Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/547,830

METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONFIGURING SIDELINK DISCONTINUOUS RECEPTION IN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 10, 2021
Examiner
PHUNG, LUAT
Art Unit
2468
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Asustek Computer Inc.
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
455 granted / 599 resolved
+18.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
637
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.8%
-35.2% vs TC avg
§103
55.8%
+15.8% vs TC avg
§102
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
§112
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 599 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Amendment Applicants’ arguments filed on 12 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive. By the amendment filed 12 January 2026, claims 1 and 9 have been amended, claims 2, 4, 10, and 12 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, and 13-16 are now pending. Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, and 13-16 are rejected. Response to Arguments Applicants’ arguments filed on 12 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the startOffset is not included in the sidelink DRX configuration and instead is derived by the UE based on an identifier associated with the group mod the cycle length, and further argues that the UE performs each step and that the applied art does not disclose the claimed derivation. Fujitsu discloses configuring sidelink DRX for groupcast and aligning wake-up time based on destination Layer-2 identifiers associated with groupcasts and existing DRX parameters (§3, fig. 2, CRX cycle with On Duration; sec. 4, fig. 4, examples of two groupcasts; §5.1, aligning DRX wake-up time based on existing parameters for the sidelink DRX). Fujitsu further discloses determining the time to start of on-duration for each sidelink DRX cycle (startOffset) based on an identifier associated with the group (destination L2 ID) (§4.1, eq. 1; proposal 5). Fujitsu also teaches that on-duration is when peer UEs monitor and signaling/data is exchanged (§3–4). To the extent Applicant relies on the specific “identifier mod cycle length” formulation and/or the asserted exclusion of the startOffset from the configuration, Tang (analogous art) teaches calculating an offset via a modulo operation based on an identifier and a length parameter, e.g., mod(UE-ID, N) or mod(Cell ID, N), for wake-up timing/power saving (fig. 9; paras. 167, 169, 171), with motivation to reduce power consumption (para. 165). Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 12 January 2026 has been entered. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “comprising:” followed by “the UE obtains or is configured with…”. This phrasing is grammatically improper for a method claim because it does not clearly recite a definite method step. It is unclear whether the UE performs an act of obtaining, or whether the configuration is externally imposed. Applicant is required to amend the claim to recite a definite method step. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1, 3, 5-9, 11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJITSU: "Sidelink DRX for Power Saving", 3GPP DRAFT; R2-2009133, 3RD GENERATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT (3GPP), RAN WG2, e-Meeting; 20201102 - 20201113, 21 October 2020, XP051940893, hereinafter Fujitsu, in view of Tang (US Pub. 2021/0014927). Regarding claim 1, Fujitsu discloses a method for a User Equipment (UE) to configure sidelink discontinuous reception (DRX) for sidelink groupcast communication associated with a group (§3, fig. 2, DRX cycle with On Duration; sec. 4, fig. 4, examples of two groupcasts; §5.1: how to align DRX wake-up time based on existing parameters for the sidelink DRX, for a side/ink groupcast of a group of UE, e.g. UE1-UE5), comprising: the UE obtains or is configured with a sidelink DRX configuration for the sidelink groupcast communication associated with the group, wherein the sidelink DRX configuration comprises at least one of an on-duration timer length used for determining an on-duration for each sidelink DRX cycle and/or a cycle length used for determining a length of each sidelink DRX cycle;(§3, Fig. 2, DRX cycle with On Duration; §4, Fig. 4; DRX cycle includes On-Duration and Opportunity for DRX; §5.1, aligning DRX wake-up time based on existing parameters for sidelink DRX) the UE derives or determines a value for a startOffset, wherein the value for the startOffset is equal to a derived value of a part of an identifier associated with the group mod the cycle length or a derived value of the identifier associated with the group mod the cycle length, wherein the startOffset is a time to start of on-duration for each sidelink DRX cycle or start of each sidelink DRX cycle and is not included in the sidelink DRX configuration;(§4.1, Eq. 1; proposal 5: DRX wake-up time for UEs in Groupcast-1 is aligned based on destination L2 ID1 and DRX wake-up time for UEs in Groupcast-2 is aligned based on destination L2 ID2; wake-up time derived from group identifier and DRX cycle parameters; StartOffset in eq 1, DRX-StartOffset is the start offset of DRX) the UE monitors a sidelink control channel, associated with the group, based on the sidelink DRX configuration and the startOffset.(§3–4: on-duration of DRX for groupcast is when communication between peer UEs takes place; UE monitors control channel/signaling during on-duration) Fujitsu does not explicitly disclose:wherein the value for the startOffset is equal to a derived value of a part of an identifier associated with the group mod the cycle length or a derived value of the identifier associated with the group mod the cycle length, and does not explicitly disclose expressing the derivation as a modulo operation. However, Tang discloses deriving an offset value by performing a modulo operation on an identifier and a length parameter, including:calculating offset = mod(UE-ID, N) or mod(Cell ID, N)(Fig. 9; paras. 167, 169, 171) Tang further teaches that the offset derivation is used to distribute wake-up timing and reduce power consumption among devices.(para. 165) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujitsu’s derivation of the DRX wake-up timing based on a group identifier by applying Tang’s modulo-based offset derivation, in order to distribute wake-up timing among UEs and reduce power consumption, because both Fujitsu and Tang address determining wake-up timing for power saving and avoiding simultaneous wake-up of multiple devices. Regarding claim 3, Fujitsu further discloses wherein a unit of the time to start of on-duration for each sidelink DRX cycle or start of each sidelink DRX cycle is subframe (§4.1, eq 1, wake-up time and its alignment, StartOffset in eq 1). Regarding claim 5, Fujitsu further discloses wherein the UE have information indicating one or more time to start of on-duration for each sidelink DRX cycle or start of each sidelink DRX cycle, and/or the UE derives or determines the time to start of on-duration for each sidelink DRX cycle or start of each sidelink DRX cycle based on at least the identifier associated with the group and the information (§4.1, eq 1, wake-up time and its alignment; fig. 5, Groupcast-1 associated with Destination L2 ID1, Groupcast-2 associated with L2 ID2). Regarding claim 6, Fujitsu further discloses wherein the UE derives or determines an index based on at least the identifier associated with the group, and the UE derives or determines the time to start of on-duration for each sidelink DRX cycle or start of each sidelink DRX cycle, from the one or more time to start of on-duration for each sidelink DRX cycle or start of each sidelink DRX cycle, based on the index (§4.1, slot index). Regarding claim 7, Fujitsu further discloses wherein the identifier associated with the group is a part of groupcast destination Layer-2 ID, or wherein the identifier associated with the group is a groupcast destination Layer-2 ID (§4.1, destination L2 ID(s)). Regarding claim 8, Fujitsu further discloses wherein the UE monitoring the sidelink control channel, associated with the group, in a period, and wherein the period is determined based on the sidelink DRX configuration and the time to start of on-duration for each sidelink DRX cycle or start of each sidelink DRX cycle, and/or wherein the period is an active time on which at least the on-duration timer is running (§3-4.1: wake-up time/DRX On Duration for Side/ink DRX). Regarding claim 9, Fujitsu discloses a UE (User Equipment), comprising: a processor (sec. 2, UE); and a memory operatively coupled to the processor (sec. 2, UE); wherein the processor is configured to execute a program code stored in the memory to essentially perform the method of claim 1, and is thus similarly rejected. Claims 11 and 13-16 recite substantially identical subject matter as recited in claims 3 and 5-8, respectively, and are thus similarly rejected. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 PM. 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, Asad Nawaz can be reached on (571) 272-3988. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Luat Phung/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 10, 2021
Application Filed
Jun 16, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 23, 2023
Response Filed
Nov 18, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 16, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 27, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 18, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 28, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 09, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 04, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 05, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 13, 2024
Notice of Allowance
Aug 13, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 24, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 18, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 22, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 23, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 23, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 12, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 09, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604219
MEASURING BACKHAUL CHANNEL OF RIS/REPEATER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598638
INTER-DEVICE COMMUNICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12543139
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR BINDING INFORMATION SERVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12512952
REFERENCE SIGNALS IN ACTIVE TCI SWITCHING
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12501321
APPARATUS AND METHOD OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FOR MBS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+11.9%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 599 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month