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 .
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tseng et al. (US 20230066448 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tseng teaches a sidelink discontinuous reception (Sidelink DRX) control method, comprising:
receiving, by a terminal, control signaling, wherein the control signaling is used for Uu
/or PC5 Sidelink DRX control (Fig. 6, S602 and Par. 229);
and performing, by the terminal, Sidelink DRX control according to the control signaling (Fig. 6, S604);
wherein
the control signaling is medium access control (MAC) signaling, wherein the control signaling comprises discontinuous reception command medium access control control element (DRX command MAC CE);
or
the control signaling comprises long discontinuous reception command medium access control control element (Long DRX command MAC CE);
or
the control signaling comprises new Uu MAC CE;
or
the control signaling comprises new PC5 MAC CE (Par. 58),
wherein the new Uu MAC CE comprises a logical channel identifier (LCID) and/or an extended logical channel identifier (eLCID), the LCID and/or eLCID being used to indicate that the new Uu MAC CE is used to control Sidelink DRX;
the new PC5 MAC CE comprises a MAC subheader, and the MAC subheader comprises an LCID and/or eLCID, the LCID and/or eLCID being used to indicate that the new PC5 MAC CE is used to control Sidelink DRX (Pars. 56-59).
Regarding claim 15, apparatus of claim 15 is performed by method of claim 1. They recite same scope of limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 1. See Fig. 7 of Tseng for components such as a processor and a memory.
Regarding claim 20, non-transitory readable storage medium of claim 20 is performed by method of claim 1. They recite same scope of limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 1. See Fig. 7 of Tseng for components such as a processor and a memory.
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 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng et al. (US 20230066448 A1) in view of Fujishiro et al. (US 20170041773 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Tseng teaches previous claim. Tseng further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a priority of the new PC5 MAC CE is determined in at least one of the following manners: being specified by a protocol (Par. 145); (Fig. 3 and Par. 143); and being indicated in downlink control information or sidelink control information received by the terminal (Pars. 118, 182),
wherein the priority related to services between the terminal and another terminal comprises: the highest or lowest priority in a plurality of priorities of logical channels between the terminal and the another terminal (Par. 143).
Tseng does not teach the priority (resource) is being configured on a network side.
However, Tseng further teaches the priority (resource) configuration is using “Mode 2 SL resource configuration” (i.e. from the network side) (Par. 141). Fujishiro is incorporated in here to provide additional the evidence of such well-known feature (Pars. 333-334).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Fujishiro into Tseng to prevent interference and maximize resource efficiency.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng et al. (US 20230066448 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20230042702 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Tseng teaches previous claim.
However, Tseng does not teach the method according to claim 1, wherein in the case that the control signaling comprises new PC5 MAC CE, the LCID or eLCID is provided in a quantity of at least two; and a first LCID or eLCID is used to indicate that the new PC5 MAC CE is a DRX command MAC CE, and a second LCID or eLCID is used to indicate that the new PC5 MAC CE is a Long DRX command MAC CE;
Kim teaches long DRX Command MAC CE and the DRX command MAC CE are each configured with a subheader having a corresponding local channel identifier (LCID) (Table 4 and Par. 172).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Kim into Tseng to minimize power consumption effectively.
Regarding claim 11, Tseng teaches previous claim.
However, Tseng does not teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the MAC subheader further comprises: seventh information, the seventh information indicating that the new PC5 MAC CE is a DRX command MAC CE or a Long DRX command MAC CE, and the seventh information being an LCID.
Kim teaches long DRX Command MAC CE and the DRX command MAC CE are each configured with a subheader having a corresponding local channel identifier (LCID) (Table 4 and Par. 172).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Kim into Tseng to minimize power consumption effectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Liu et al. US 20210022131 A1
[0004] In existing LTE-based V2X direct communication, data is transmitted between a user equipment (UE) and another user equipment through an interface PC5 that is between the user equipment and the another user equipment and that is used for short-distance direct communication, and the data transmitted on the interface PC5 determines a scheduling priority of data when the data is transmitted on a transmission link (sidelink, SL) between two UEs supporting a proximity service (proximity service, ProSe) by using a prose per packet priority (PPPP) mechanism.
[0078] For how to ensure a QoS requirement for data transmission in a multi-hop scenario, another feasible design includes: presetting a correspondence between an LCID and a PPPP for data transmission on the sidelink. For example, a PPPP whose value is 0 corresponds to a logical channel 0, a PPPP whose value is 1 corresponds to an LCID 1, and by analogy. For example, for the system shown in FIG. 4-1,
Xu et al. US 20190174411 A1 [0057] FIG. 5 shows a schematic illustration of a SL-DRX configuration mode, where mode 1 is a mode that the network control terminal transmits the SL-DRX configuration to the relay network node and the remote network node, respectively, and mode 2 is a mode that the relay network node transmits the SL-DRX configuration to the remote network node (the SL-DRX configuration may be received from the network control terminal or determined by the relay network node itself), and mode 3 is a mode that the relay network node and the remote network node mutually configure the SL-DRX for each other. Note that these modes are merely exemplary and are not limited thereto. [0042] The technical solution of the present application can be applied to various relay scenarios, including but not limited to those relay scenarios shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, where the eNB in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 is an example of the network control terminal, and the relay UE and the remote UE are examples of the relay network node and the remote network node,
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CINDY HUYEN TRANDAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1914. The examiner can normally be reached 8am -4:30pm.
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, Wesley L. Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/Cindy Trandai/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
1/16/2026