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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the claims received on 9/26/2025.
Communications via email (MPEP 502.03)
In order to advance prosecution of the instant application, the Applicants are invited to file a form PTO/SB/439 "Internet Communications Authorized", and to include, in their response, the Applicants’ contact telephone number and e-mail address: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
The Examiner thanks the Applicants for "The Internet Communications Authorized" letter on file; however, it does not comply with MPEP 502.03.
Claim Interpretation
Plain Meaning (MPEP 2111.01): MPEP 2111.01 states: The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification. An applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s) in the specification at the relevant time. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
"Or": The Examiner consulted the specification to verify whether there is a definition for "or", but there is no such definition. MPEP 2143.03 explains that language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional, but does not require that feature or step, does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. When a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In the instant case, a claim using the term "or" is interpreted as a claim which requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, which are separated by the term “or”, as described by MPEP 2117, 2143.03, and 2173.05(h).
Regarding independent claim 15, it is a method claim and is interpreted as: 15. A method for sidelink communication, comprising:
sending, by a first terminal device (the claim term "first terminal device" is not a generic placeholder or a replacement for "means"), first information to a first device (claimed "sending, by a first terminal device, first information to a first device" does not comprise functional language as described in MPEP 2181), wherein the first information (the claim term "first information" is not a generic placeholder or a replacement for "means") indicates at least one of synchronization information of the first terminal device or synchronization information of a second terminal device (this method claim comprises one single limitation; however, this is not a single means claim).
Election without Traverse
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, formed by claims 15-19 in the reply filed on 1/21/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1-14, 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/21/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 10/10/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a) (4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Effective January 19, 2025, an information disclosure statement (IDS) should contain a clear written assertion by the applicant and patent owner that, either the IDS is accompanied by the appropriate IDS size fee, or that no IDS size fee is required. In accordance with § 1.97(i), an IDS filed in an application without the written assertion or the necessary IDS size fee assertion or the necessary IDS size fee will be placed in the file but not considered. The Applicants may then file a new IDS accompanied by the appropriate written assertion and, if appropriate, the necessary IDS size fee; the date the “replacement” IDS is filed will be the date of the IDS for purposes of determining timing compliance with § 1.97 (e.g. Before First Action, Before Final/Allowance, Before Issue Fee). An authorization to charge fees to a deposit account is not a compliant written assertion under the new § 1.98(a) requirement, unless the authorization clearly identifies the particular IDS size fee that should be charged for submission of a particular charged for submission of a particular IDS. Language such as ‘‘the Director is authorized to charge any applicable IDS size fee to deposit account XX–XXXXX’’ would not be a compliant written assertion because it fails to establish which IDS size fee is due. General authorizations to charge fees to a deposit account are not compliant written assertions under the new § 1.98(a) requirement. A compliant written assertion template can be downloaded here: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms For more information, please refer to Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 224: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-11-20/pdf/2024-26821.pdf
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any resubmission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing elements will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Subject Matter Eligible under 35 USC 101
Please refer to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes in MPEP 2106 and in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, hereinafter, the “2019 PEG”:
PNG
media_image1.png
711
1293
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1: See MPEP 2106.03: 35 U.S.C. 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. Claims 15-19 are directed to a process which is a statutory category. Therefore, the answer in step 1 is YES.
Step 2A: MPEP 2106 subclause II. “ELIGIBILITY STEP 2A: WHETHER A CLAIM IS DIRECTED TO A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION” explains that Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Together, these prongs represent the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, which determines whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2A prong 1: The 2019 PEG explains that Step 2A prong 1 procedure for determining whether a claim “recites” an abstract idea is: identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, which are: Mathematical Concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), Mental Processes, concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). In this case, the independent claims recite an abstract idea of concept performed in the human mind, including an observation, of exchanging information between two parties; therefore, the answer to Step 2 prong 1 is YES.
Step 2A prong 2: Yes, the claim does recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. Par. 3 of the specification describes a problem of prior art systems where, when two terminal devices do not function as a synchronization source of one another, there may be a synchronization timing difference between these two terminal devices, leading to many problems. Par. 17 of the specification describes a solution to the problem, which includes adding a process for eliminating the impact resulted from synchronization timing differences between two terminals by exchanging synchronization information between the two terminals, as claimed. Therefore, the claimed invention provides an improvement to the state-of-the-art peer-to-peer communications, which is therefore a specific improvement over prior systems, and the claimed invention reflects such practical application. Please refer to MPEP 2106.04(d): "Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application" under the header "Relevant considerations for evaluating whether additional elements integrate a judicial exception into a practical application": "Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: • An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)". See for example the court decision in 118 USPQ2d 1684 Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp; U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, page 1689: “much of the advancement made in computer technology consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes”. Therefore, the answer to prong 2 is YES, and the claims are eligible in step 2A.
PNG
media_image2.png
654
702
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
677
661
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 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 of this title, 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.
7.20.02.aia Joint Inventors, Common Ownership Presumed
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
7.23.aia Test for Obviousness
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vargas et al (publication number 2020/0374858), hereinafter Vargas.
Vargas teaches (please refer to Vargas Fig. 5):
PNG
media_image4.png
505
486
media_image4.png
Greyscale
A vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication system (Vargas par. 5) where the electromagnetic spectrum is subdivided into various classes, bands, channels, etc. In 5G NR, two initial operating bands have been identified as frequency range designations FR1 (410 MHz-7.125 GHz) and FR2 (24.25 GHz-52.6 GHz). The frequencies between FR1 and FR2 are often referred to as mid-band frequencies (Vargas par. 32). A unicast connection between one sidelink device 502a and another sidelink device 502b over an FR2 sidelink (e.g., a mm Wave sidelink) is established in a standalone (SA) mode or in a non-standalone (NSA) mode. In the SA mode, the mm Wave sidelink is established without the support of any other previously established communication link in a different frequency band or radio access technology (RAT). In the NSA mode, the mm Wave sidelink is established with the support of a previously established unicast link (par. 93, 94). Vargas uses the following acronyms:
Physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH, Vargas par. 78): Includes sidelink control information (SCI) transmitted by a wireless communication device (e.g., UE, V2X, D2D device or more generally, a sidelink device) towards a set of one or more other sidelink devices. The SCI includes synchronization information to synchronize communication between sidelink devices on the sidelink channel (Vargas par. 78).
Physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH) may include the PSCCH including the SCI (Vargas par. 34, 35)
Physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH, Vargas par. 35) includes feedback information in response to a transmission from a peer device (Vargas par. 35).
CSI report: channel state information (Vargas par. 107 in reference to Fig. 6). A CSI report is sent within the PSFCH (Vargas par. 109).
Regarding claim 15, Vargas teaches a method for sidelink communication (please refer to Vargas par. 101 in reference to Fig. 6: Signaling diagram illustrating a flow for performing cross-link scheduling of a transmission between sidelink devices 602 and 604 in, for example, a V2X NSA deployment), comprising:
PNG
media_image5.png
517
395
media_image5.png
Greyscale
sending, by a first terminal device (Vargas Fig. 6, sidelink device 602), first information (Vargas Fig. 6, PSCCH 610 explained in par. 106: At 610, the transmitting sidelink device 602 generates and transmits a PSCCH including sidelink control information, SCI, for the FR2 sidelink over the FR1 sidelink) to a first device (Vargas Fig. 6, sidelink device 604).
The first embodiment of Vargas does not explicitly teach: "Wherein the first information indicates at least one of synchronization information of the first terminal device or synchronization information of a second terminal device".
However, a second embodiment (par. 72) of Vargas teaches: Wherein the first information (Vargas Fig. 6, PSCCH 610 including SCI in the first embodiment. In the second embodiment of par. 72, SCI includes synchronization information to synchronize communication between sidelink devices on the sidelink channel and scheduling information indicating which resource blocks are reserved for sidelink communication by the initiating sidelink device, also referred to as the transmitting device or scheduling entity) indicates at least one of synchronization information of the first terminal device (Vargas par. 72: SCI includes synchronization information to synchronize communication between sidelink devices on the sidelink channel) or synchronization information of a second terminal device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of the first embodiment of Vargas, by including, in the SCI, synchronization information to synchronize communication between sidelink devices on the sidelink channel and scheduling information indicating which resource blocks are reserved for sidelink communication by the initiating sidelink device, also referred to as the transmitting device or scheduling entity, as suggested by the second embodiment of Vargas, in order to synchronize timing on a first sidelink and a second sidelink, enabling the wireless communication devices to align respective slot boundaries on the first and second sidelinks (Vargas par. 37) and in order to facilitate direct communication between wireless communication devices, which can be applied to V2X systems. V2X systems enable vehicles to obtain information related to the weather, nearby accidents, road conditions, activities of nearby vehicles and pedestrians, objects nearby the vehicle, and other pertinent information that may be utilized to improve the vehicle driving experience, increase vehicle safety, and support autonomous vehicles (Vargas par. 5). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vargas, and further in view of Tian et al (publication number 2014/0368334), hereinafter Tian.
Regarding claim 16, Vargas teaches further comprising: sending, by the first terminal device, pilot signals to a third terminal device (Vargas par. 109: The transmitting sidelink device 602 transmits a RRC message or DCI on FR1 indicating a configuration of reference signals or pilots to be transmitted on FR2. The transmitting device 602 then transmits the reference signals or pilots on FR2 for use by the receiving sidelink device 604 in measuring the channel quality); or receiving, by the first terminal device, pilot signals sent by the third terminal device.
Vargas as modified does not explicitly teach: "wherein the pilot signals are signals configured for sidelink positioning".
Tian teaches (Fig. 3):
PNG
media_image6.png
556
663
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein the pilot signals are signals configured for sidelink positioning (Tian par. 32 in reference to Fig. 3: the asset tags make time of arrival, TOA, measurements on the received pilot signals from different peer nodes 302 and either compute the position at the asset tag or send the measurements to the position location server for position location computation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Vargas as modified, by incorporating the features of Tian's asset tags, which make time of arrival, TOA, measurements on the received pilot signals from different peer nodes 302 and either compute the position at the asset tag or send the measurements to the position location server for position location computation, as suggested by Tian, in order to provide a network of devices used to wirelessly locate objects or people, for example, inside a building. Instead of using a satellite positioning system (SPS), a positioning system may rely on nearby nodes that actively locate tags (Tian par. 3). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 17, Vargas teaches sending, by a first terminal device (Vargas Fig. 6, sidelink device 602), first information (Vargas Fig. 6, PSCCH 610 explained in par. 106: At 610, the transmitting sidelink device 602 generates and transmits a PSCCH including sidelink control information, SCI, for the FR2 sidelink over the FR1 sidelink.) to a first device (Vargas Fig. 6, sidelink device 604).
Vargas as modified does not explicitly teach: "wherein the first information comprises at least one of: information associated with one or more synchronization sources of at least one of the first terminal device and the second terminal device; time difference information associated with at least one of the first terminal device and the second terminal device; or round-trip delay between the first terminal device and the second terminal device."
Tian teaches (please refer to Tian Fig. 5 described in par. 48-62. Par. 49, 54: Location server 480 sends a request signal 528, 532 to access point 410, which in its turn sends a request signal 520 to the asset tags 402-406. Par. 51: In response to the server's request, the first asset tag 402 sends a first pilot ranging signal 524 to the second asset tag 404, which responsively engages in ranging measurement and ranging estimates. The second asset tag 404 responds to the first asset tag 402 with a second pilot ranging signal 526 to allow the first asset tag 402 to estimate its position and ranging distance relative to the first asset tag 402. Par. 52: The access point 410 relays the results of the ranging estimates and measurements from the asset tags 402, 404 and 406 back to the position location server 480 via response signals 530, 534).
PNG
media_image7.png
721
682
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein the first information (Tian Fig. 5, second pilot ranging signal 526 described in par. 51, 56) comprises at least one of: information associated with one or more synchronization sources of at least one of the first terminal device and the second terminal device; time difference information associated with at least one of the first terminal device and the second terminal device; or round-trip delay between the first terminal device and the second terminal device (Par. 55, 56 in reference to Fig. 4: the location server 480 sends a message which instructs the asset tags to make direct range measurements between themselves. The position location server 480 identifies one of the asset tags 402-406 as the master asset tag and the other asset tag(s) as the slave asset tag(s). The combination of the master and slave ranging pilot signal transmission and reception times are used by the master asset tag and/or the position location server 480 to estimate the round trip delay between the two asset tags. Tian par. 60: The estimation of the round trip delay between the first asset tag 402 and the second asset tag 404 is performed by the first asset tag 402 or the second asset tag 404. It would have been obvious for the second tag 404 to provide the estimation of the round trip delay to the first asset tag 402, or vice-versa, because Fig. 5 clearly shows that the first and second asset tags are capable of exchanging signals in response to a request from the location server 480).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Vargas as modified, by incorporating the features of Tian's asset tags, such as: making time of arrival, TOA, measurements on the received pilot signals from different peer nodes 302, computing the position at the asset tag, or sending the measurements to the position location server for position location computation, making ranging measurements in response to a request from a positioning server, estimating round trip delay, and sending the estimate in a message, as suggested by Tian, in order to provide a network of devices used to wirelessly locate objects or people, for example, inside a building. Instead of using a satellite positioning system (SPS), a positioning system may rely on nearby nodes that actively locate tags (Tian par. 3). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 17 (The Examiner will provide an alternative mapping from claim 17 to the references), Vargas teaches sending, by a first terminal device (Vargas Fig. 6, sidelink device 602), first information (Vargas Fig. 6, PSCCH 610 explained in par. 106: At 610, the transmitting sidelink device 602 generates and transmits a PSCCH including sidelink control information, SCI, for the FR2 sidelink over the FR1 sidelink.) to a first device (Vargas Fig. 6, sidelink device 604).
Vargas as modified does not explicitly teach: "wherein the first information comprises at least one of: information associated with one or more synchronization sources of at least one of the first terminal device and the second terminal device; time difference information associated with at least one of the first terminal device and the second terminal device; or round-trip delay between the first terminal device and the second terminal device."
Tian teaches (please refer to Tian Fig. 5 described in par. 48-62).
wherein the first information (Tian Fig. 5, messaging link response signal 522A) comprises at least one of: information associated with one or more synchronization sources of at least one of the first terminal device and the second terminal device; time difference information associated with at least one of the first terminal device and the second terminal device; or round-trip delay between the first terminal device and the second terminal device (Par. 55, 56 in reference to Fig. 4: the location server 480 sends a message 528 which instructs the asset tags to make direct range measurements between themselves. Tian par. 60: The estimation of the round trip delay between the first asset tag 402 and the second asset tag 404 is performed by the first asset tag 402 or the second asset tag 404. It would have been obvious for the first asset tag 402 to respond to the server's request, sending the estimation of the round trip delay via response signal 522A, for the access point 410 to relay the response to the server via signal 530, because the server initiated the process by making the request 528).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Vargas as modified, by incorporating the features of Tian's asset tags, such as: making time of arrival, TOA, measurements on the received pilot signals from different peer nodes 302, computing the position at the asset tag, or sending the measurements to the position location server for position location computation, making ranging measurements in response to a request from a positioning server, estimating round trip delay, and sending the estimate in a message, as suggested by Tian, in order to provide a network of devices used to wirelessly locate objects or people, for example, inside a building. Instead of using a satellite positioning system (SPS), a positioning system may rely on nearby nodes that actively locate tags (Tian par. 3). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites: "18. The method according to claim 17, wherein the information associated with the one or more synchronization sources comprises at least one of: a type of the one or more synchronization sources; a coverage of the one or more synchronization sources; a synchronization connection status of the one or more synchronization sources; cell identity information corresponding to the one or more synchronization sources; or synchronization accuracy information of the one or more synchronization sources." However, claimed “information associated with the one or more synchronization sources” doesn’t limit the claim, and isn’t required, because it is alternative to another element already taught by prior art in intervening claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites: "19. The method according to claim 18, wherein the synchronization accuracy information comprises an accuracy unit of a synchronization estimation, and the accuracy unit comprises one or more of: an integer multiple of a sampling interval; nanosecond (ns); microsecond (s); or millisecond (ms)." However, claimed “information associated with the one or more synchronization sources” and claimed " the synchronization accuracy information" don’t limit the claim, and aren’t required, because they are alternative to another element already taught by prior art in intervening claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD EISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3334. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Tuesday from 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kathy Wang-Hurst, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RONALD EISNER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644