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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11-26-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112 rejections, the examiner read the paragraphs submitted by applicant’s representative, and none disclose to continuously monitor. Therefore, appear that the limitations have no support from the specification and since there is no support it is unclear the scope of the limitation. It is contradictory that the claims call the monitoring to be continuous, but the monitoring is performed using discontinuous reception and only monitor in the DRX-on state and skip monitoring in the DRX-off. It appears to be an oxymoron. Thereby, the 112 rejections remain.
As to the arguments directed to the amended limitations, please see below the new citations. However, please note that even in the abstract disclose a reception of DRX configuration. For the argument directed to “continuously monitor”, as disclosed in the paragraph above, the current application does not have support for the limitation.
Applicant submits “Park neither teaches nor suggests that the power saving operation based on the discovered sidelink DRX configuration comprises starting continuous monitoring of a control channel as recited in amended claim 1. In fact, Park suggests that continuous monitoring should occur when DRX is not configured, therefore continuous monitoring in Park cannot be based on an area associated with a DRX configuration.”; in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the power saving operation based on the discovered sidelink DRX configuration comprises starting continuous monitoring of a control channel) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The rest of the arguments they fall for the same reasons as shown above. The rejection of record stands.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 5-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims were amended to depend from claim 0 which does not exist. The examiner will treat this as a typographical error since the status is maintained as original and the claims will continue to depend as originally claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Parent claims recite “receiving, by a first wireless device from a second wireless device, one or more messages indicating one or more location areas where the first wireless device continuously monitors for one or more sidelink signals; determining that the first wireless device is located in the one or more location areas; based on the determining, starting continuous monitoring of a control channel for the one or more sidelink signals from a third wireless device; and receiving, from the third wireless device and based on the starting continuous monitoring, the one or more side link signals”; the closest support for the limitation would be par. 0218-0220; however, the scope of the claims and the specification is different. Thereby, the examiner was unable to find support for a message indicating areas where the first wireless device continuously monitors for one or more sidelink signals and the rest of the limitations. Please indicate where the support can be found. The rest of the claims they share the deficiency by virtue of dependency.
Claims 2, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The examiner was unable to find support for the limitation “wherein the one or more location areas indicates where the first wireless device starts to continuously monitor for side link signals”. Please indicate where the support can be found.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Parent claims recite “receiving, by a first wireless device from a second wireless device, one or more messages indicating one or more location areas where the first wireless device continuously monitors for one or more sidelink signals; determining that the first wireless device is located in the one or more location areas; based on the determining, starting continuous monitoring of a control channel for the one or more sidelink signals from a third wireless device; and receiving, from the third wireless device and based on the starting continuous monitoring, the one or more side link signals”; since support was not found for a message indicating areas where the first wireless device continuously monitors for one or more sidelink signals”, it is unclear the scope of the limitation. Please indicate where the support can be found. Additionally, it is unclear the scope of “continuous monitoring”; in a discontinuous reception system. Please clarify. The rest of the claims they share the deficiency by virtue of dependency.
Claims 2, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The examiner was unable to find support for the limitation “wherein the one or more location areas indicates where the first wireless device starts to continuously monitor for side link signals”; thereby, the scope of the limitation is unclear. Please clarify.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park 20220322486.
As to claim 1, Park discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a first wireless device [10] from a second wireless device [20 or UE], one or more messages indicating;
a discontinuous reception (DRX) configuration (see par. 0028-0029);
one or more location areas where the first wireless device “continuously” monitors for one or more sidelink signals [S1201] (see fig. 12; par. 0153, 0168);
determining that the first wireless device is located in the one or more location areas; based on the determining, starting “continuous” monitoring of a control channel for the one or more sidelink signals from a third wireless device (see par. 0175); and
receiving, from the third wireless device [TX UE] and based on the starting “continuous” monitoring, the one or more side link signals [S1202] (see fig. 12; par. 0153, 0168-0177). Park’s “continuous” monitoring is for the PDCCH under specific circumstances, as indicated in the 112 rejection, no support have been found for the continuous” monitoring limitation. However, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to repeat the technique for the PDCCH to the sidelink, since it is going to bring the same predictable result of monitoring to receive the desired signal; thereby, allowing the device to receive the needed information and function accordingly with received data.
As to claim 2, Park discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more location areas indicate where the first wireless device starts to “continuously” monitor for side link signals (see par. 0153, 0168). Park’s “continuous” monitoring is for the PDCCH under specific circumstances, as indicated in the 112 rejection, no support have been found for the continuous” monitoring limitation. However, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to repeat the technique for the PDCCH to the sidelink, since it is going to bring the same predictable result of monitoring to receive the desired signal; thereby, allowing the device to receive the needed information and function accordingly with received data.
As to claim 3, Park discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each location area of the one or more location areas comprises at least one of: a fixed size; a unique zone identity; a preconfigured zone identity (see par. 0170); a communication range (see par. 0168); or a zone identity configured by the second wireless device (see par. 0170-0172).
As to claim 4, Park discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the starting “continuous” monitoring is further based on one or more conditions comprising at least one of:
a first threshold for a received signal strength indicator of the first wireless device (see par. 0115);
a second threshold for a channel busy ratio (CBR) of the first wireless device; a third threshold for a number of detected wireless devices within a time period;
a fourth threshold for a remaining battery level of the first wireless device;
a fifth threshold for a transmit power of the first wireless device;
a sixth threshold for a pathloss from a base station to the first wireless device; or a seventh threshold for a speed of the first wireless device.
Park’s “continuous” monitoring is for the PDCCH under specific circumstances, as indicated in the 112 rejection, no support have been found for the continuous” monitoring limitation. However, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to repeat the technique for the PDCCH to the sidelink, since it is going to bring the same predictable result of monitoring to receive the desired signal and substituting a RSRP for RSSI since it is also going to bring the same predictable result of indicating the quality of the communication; thereby, allowing the device to receive the needed information and determine the quality of the communication for the simple purpose of maintaining and/or improving the quality of the communication.
As to claim 6, Park discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second wireless device and the third wireless device are the same wireless device [Method 3-4; UE sends zone info and sidelink] (see par. 0171-0172, 0177).
As to claim 7, Park discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second wireless device is different from the third wireless device [when BS send zone info] (see par. 0039).
As to claim 8, Park discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second wireless device is a base station and the third wireless device is a sidelink device (see par. 0039).
Regarding claims 9-12 and 14-16 they are the correspondent device claims of method claims 1-4 and 6-9. Therefore, claims 9-12 and 14-16, are rejected for the same reasons as shown above and Park discloses the processor [102,202] and memory [104,204].
Regarding claims 17-20, they are the correspondent non-transitory computer-readable medium claims of method claims 1-4. Therefore, claims 17-20, are rejected for the same reasons as shown above
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view Hoang 20230300713.
As to claim 5, 13 Park discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising sending monitoring instructions such as start monitoring for the one or more location areas (see par. 0153, 0168). Park fails to disclose stopping monitoring. In an analogous art, Hoang discloses start or stopping monitoring when the wireless device receives instructions (see par. 0428). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to instruct monitor where needed such as in the desired area and to stop monitoring where is not needed such as outside of the desired areas; thereby, saving resources such as power and increasing battery life.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647