidelink resource for the sidelink transmission”], according to [0098]).
Claim 13 recites the wireless communication terminal, comprising: a communication unit; and a processor (the SL UE comprises a processor and a transceiver, according to [0005]) that performs the method recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Jeong discloses the wireless communication method of claim 1, wherein the sidelink resource comprises at least one of: a sidelink resource pool, a sidelink resource block (RB) set, or a sidelink bandwidth part (BWP) (SL resource reselection is performed on a transmission resource pool, according to [0089]).
Regarding claim 3, since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for a step written in the alterative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim.
Regarding claim 4, Jeong discloses the wireless communication method of claim 1, wherein reselecting the sidelink resource comprises at least one of: switching a sidelink resource pool from a current or source sidelink resource pool to a reselected or target sidelink resource pool; or switching a sidelink RB set from a current or source sidelink RB set to a reselected or target sidelink RB set (the SL UE switches to a selected transmission resource pool, according to [0089]).
Claims 14-16 do not differ substantively from claims 2-4, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claims 2-4, respectively.
5. Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Talarico et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0247858 (hereinafter Talarico).
Regarding claim 5, Talarico discloses a wireless communication method (disclosed is an SL communication method, according to [0057]) comprising:
receiving, by a second wireless communication terminal from a first wireless communication terminal, consistent listen-before-talk (LBT) failure indication information indicating a consistent LBT failure for a sidelink communication (a UE receives, from another UE, an indication of a consistent LBT failure for an intended SL transmission, according to [0057], [0069], [0076]); and
performing, by the second wireless communication terminal, at least one of the following operations according to the consistent LBT failure indication information: reselecting a sidelink resource for a sidelink transmission; transmitting, to the first wireless communication terminal, cannel occupancy time (COT) information; resetting one or more sidelink consecutive Discontinuous Transmission (DTX) counters for one or more destination identifiers (IDs) associated to at least one of a failed sidelink resource or a failed sidelink carrier; or resetting or restarting one or more radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration related timers for one or more destination IDs associated to at least one of a failed sidelink resource or a failed sidelink carrier (in response to the consistent LBT failure indication, a scheduling change is made (whereby a scheduling change prompted by LBT failure entails a reselection of SL transmission resources to be used by the UE, according to [0018]-[0020]) [“reselecting a sidelink resource for a sidelink transmission”], according to [0057], [0060]).
Regarding claim 6, Talarico discloses the wireless communication method of claim 5, wherein the sidelink resource comprises at least one of: a sidelink resource pool, a sidelink resource block (RB) set, or a sidelink bandwidth part (BWP) (the sidelink resources comprise a resource pool, according to [0022], [0025]).
Regarding claim 7, since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for a step written in the alterative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim.
Regarding claim 8, Talarico discloses the wireless communication method of claim 5, wherein reselecting the sidelink resource comprises at least one of: switching a sidelink resource pool from a failed sidelink resource pool to a reselected sidelink resource pool; or switching a sidelink RB set from a failed sidelink RB set to a reselected sidelink RB set (the UE switches to a selected resource pool for SL communication, according to [0022], [0025]).
Regarding claim 9, since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for a step written in the alterative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talarico as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Ji et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0159500 (hereinafter Ji).
Regarding claim 10, Talarico discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Talarico does not expressly disclose that the second wireless communication terminal receives information of reselected sidelink resource from the first wireless communication terminal.
Ji discloses that the second wireless communication terminal receives information of reselected sidelink resource from the first wireless communication terminal (a first terminal allocates a sidelink resource to a second terminal, according to [0128]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Talarico with Ji such that the second wireless communication terminal receives information of reselected sidelink resource from the first wireless communication terminal.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid sidelink transmission adjustment errors and sidelink data transmission failures (Ji: [0038]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Talarico and Ji discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
Talarico does not expressly disclose that the reselected sidelink resource is received via SCI or a sidelink medium access control control element (MAC CE) or a sidelink RRC message.
Ji does not expressly disclose that the reselected sidelink resource is received via SCI or a sidelink medium access control control element (MAC CE) or a sidelink RRC message (the first terminal allocates the sidelink resource to the second terminal via an SCI, a MAC CE, or RRC, according to [0128]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Talarico as modified by Ji with Ji such that the reselected sidelink resource is received via SCI or a sidelink medium access control control element (MAC CE) or a sidelink RRC message.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid sidelink transmission adjustment errors and sidelink data transmission failures (Ji: [0038]).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form (along with the deletion of the alternative steps of independent claim 5) including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights