Application No. 16/088,004
`Reply to Office Action dated August 6, 2019
`
`w
`
`The examiner is thanked for the clearly stated action. The present amendment is
`
`filed in response to the office action mailed August 6, 2019.
`
`Claims 1, 5-13, and 20-29 are pending, of which claims 1 and 20 are independent
`
`claims. Claims 1, 8, 20 and 24 are amended in the present amendment. No new matter has been
`
`added to the application.
`
`Interview Summam
`
`Applicant thanks Examiner Sams for his time and consideration in conducting a
`
`telephone interview on October 2, 2019. In the interview, possible amendment to claims 8 and
`
`24 were discussed to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 8-9 and 24-25.
`
`Possible amendments to independent claims 1 and 20 to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections
`
`were also discussed, to add that “the first to fourth parameters are dynamically signaled from the
`
`radio base station to vary the length and width of the location subsections and how the location
`
`section is divided.” The examiner observed that the amendments may not be sufficient to
`
`overcome the teaching of US. 2017/0041916, Soret, 1111[0046]—[0052], under 35 U.S.C. 103, in
`
`particular Soret, 11[0052] which describes “The relevant location area can be identified for
`
`example based on the position coordinates of the mobile radio device with respect to some
`
`predefined origin, where the predefined origin can be for example the coordinates of the base
`
`station/access node location or of a specific point along the roadway or any other fixed
`
`geographic way-point. The origin can also be dynamic, determined by the network (ITS
`
`application) and signaled to the mobile radio devices and be set depending on traffic conditions
`
`(cars density, speeds, road conditions, etc.).” Applicant indicated that claim amendments and
`
`arguments in view of the interview discussion would be submitted, for further consideration by
`
`the examiner.
`
`Re'ections Under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112 b are Overcome
`
`Claims 8-9 and 24-25 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for missing “sensing
`
`capability,” which the office has deemed essential to the invention.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Application No. 16/088,004
`Reply to Office Action dated August 6, 2019
`
`In response applicant has amended claims 8 and 24, as set forth above, to more
`
`specifically recite that determination of “whether potential radio resources are or will be used by
`
`another mobile terminal” is “based on signaling from the radio base station or sensing by the
`
`vehicular mobile terminal, ” as supported by 11[0229] of the application as published, reproduced
`
`below:
`
`Sensing can be performed by the vehicular mobile terminal when determining
`radio resource according to Mode
`1
`(eNB-scheduled) or Mode 2 (UE-
`autonomous).
`In particular, assuming the UE-autonomous resource allocation of
`Mode 2, the vehicular mobile terminal shall perform sensing before actually using
`radio resources from a suitable radio resource pool.
`
`Thus, the disclosure supports that, in case of Mode 1 in which eNB performs
`
`resource scheduling, sensing by the vehicular mobile terminal is not required (not essential),
`
`while in case of Mode 2, sensing by the vehicular mobile terminal is performed.
`
`Claims 8-9 and 24-25, as amended, are now believed to be definite in compliance
`
`with 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Withdrawal of this basis of claim rejection is respectfully requested.
`
`Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 are Overcome
`
`Claims 1, 5-6, 10-11, 13, 17, 21-22, 26-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Soret et al. (US 2017/0041916).
`
`Claims 7, 12, 23, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Soret in view of Zheng (US 2013/0288645).
`
`Claims 8-9 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Soret in view ofNikopour et al. (US 2016/0295589).
`
`In response, applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 20, as set forth
`
`above, to more particularly recite the subject matter that applicant considers as their invention.
`
`The amendments are supported, for example, by 1111[0284], [0300]&[0312] of the application,
`
`reproduced below:
`
`The parameter X of course may vam depending on the size of the radio
`[0284]
`
`cell under control of the eNodeB the available radio resources that the eNodeB
`
`intends to make available to vehicular UEs in its radio cell, and possibly also
`other conditions including traffic types/speed, etc.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Application No. 16/088,004
`Reply to Office Action dated August 6, 2019
`
`[0300] How the sections and the subsections are set up may be decided by a
`suitable entity in the mobile communication system, such as the one that is also
`responsible to decide which radio resource allocation method to use (e.g., the
`eNodeB, the MIME, or a ProSe related entity). The length and breadth of the
`sections and subsections may be decided by this entity, which may consider
`different parameters in said respect. In the exemplarily assumed scenarios of
`FIGS. 9A, 9B and 9C, the breadth of the section is equal to the breadth of the
`road, while the breadth of a subsection is equal to the breadth of a lane (e.g., 4 m).
`The length of a subsection may depend on the speed of the vehicles that are
`traveling on that road, the resulting inter-vehicle distance as a function of the
`vehicle speed, and also on whether only one car shall be assumed p_er subsection
`or several cars per subsection
`
`[0312] A, unit' each for the length and width of the section/subsection can be
`signaled in the Broadcast message,
`e.g., 0.degree. 00'0.036” representing
`1.1132 m....
`
`(Emphases added, see also, Figs. 9A-9C of the application.)
`
`Applicant has reviewed Soret and respectfully submits that it does not teach or
`
`suggest the radio base station dynamically signaling to the vehicular mobile terminal “the first
`77 (L
`
`parameter indicative of a length of the location subsection,
`77 (L
`
`the second parameter indicative of
`
`a width of the location subsection,
`
`the third parameter indicative of a number of locations
`
`subsections along the width into which allocation section is divided,” and “the fourth parameter
`
`indicative of a number of location subsections along the length into which the location section is
`
`divided,” “to vary the length and width of the location subsections and how the location section
`
`is divided” as claimed.
`
`Soret, in reference to its Figs. 2 and 3A, describes that a road is divided into
`
`location areas (e.g., 12 location areas in Fig. 3A), wherein “access resources [AR] are associated
`
`with each discrete location area.” Soret, 1][0020]. For example, “FIG. 3A
`
`assumes there are
`
`N=8 total access resources [AR] available for [12] geographic location areas,” that is, four of the
`
`eight ARs (#0, #1, #4, #5) are “reused” and are each associated with two location areas,
`
`respectively. Soret, 1][0064].
`
`Note that, in Soret, the segmentation into location areas is static, and the
`
`association between the access resources [AR] and the location areas is also static.
`
`What is dynamic in Soret is where to set the origin (X0, y0) of the location areas,
`
`as shown in Fig. 3A and described in 1][0052] of Soret (“The origin can also be dynamic,
`
`12
`
`

`

`Application No. 16/088,004
`Reply to Office Action dated August 6, 2019
`
`determined by the network (ITS application) and signaled to the mobile radio devices and be set
`
`depending on traffic conditions (cars density, speeds, road conditions, etc.).”).
`
`Specifically, in Soret, an access resource [AR] selection algorithm is used to
`
`select a particular access resource [AR] associated with a particular location area. Soret, Fig. l,
`
`fl[0042]. For example, when N=8 total access resources are available, the AR selection
`
`algorithm will return “nth AR” indicating which of #0 through #7 AR is selected. Soret’s AR
`
`selection algorithm is particularly designed to avoid AR collision between multiple mobile
`
`terminals in close proximity with each other. Soret, fl[0043].
`
`(See Fig. 3A, in which ARs #0,
`
`#l,#4, #5 may be selected for two location areas but the location areas are sufficiently distanced
`
`from each other such that the ARs can be “reused” in these location areas without collision.) The
`
`AR selection algorithm, in order to select an AR, receives as input, the absolute location of the
`
`mobile terminal which is mapped to relative coordinates with respect to the predefined origin
`
`(x0, y0). Soret, Fig. 3A and fl[0046] (“the distance to the original (X0, y0)” used as an input to
`
`the AR selection algorithm). In the AR selection algorithm, “the origin can be for example at the
`
`beginning of the roadway, as shown in FIG. 3A. Each radio access resource (AR) can be
`
`indexed to a unique identifier (AR-ID) and the algorithm determines the identifier of the radio
`
`resource.” Sorel,1l[0046].
`
`Thus, Soret merely teaches that the origin (x0, y0) of the location areas (see Fig.
`
`3A) may be dynamically set. Soret does not teach or suggest the radio base station dynamically
`
`signaling to the vehicular mobile terminal “the first parameter indicative of a length of the
`77 (4
`
`location subsection,
`
`the second parameter indicative of a width of the location subsection,”
`
`“the third parameter indicative of a number of locations subsections along the width into which
`
`allocation section is divided,” and “the fourth parameter indicative of a number of location
`
`subsections along the length into which the location section is divided,” “to vary the length and
`
`width of the location subsections and how the location section is divided,” as now more
`
`particularly recited in independent claims 1 and 20, as amended.
`
`Therefore, applicant respectfully submits that claims 1 and 20, as amended, are
`
`now clearly allowable over Soret.
`
`l3
`
`

`

`Application No. 16/088,004
`Reply to Office Action dated August 6, 2019
`
`The rest of the prior art does not cure the deficiencies of Soret. Thus, claims 1
`
`and 20 are believed to be allowable in view of the cited prior art of record even in combination.
`
`The rest of the claims all depend from either claim 1 or claim 20. Therefore,
`
`these dependent claims are further believed to be allowable for at least their dependency from
`
`allowable claims 1 and 20.
`
`Conclusion
`
`The present application including claims 1, 5-13, and 20-29, as amended, is now
`
`believed to be in condition for allowance. Favorable consideration and a Notice of Allowance
`
`are earnestly solicited. Should the examiner find any further issues to resolve, he is invited to
`
`telephone applicant’s undersigned attorney at the number set forth below.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`SEED Intellectual Property Law Group LLP
`
`/Shoko Leek/
`
`Shoko I. Leek
`
`Registration No. 43,746
`
`SIszhl
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, Washington 98104-7092
`Phone:
`(206) 622-4900
`Fax: (206) 682-6031
`
`693310871
`
`14
`
`