DETAILED ACTION
Response filed on 12/4/2025 has been entered and made of record.
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 .
Claim status
Claims 33-38, 40-47, 49, 51-52 are amended.
Claims 33-52 are pending for examination.
Response to arguments
Re: 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
Applicant’s response has been considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Intel discloses that DRX for PCS is to be supported: "after receiving PCS DRX configuration forwarded by the evolved ProSe DE-to-Network Relay DE, the evolved ProSeRemote UE performs DRX on PCS to receive data or signaling from the eNB" (Intel, page2).
In contrast, the claimed transmitting UE determines whether it is allowed to transmit SL DRX configurations to other DEs (e.g., via an indicator) and then transmits the SL DRX configurations to other DEs, such as a receiving DE. Intel does not disclose such features, instead using a "UE-to-Network Relay UE," a UE already configured to relay information between a network and UEs.
Cheng also does not disclose such features and is relied upon to provide disclosure for other features of the claims”.
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Though Intel does not expressly disclose the whether the transmitting UE is allowed to transmit sidelink configuration transmission, the claim is implied based on the allowability to constrain the resource for sidelink transmission, as has been discussed in the office action. Allowance of constraining the resource implies the transmission of SL configuration with modification, if needed.
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is not withdrawn.
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 33-41 and 43-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R1-1715173, “Text Proposal for 3GPP TR 36.746 Capturing RAN1 Agreements on FeD2D Study Item”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #90, source Intel, hereinafter “Intel”, in view of CHENG et al. (US 2023/0328840 A1), hereinafter ‘Cheng”.
Claims 33, 43, and 49:
Regarding claim 33, Intel teaches, a transmitting User Equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising:
receive a first signaling, which indicates a first sidelink (SL) discontinuous reception (DRX) configuration, from a Base Station (BS) (Intel: §5.2.1, implied by disclosure “For the evolved Pro Se Remote UE in RRC connected state and the evolved Pro Se UE-to-Network Relay UE in RRC connected state, as the general PCS DRX procedure for L2 relaying, eNB configures the PCS DRX configuration to the evolved ProSe Remote UE via the evolved ProSe UE-to-Network Relay UE.”);
determine that the transmitting UE is allowed to transmit SLDRX configurations to other UEs (implied by disclosure in § 5.2.4, “Evolved ProSe UE-to-Network Relay UE may constrain evolved ProSe Remote UE resource pool”; constraining resources imply allowance to transmit); and
transmit, to a receiving UE and in response to the determination a second signaling which indicates a second SL DRX configuration, wherein the second SL DRX configuration is determined based on the first SL DRX configuration (implied by disclosure in §5.2.1, “After receiving PCS DRX configuration forwarded by the evolved Pro Se UE-to-Network Relay UE, the evolved Pro Se Remote UE performs DRX on PCS to receive data or signaling from the eNB.”; forwarding DRX configuration imply transmitting by the network relay UE; § 5.2.4 “Evolved ProSe UE-to-Network Relay UE may constrain evolved ProSe Remote UE resource pool”; constraining implies that forwarded configuration may be different but based on the received configuration from the base station).
Intel however fails to teach but Cheng in the same field of endeavor teaches, at least one memory: and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (Cheng: [0008]); a receiving circuitry; a transmitting circuitry (Cheng: Fig.9); and a processor coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium, the receiving circuitry and the transmitting circuitry (Cheng: [0006]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be able to come up with the claimed invention by combining disclosure by Cheng with that of Intel, motivated to include necessary apparatus for implementing the method by Intel.
Regarding claim 34, Intel discloses the transmitting UE of claim 33 (discussed above), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the transmitting UE to:
receive, from the BS, an indicator indicating whether the transmitting UE is allowed to transmit the second signaling to the receiving UE (Intel: § 5.2.4 “Relay UE can control sidelink radio-resources used for transmission and reception by evolved Pro Se Remote UEs within sidelink resource pools which are configured by eNB”; Allowance of this control by the relay implies whether the transmitting UE is allowed to transmit the second signaling to the receiving UE.; indication is implied).
Claims 35 and 44:
Regarding claim 35, Intel discloses the transmitting UE of claim 33 (discussed above), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the transmitting UE to:
receive, from the BS, an indicator indicating whether the transmitting UE is allowed to determine the second SL DRX configuration by modifying the first SL DRX configuration (implied by the disclosure in Intel: § 5.2.4 “Evolved ProSe UE-to-Network Relay UE may constrain evolved ProSe Remote UE resource pool”; constraining a resource pool implies modification of resource pool by the relay UE).
Claims 36 and 45:
Regarding claim 36, Intel discloses the transmitting UE of claim 33 (discussed above), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the transmitting UE to:
receive, from the BS, an indicator for one or more destination IDs indicating whether the transmitting UE is allowed to transmit the second signaling to the receiving UE for the one or more destination IDs (Intel: § 5.2.4 “eNB can schedule sidelink transmission resource for evolved ProSe Remote UE and evolved ProSe UE-to-Network Relay UE transmission by sending sidelink grant
- Relay UE can forward sidelink grant generated by eNB to evolved ProSe Remote UE.);
- Remote UE identification.”; indicating whether the transmitting UE is allowed to transmit is discussed above in claim 34).
Claims 37 and 46:
Regarding claim 37, Intel discloses the transmitting UE of claim 33 (discussed above), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the transmitting UiE to:
receive, from the BS, an indicator for one or more sidelink radio bearers (SLRBs) indicating whether the transmitting UE is allowed to transmit the second signaling to the receiving UE for the one or more sidelink radio bearers (SLRBs) (implied by disclosure in Intel: § 5.2.4, “In case of evolved ProSe UE-to-Network Relay UE assisted resource allocation, two mechanisms to determine transmission parameters (MCS, TX power, number of TTIs, frequency sub-channel, etc.) of evolved ProSe Remote UE are considered”; disclosure regarding frequency sub-channel implies teaching of sidelink radio bearers.).
Claims 38 and 47:
Regarding claim 38, Intel discloses the transmitting UE of claim 33 (discussed above).
The claim, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the transmitting UE transmit the second signaling to the receiving UE if the transmitting UE determines that a reference signal receiving power of the transmitting UE lower than a threshold, is not expressly taught by Intel but in the same field of endeavor is disclosed by Cheng, in the following paragraph:
[0133] The base station 105-a may configure a threshold, for example a reference signal received power (RSRP) threshold, a received signal received quality (RSRQ) threshold, or the like. The relay UE 115-a may provide relay services ( e.g., function as a relay node in the wireless communications system 200) based on an RSRP or an RSRQ, or both, of a serving cell such as the base station 105-a satisfying an RSRP threshold or an RSRQ threshold, or both. In other words, the relay UE 115-a may provide relay services if an RSRP or an RSRQ, or both, associated with the cellular connection 210 (e.g., Uu link) satisfies the RSRP threshold or the RSRQ threshold, or both. Otherwise, the base station 105-a may prevent the UE 115-a from.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be able to come up with the claimed invention by combining disclosure by Cheng with that of Intel, motivated by QoS criteria to satisfy functioning as a relay, as described in Cheng, [0084] “Upon detecting a candidate relay UE, based on the discovery messages, the remote UE may select the candidate relay UE to function as a relay based on a sidelink quality satisfying a threshold or that the candidate relay UE can provide a connectivity service requested by the remote UE, or the like”.
Claims 39, 48, and 50:
Regarding claim 39, Intel discloses the transmitting UE of claim 33 (discussed above).
The claim, wherein the second SL DRX configuration includes at least one parameter selected from a group including: a DRX cycle, a start offset of DRX, a slot start offset of DRX, and a DRX related timer, is not expressly disclosed by Intel but in the same field of endeavor taught by Cheng (Cheng: [0085] “The periods associated with the power saving mode may be configured and provided by the base station based on information provided by the remote UE. For example, the remote UE may provide a DRX preference indicating a preference of one or more DRX parameters including a DRX cycle, an active duration of a DRX cycle, an inactive duration of a DRX cycle, a DRX cycle, a periodicity of a DRX cycle, an offset period associated with an active duration of a DRX cycle, a DRX inactivity timer, a DRX activity timer, a DRX retransmission timer, etc.”.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be able to come up with the claimed invention by combining disclosure by Cheng with that of Intel, motivated by supporting DRX in sidelink, as disclosed by Intel, “DRX on PCS should be supported for the evolved Pro Se Remote UE in L2 relaying for all RRC states. DRX on PCS can be supported for the evolved ProSe UE-to-Network Relay UE for all RRC states. For the evolved Pro Se Remote UE in RRC connected state and the evolved ProSe UE-to Network Relay UE in RRC connected state, as the general PCS DRX procedure for L2 relaying, eNB configures the PCS DRX configuration to the evolved ProSe Remote UE via the evolved ProSe UE-to-Network Relay UE. After receiving PCS DRX configuration forwarded by the evolved Pro Se UE-to-Network Relay UE, the evolved ProSe”.
Claims 40 and 51:
Regarding claim 40, Intel discloses the transmitting UE of claim 33 (discussed above), wherein the second signaling comprises: an index of an SL DRX configuration, corresponding to the second SL DRX configuration, in a sidelink master information block, in sidelink medium access control (MAC) control element, or in sidelink physical layer control channel (Intel: § 5.2.4, “For Relay UE assisted resource allocation the following control signaling options are considered
- SCI;
- Higher layer signaling (e.g. MAC CE).”).
Claims 41 and 52:
Regarding claim 41, Intel discloses the transmitting UE of claim 33 (discussed above), wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the transmitting UE to transmit the second signaling to the receiving UE in an independent time-frequency resource configured by BS, preconfigured or specified (implied by the disclosures in §5.2.4, “Relay UE can control sidelink radio-resources used for transmission and reception by evolved ProSe Remote UEs within sidelink resource pools which are configured by eNB”; and § 5.2.3, “RAN1 observes that it is beneficial for the radio-layer to have information about location of resources used for communication transmission and reception”; sidelink resource pool includes transmission of configuration by eNB to remote UE from the relay UE.).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intel as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 20210037513 A1), hereinafter “Wu”, supported by us-provisional-application US 62880964 20190731.
Regarding claim 42, Intel discloses the transmitting UE of claim 33 (discussed above),
Intel however does not expressly teach but in the same field of Endeavor Wu teaches, wherein the second signaling includes an index of an SL DRX configuration, corresponding to the second SL DRX configuration, in a sidelink system information block (SL SIB) (Wu: Clm.1 “A method for wireless communications performed by a first user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving first system information from a second UE; determining, based on one or more first parameters, to receive second system information from the second UE; receiving the second system information in a sidelink system information block (S-SIB) from the second UE; and communicating with the second UE via sidelink resources determined based on the first system information and the second system information.”).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be able to come up with the claimed invention by combining disclosure by Wu with that of Intel, motivated by configuring synchronization or configuration of TDD resource as disclosed by Wu in [0057].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20200092685-A1 teaches allowability of UE to coordinate sidelink configuration to other UEs .
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INTEKHAAB AALAM SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 571-272-3927. 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.
/INTEKHAAB A SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462