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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/02/2025 has been entered.
Claims 18-37 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because details not shown for steps in figures 6-9. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18-23 and 29-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kang et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0107246).
Regarding claims 18 and 29, Kang discloses a user equipment (UE) a method (figure 1 element 120/130), comprising:
a memory (figure 3 storage 320; paragraph 103); and
a processor (figure 3 controller 330; paragraph 99) coupled with the memory and configured to cause the UE to:
receive a sidelink discontinuous reception (DRX) configuration (figure 10A and 10B step 1011; paragraphs 53, 169, 171, 172, 265: user terminal receives sidelink DRX configuration from base station),
wherein the sidelink DRX configuration indicates a quality of service (QoS) class, an identifier of the QoS class, and an attribute of the QoS class (paragraphs 49, 56, 248, 252, 253, 255, 256, 257, 265: the transmission/reception terminal determines configuration of at least one or combination of a SL QoS parameter set, a SL PQI corresponding to the SL DRX configuration. SL PC5 QoS identifier (PQI) is both QoS class (QoS by definition is a class) and QoS Class identifier. SL QoS parameter set is attribute of QoS); and
performs sidelink communication based on the sidelink DRX configuration (paragraphs 169, 249, 250).
Regarding claims 19 and 30, all limitations of claims 18 and 29 are disclosed above. Kang further teaches the sidelink DRX configuration comprises an ON- duration (paragraphs 47, 54, 248, 256, 257).
Regarding claims 20 and 31, all limitations of claims 18 and 29 are disclosed above. Kang further teaches wherein the sidelink DRX configuration comprises a periodicity (paragraphs 152 and 248; table 3).
Regarding claims 21 and 32, all limitations of claims 18 and 29 are disclosed above. Kang further teaches the processor is further configured to cause the UE to receive information that indicates an offset for an ON-duration or an ON-duration timer (paragraphs 152, Table 3, paragraphs 256-259).
Regarding claims 22 and 33, all limitations of claims 18 and 29 are disclosed above. Kang further teaches the processor is further configured to cause the UE to receive the information via radio resource control (RRC) signaling (paragraphs 75, 134, 152).
Regarding claims 23 and 34, all limitations of claims 18 and 29 are disclosed above. Kang further teaches the QoS class comprises a QoS class identifier for sidelink communication (paragraphs 49, 56, 248, 252, 253, 255, 256, 257, 265: PQI).
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.
Claim(s) 24-28 and 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0156854), hereinafter Cheng 1, in view of Cheng et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0328840), herein Cheng 2, in view of Kang et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0107246).
Regarding claims 24 and 35, Cheng 1 discloses a user equipment (UE) a method comprising:
a memory (figure 21 element 2112); and
a processor (figure 21 element 2104) coupled with the memory and configured to cause the UE to:
determine a sidelink discontinuous reception (DRX) configuration (figure 14: Decide SL DRX config or figure 15 RRCReconfiguration; paragraphs 92, 93, and 96: relay node decides sidelink DRX configuration based on remote UE’s DRX parameter preferences) ;
transmit the sidelink DRX configuration (figures 14 and 15: RRCReconfigurationSidelink; paragraphs 92, 93, and 96: relay node transmits sidelink DRX configuration to remote UE); and
receive feedback as part of a reconfiguration complete message that indicates acceptance of the sidelink DRX configuration (figures 14 and 15: RRCReconfigurationSidelinkComplete; paragraphs 94 and 96: remote UE applies specific/dedicated DRX configuration to all its links and transmits feedback/acceptance via RRCReconfigurationSidelinkComplete message).
Cheng 1 further teaches remote UE’s DRX configuration preferences including parameters of DRX cycle, on-duration timer/offset, inactivity timer in paragraph 92.
Cheng 1 does not explicitly disclose at least one parameter in the DRX configuration.
However, in the same field of DRX configuration, Cheng 2 teaches
at least one parameter in the DRX configuration (paragraph 112: A DRX configuration may define one or more DRX parameters, for example 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.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Cheng 1 at least one parameter in the DRX configuration.
The motivation would have been to have DRX operation with (required) parameter(s).
Cheng 1 and Cheng 2 do not teach the sidelink DRX configuration indicates a quality of service (QoS) class, an identifier of the QoS class, and an attribute of the QoS class.
However, in the same field of sidelink DRX, Kang discloses sidelink DRX configuration indicates a quality of service (QoS) class, an identifier of the QoS class, and an attribute of the QoS class (paragraphs 49, 56, 248, 252, 253, 255, 256, 257, 265: the transmission/reception terminal determines configuration of at least one or combination of a SL QoS parameter set, a SL PQI corresponding to the SL DRX configuration. SL PC5 QoS identifier (PQI) is both QoS class (QoS by definition is a class) and QoS Class identifier. SL QoS parameter set is attribute of QoS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Cheng 1 and 2 the sidelink DRX configuration indicates a quality of service (QoS) class, an identifier of the QoS class, and an attribute of the QoS class.
The motivation would have been for saving additional signaling (paragraph 265).
Regarding claims 25 and 36, all limitations of claims 24 and 35 are disclosed above. Cheng 1 and Kang do not teach but Cheng 2 discloses the at least one parameter comprises one or more of an offset for an ON-duration, an ON-duration timer, or a periodicity (paragraph 112).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Cheng 1 and Kang the at least one parameter comprises one or more of an offset for an ON-duration, an ON-duration timer, or a periodicity.
The motivation would have been for DRX operation.
Regarding claims 26 and 37, all limitations of claims 24 and 35 are disclosed above. Cheng 1 further teaches the processor is further configured to cause the UE to identify a change to the at least one parameter from a prior sidelink DRX configuration, wherein the at least one parameter for the sidelink DRX configuration is determined based on the change to the at least one parameter from the prior sidelink DRX configuration (figure 14: Reconfiguration message in view of DRX parameter preference message, paragraphs 92 and 93: DRX pattern).
Regarding claims 27, all limitations of claims 24 are disclosed above. Cheng 1 further teaches the at least one parameter for the sidelink DRX configuration is transmitted via radio resource control (RRC) signaling (figure 14 RRC Reconfiguration message; paragraphs 92 and 93).
Regarding claims 28, all limitations of claims 24 are disclosed above. Cheng 1 further teaches the at least one parameter for the sidelink DRX configuration is determined based on information received from a network device (figure 15 RRCReconfiguration from gNB; paragraph 96).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In page 7 of Remark, regarding objection to Drawing, the Applicant refuses to make corrections to the drawings. Examiner notes that “corrected drawing sheets are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.”
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 24-28 and 35-37 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TITO Q PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM 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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/TITO Q PHAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/FARUK HAMZA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466