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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 25, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claims 1, 10, and 19, the limitation “receiving control signaling that configures an interlace resource block (RB) sidelink transmission structure for a sidelink transmission” was not described in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to resource allocation enhancement for interlaced RB-based transmission, which is described in at least paragraphs [0124]-[0135] of the filed specification and corresponds to Fig. 7 of the Drawings. However, the aforementioned paragraphs and Fig. 7 are silent on “receiving control signaling that configures an interlace resource block (RB) sidelink transmission structure for a sidelink transmission.” At most, paragraph [0131], which corresponds to step 710 of Fig. 7, describes receiving a request for sidelink resources from another UE. However, a request for sidelink resources is not the same or equivalent to “control signaling that configures an interlace resource block (RB) sidelink transmission structure for a sidelink transmission.”
Dependent claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 are directed to determining a number of sub-channels and a number of RB sets to use for the sidelink transmission based at least in part on the interlace RB sidelink transmission structure configured by the control signaling. However, the original disclosure are silent on the interlace RB sidelink transmission structure configured by control signaling for the same reasons as independent claims 1, 10, and 19 above.
Thus, a person skilled in the art at the time the application was filed would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed in view of the disclosure of the application as filed.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as independent claims 1, 10, and 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8-10, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0091901 (hereinafter “Sun”).
Sun discloses, teaches, or suggests:
regarding independent claims 1, 10, and 19, a user equipment (UE) (see at least Fig. 12, UE A) comprising:
one or more processors (see at least paragraphs 134 and 146, a processor); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the UE to perform operations comprising (see at least paragraphs 137 and 147, non-transitory computer-readable medium):
receiving control signaling that configures an interlace resource block (RB) sidelink transmission structure for a sidelink transmission (see at least Fig. 9A, Fig. 10, and paragraphs 114-116, UE A receives a frequency interlace configuration for sidelink communication, where the configuration indicates a pool for frequency interlace resources in a frequency band);
allocating a candidate single-slot resource or a candidate multi-slot resource for the sidelink transmission in accordance with the interlace RB sidelink transmission structure (see at least Fig. 9A, Fig. 10, and paragraphs 114-116, UE A determines a first frequency interlace for sidelink communication based on the configuration and UE A assigns additional frequency domain resource (e.g., one or more frequency interlace 608) and/or time domain resource for communicating the PSSCH data using mechanisms described in the schemes 900 and/or 1000, where scheme 900 shown in Fig. 9A corresponds to a candidate single-slot resource and scheme 1000 shown in Fig. 10 corresponds to a candidate multi-slot resource); and
performing the sidelink transmission using the candidate single-slot resource or the candidate multi-slot resource (see at least Fig. 9A, Fig. 10, and paragraphs 114-116, UE A communicates the PSSCH data and/or PSCCH control information using mechanisms described in the schemes 900 and/or 1000, where scheme 900 shown in Fig. 9A corresponds to a candidate single-slot resource and scheme 1000 shown in Fig. 10 corresponds to a candidate multi-slot resource);
regarding claims 8 and 17, determining a number of RB sets to use for the sidelink transmission based at least in part on the interlace RB sidelink transmission structure configured by the control signaling (see at least Fig. 9A, Fig. 10, and paragraphs 114-116, UE A determines a first frequency interlace for sidelink communication based on the configuration and UE A assigns additional frequency domain resource (e.g., one or more frequency interlace 608) and/or time domain resource for communicating the PSSCH data using mechanisms described in the schemes 900 and/or 1000, where scheme 900 shown in Fig. 9A and scheme 1000 shown in Fig. 10 include a number of RB sets for sidelink communication); and
regarding claims 9 and 18, determining at least one of a remaining packet delay budget, a Layer 1 (L1) priority, a number of consecutive slots, or a resource reservation interval for the sidelink transmission (see at least Fig. 10A and paragraph 116, scheme 1000 shown in Fig. 10 corresponds to a candidate multi-slot resource including a number of consecutive slots).
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.
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.
Claims 2-7, 11-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2026/0239389 (hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20, Sun discloses that UE A receives a configuration indicating a pool of frequency interlace resources in a frequency band of a single-slot resource (see at least Fig. 9A and paragraph 114) but Sun does not explicitly disclose that the candidate single-slot resource is defined as a set of contiguous sub-channels starting from a first sub-channel in a slot in one or more contiguous RB sets starting from a first RB set.
However, in an analogous art, Liu discloses, teaches, or suggests a resource pool including a set of contiguous sub-channels starting from a first sub-channel in a slot in one or more contiguous RB sets starting from a first RB set (see at least Fig. 10 and paragraphs 214-223, a candidate resource is defined as a set of LsubCH contiguous sub-channels (e.g., sub-channels with #0, #1, and #2 in RB set 1002) in a single slot, where a candidate resource can be defined within an RB set and can be defined across a set of multiple RB sets , where RB set indices in the set of RB sets may be contiguous).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique of defining or identifying a candidate resource pool, as taught by Liu, in to the invention of Sun in order to implement an interlaced sidelink communication that fulfills the occupied channel bandwidth (OCB) requirement (see at least paragraphs 110-112 of Liu).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Sun discloses that UE A receives a configuration indicating a pool of frequency interlace resources in a frequency band of a multi-slot resource (see at least Fig. 10 and paragraph 114) but Sun does not explicitly disclose that the candidate multi-slot resource is defined as a set of contiguous sub-channels starting from a first sub-channel in one or more consecutive slots starting from a first slot in one or more contiguous RB sets starting from a first RB set.
However, in an analogous art, Liu discloses, teaches, or suggests a resource pool including a set of contiguous sub-channels starting from a first sub-channel in one or more consecutive slots starting from a first slot in one or more contiguous RB sets starting from a first RB set (see at least Fig. 7, Fig. 10, and paragraphs 145 and 214-223, a candidate resource is defined as a set of LsubCH contiguous sub-channels (e.g., sub-channels with #0, #1, and #2 in RB set 1002) in a single slot, where a candidate resource can be defined within an RB set and can be defined across a set of multiple RB sets , where RB set indices in the set of RB sets may be contiguous, where Fig. 7 illustrates slot #4 and slot #5 being consecutive slots in the resource pool).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique of defining or identifying a candidate resource pool, as taught by Liu, in to the invention of Sun in order to implement an interlaced sidelink communication that fulfills the occupied channel bandwidth (OCB) requirement (see at least paragraphs 110-112 of Liu).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Sun discloses, teaches, or suggests that the one or more consecutive slots are consecutive in physical slots (see at least Fig. 10 and paragraph 107, slots 1002 and 1004).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Sun discloses, teaches, or suggests allocating the candidate single-slot resource or the candidate multi-slot resource for the sidelink transmission comprises allocating the candidate multi-slot resource for the sidelink transmission if a quantity of the one or more consecutive slots is greater than 1 (see at least Fig. 10 and paragraph 107, slots 1002 and 1004).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Sun discloses, teaches, or suggests allocating the candidate single-slot resource or the candidate multi-slot resource for the sidelink transmission comprises allocating the candidate single-slot resource for the sidelink transmission if a quantity of the one or more consecutive slots is equal to 1 (see at least Fig. 9A and paragraph 99, the BS configures the UE with multiple frequency interlaces over one transmission slot for sidelink communicaiton).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Sun discloses, teaches, or suggests all of the subject matter of the invention of claim 1, as described above, but Sun does not explicitly disclose determining a number of sub-channels to use for the sidelink transmission in a slot in each RB based at least in part on the interlace RB sidelink transmission structure configured by the control signaling.
However, in an analogous art, Liu discloses, teaches, or suggests determining a number of sub-channels to use for the sidelink transmission in a slot in each RB based at least in part on the interlace RB sidelink transmission structure configured by the control signaling (see at least paragraphs 225-229, determining a number of sub-channels contained in an RB set in a resource pool, where (LsubCH/LRB-set) subchannels includes predefined interlace indices {0,5}, {1,6}, {2,7}, {3,8}, or {4,9} if the (LsubCH/LRB-set) subchannels includes 2 interlaces in an RB set).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique of defining or identifying a candidate resource pool, as taught by Liu, in to the invention of Sun in order to implement an interlaced sidelink communication that fulfills the occupied channel bandwidth (OCB) requirement (see at least paragraphs 110-112 of Liu).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0185046 (Park) – sidelink resource pool configuration in an unlicensed band based on a resource block set and an interlace/subchannel.
U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0374372 (Rastegardoost et al.) – multi-consecutive slots transmission with sidelink discontinuous reception.
U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0386371 (Chien) – single or multi-slot sidelink scheduling including a RB-based interlace resource structure or a RB-based contiguous resource structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Pawaris Sinkantarakorn whose telephone number is (571)270-1424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/PAO SINKANTARAKORN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409 09/16/2026
Prosecution Insights