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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/20/25 has been entered.
Claims 1, 6, 12-13, 16-20, and 22-32 are pending.
Claims 2-5, 7-11, 14-15, and 21 were previously canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims 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.
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, 6, 12-13, 16-20, 22-30, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam (US 20210051589 A1) in view of Kim (US 20220022279 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nam discloses a method of configuring a UE operating in a cellular communications system for discontinuous reception [fig. 12], the method comprising the steps of
receiving, by a UE, a plurality of discontinuous reception configurations from a base station (The BS (or even another UE) provides to the UE, and the UE stores, a plurality of wake-up configurations, including default wake-up configurations [par. 0082, 98, 100, 0109, fig. 8-11, fig. 12 no. 1210]);
selecting, by the UE, at least one of the discontinuous reception configurations for performing discontinuous reception operation (Either the BS or UE can select the wake-up config based on some amount of time or some condition being met [par. 0100, 109, 120], as well as the UE selecting based on whether the WUS was received [Abstract]); and
operating the UE according to the at least one selected discontinuous reception configuration [par. 0100, 120, fig. 8-11].
Although Nam discloses the UE receiving DRX configurations from the BS, as discussed above, Nam does not explicitly disclose for sidelink communication; with another UE over sidelink; and for sidelink communication. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Kim.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses:
for sidelink communication [par. 0184];
with another UE over sidelink [par. 0184]; and
for sidelink communication [par. 0184].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nam with Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of efficient radio resource management [Kim par. 0002].
Regarding claim 22, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Nam further discloses a cellular communication system [fig. 1] comprising a base station [fig. 1 no. 105, fig. 5 no. 500] and at least UE [fig. 1 no. 115, fig. 4 no. 400].
Regarding claim 31, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Nam further discloses a UE [fig. 4 no. 400].
Regarding claims 6, 23, and 32, Nam and Kim disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Nam further discloses:
wherein the step of selecting is performed by the UE (The UE selects the wake-up config based on some amount of time or some condition being met [par. 0100, 109, 120]).
Regarding claims 12 and 24, Nam and Kim disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Nam further discloses:
wherein the discontinuous reception configuration is selected based on a cast type active for the UE (Common group (i.e., groupcast/multicast) [par. 0106, 102-103, 043, 061]).
Regarding claims 13 and 25, Nam and Kim disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Nam further discloses:
wherein the discontinuous reception configuration is selected based on a characteristic of the UE (BWP, carrier, location, priority, service, subscription, PS-RNTI or UE specific (i.e., “characteristic(s)” of UE) [par. 0061, 102]).
Regarding claims 16 and 26, Nam and Kim disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Nam further discloses:
wherein the characteristic is a communication requirement of the UE (BWP, carrier, priority, service, subscription, PS-RNTI (i.e., “communication requirement) [par. 0061, 102] or even traffic load [par. 0008, 118]).
Regarding claims 17 and 27, Nam and Kim disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Nam further discloses:
wherein the communication requirement is an urgency of data for transmission, or a quality of service parameter (Traffic load (i.e., urgency), where the UE detects (or not) the WUS and acts (i.e., selects) accordingly [par. 0008, 010, 118]).
Regarding claims 18 and 28, Nam and Kim disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Nam further discloses wherein the plurality of discontinuous reception configurations each define at least one of following parameters:
an on duration, a DRX cycle time, a DRX short cycle time, a DRX long cycle time, and an offset (On duration, cycle time [fig. 2, 6-7, par. 0058]).
Regarding claims 19 and 29, Nam and Kim disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Nam further discloses:
wherein the discontinuous reception configurations are communicated to the UE utilising RRC signalling, or are defined by a standard (RRC [par. 0082]).
Regarding claims 20 and 30, Nam and Kim disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Nam further discloses:
wherein one of the discontinuous reception configurations is defined as a default configuration [par. 0082, 98, 100, 0109, fig. 12 no. 1210].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465