DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on 29 January 2026.
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 Amendment
Claims 1-19 and 41 were pending the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 4 November 2025.
Claims 3-5, 7, 13, and 17-18 have been canceled and claims 1, 6, 8-9, 14, 16, and 42-47 have been amended.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-12, 14-16, 19, and 41-47 remain pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument on pages 10-11 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, Guo et al. (US 2023/0066041, hereinafter Guo), in view of Pan et al. (US 2022/0191795, hereinafter Pan), do not disclose a first terminal, in response to determining that the first terminal is in an connected state, reporting the claimed time domain location used by a second terminal to a base station for the base station to determine a discontinuous reception (DRX) configuration for the second terminal according to the time domain location, because disclosure of determining that a terminal is in-coverage is not equivalent to determining that the terminal is in a connected state, Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s characterization of the prior art.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
See also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1643 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000); and MPEP 2111.
The limitation at issue is:
reporting, in response to a determination that the first terminal is in a connected state, the time domain location information to a base station, so that the base station determines the DRX configuration of the second terminal according to the time domain location information.
The broadest reasonable interpretation for “in response to a determination that the first terminal is in a connected state” at least encompasses “because of a determination that the first terminal is in a connected state.” Since claim 1 does not appear to limit how the determination is made, this feature further encompasses at least “because the first terminal is in a connected state.”
Here, at page 10 of the Non-Final Rejection, Guo was cited at Fig. 1 and ¶ 34 as disclosing a first terminal as in a connected state. Guo was further cited at Figs. 9-14 and ¶¶ 110-111, 117, 123, 129, 135, and 142 as disclosing the first terminal reporting the time domain location of a second terminal to the base station. Since the claims do not appear to impose any structural or manipulative difference to the time domain location of the second terminal based on how the time domain location is used, the claimed feature of “so that the base station determines the DRX configuration of the second terminal according to the time domain location information” does not appear to have any patentable weight on a claim directed to a method performed by the first terminal. Thus, Guo discloses all of the features of the limitation at issue except that the reporting is “in response to a determination that the first terminal is in a connected state”. The determination of obviousness depends on whether, in view of Pan, the feature of reporting information to a base station in response to determining that the reporting terminal is in a connected state is obvious.
As cited in the Non-Final Rejection, Pan, at Fig. 15 and ¶ 222, specifically, the sub-paragraph starting with “to coordinate” discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
542
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To coordinate PC5 DRX configurations not only between the peered PC5 Tx UE and Rx UEs for one SL application/service but also among a number of PC5 UEs involved in multiple PC5 communications in proximity, this solution is based on having a common set of PC5 DRX patterns configured in PC5 UEs by the serving network for in-coverage operation or pre-configured for out-of-coverage operation. A PC5 DRX pattern includes information about the ON/OFF periods that shall be used in the (AS-layer) PC5 DRX schedule and each PC5 DRX pattern may be associated with one or more V2X service types. Note that there may be PC5 DRX patterns that would rather fit combinations of service types. Thus, the (pre-)configured set of PC5 DRX patterns may be corresponding to supported combinations of different use cases, service profiles, status or classes of PC5 UEs. The (pre-)configured set of PC5 DRX patterns can be also in line with resource pool configurations, because the patterns can be known to the AS layer when the resource pools are configured (or the other way round), so that the V2X layer does not need to deal with or understand resource pool configurations. However, the resource pool configuration does not need to be performed in a way that guarantees dedicated radio resources for specific V2X service types. (emphasis added)
Here, although Pan, by itself, may not explicitly disclose a UE reporting information to a base station upon becoming connected to the base station, Fig. 15 illustrates a first UE as initializing a sidelink service for sidelink groupcast communication and determining a SL DRX configuration, and ¶ 222, at the sub-paragraph starting with “To coordinate” discloses a network as a serving network configuring PC5 UEs with PC5 DRX patterns for in-coverage operation, which at least implies that the disclosed PC5 UEs are connected to the network, otherwise the network would not be a serving network, as disclosed. Further, Pan discloses the serving network providing a configured set of PC5 DRX patterns corresponding to supported combinations of different use cases (i.e., in-coverage or out-of-coverage operation), service profiles, status (i.e., connected, inactive, or idle), or classes (e.g., relay, remote, stationary, mobile). Thus, Pan, as cited, discloses a base station configuring the UEs because of (i.e., in response to) the UEs being connected to the base station as initiated by a first UE.
A person having ordinary skill in the art, in view of Guo and Pan, would have found it obvious to use Pan’s disclosure, of a first terminal getting a serving network (base station) to configure PC5 UEs with a set of configured PC5 DRX patterns because they are connected to the base station, to modify Guo’s disclosure, of a first UE directly reporting partial sensing configuration information, including various examples of a second UE’s time domain location, to a base station to which the first UE is connected, to arrive at the limitation at issue — the first terminal reporting, in response to being connected to a base station, time domain location information of a second terminal to the base station. As provided in the Non-Final Rejection, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make that modification, because use of such a network-provided configuration is in line with industry agreements as provided in 3GPP TS 23.776 (Pan ¶ 221).
Therefore, the combination of Guo-Pan disclose the limitation at issue as provided in the Non-Final Rejection.
In response to Applicant’s argument on page 11 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, Guo, in view of Pan, does not disclose a first terminal, as an outside coverage range terminal, determining a DRX configuration for a second terminal from a pre-configured DRX configuration according to time domain location information, examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, Guo was cited at ¶ 65 for disclosing a UE determining configurations from pre-configured sidelink (SL) DRX configurations according to time domain location information of a second terminal, but does not explicitly disclose that such determination is “in response to a determination that the first terminal is outside a coverage range of the base station”. As provided above, the BRI of “in response to” appears to encompass “because of”. Also as provided above, Pan discloses, at Fig. 15 and ¶ 222, a serving network pre-configuring a set of PC5 DRX configurations corresponding to supported combinations of different use cases, service profiles, status or classes of PC5 UEs, and that pre-configuration is “for out-of-coverage operation” of UEs, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Pan to modify Guo to arrive at a first UE determining configuration from pre-configured SL DRX configurations as provided by a serving network because of the first UE’s out-of-coverage operation. As provided in the Non-Final Rejection, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make that modification, because use of such a network-provided configuration is in line with industry agreements as provided in 3GPP TS 23.776 (Pan ¶ 221).
In response to applicant’s argument on pages 11-12 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, Guo, in view of Pan, does not disclose a first terminal differently determining the DRX configuration of the second terminal based on the first terminal’s state, because Pan’s supposed disclosure of determining DRX configurations from a common set of DRX configurations for both in-coverage and out-of-coverage operation cannot render determining DRX configuration differently obvious, examiner respectfully disagrees.
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., a first terminal must determine a DRX configuration for a second terminal from different sets of DRX configuration depending on the first terminal's state) 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).
Here, while the claims do appear to require a first terminal to either (i) send a report to a base station to determine a second terminal’s DRX configuration if the first terminal is connected to the base station, (ii) determine a DRX configuration for the second terminal from a broadcast by a base station if the first terminal is in an idle or inactive state, or (iii) determine the second terminal’s DRX configuration from pre-configured DRX configurations if the first terminal is out-of-coverage, there are no limitations in the claims that require the determined DRX configurations to be different from one another or from different sets of DRX configurations depending on the first terminal’s state. Even if DRX configurations for a second terminal were required to be different based on the first terminal’s state, Pan, as cited at Fig. 15 and ¶ 222, as provided above, still discloses a serving base station (pre-)configuring a set of PC5 DRX configurations corresponding to supported combinations of different use cases, service profiles, status or classes of PC5 UEs, and that pre-configuration is “for out-of-coverage operation” of UEs. Thus, at least Guo in view of Pan render a PC5 DRX configuration differing for a second UE based on a first UE’s state as obvious, since a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized and appreciated that a first terminal’s state would be considered when configuring a PC5 DRX configuration for a second terminal engaging in sidelink communication with the first terminal as disclosed by the prior art of record, as provided above. As provided in the Non-Final Rejection, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make that modification, because use of such a network-provided configuration is in line with industry agreements as provided in 3GPP TS 23.776 (Pan ¶ 221).
As the claims are currently written, the amended limitations are claimed in the alternative. Thus, if even one of the alternative limitations are disclosed by the prior art of record, then the claims must be finally rejected. Since applicant indicated that the same arguments with regard to claim 1 apply to independent claims 9 and 14, and at least one of the alternative limitations, the prior art rejection is maintained below and adjusted as necessitated by amendment for the same reasons as those provided above.
In response to Applicant’s argument on page 13 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, the arguments with regard to claim 1 apply to claim 9, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
See also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1643 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000); and MPEP 2111.
During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim. See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein. See MPEP § 2111.02(II). See also MPEP § 2112 - MPEP § 2112.02.
Here, aside from amending the phrase “DRX configuration node” to “first terminal”, none of the amendments to claim 9 appear to define the scope of the performance by the second terminal of Discontinuous Reception (DRX) configuration method to which claim 9 is directed. How the time domain location information sent to the first terminal by the second terminal does not appear to impose any requirements on the time domain location information, structurally, manipulatively, or in any other way. Similarly, with the amendments to claim 14, whether a reporting terminal is in an connected state or has a sidelink connection established with another terminal does not appear to define the scope of the claimed method of a base station. Thus, Applicant’s arguments directed at whether Pan discloses the amended limitations of claim 1 are not germane to determine whether Guo still anticipates claims 9 and 14 as provided in the Non-Final Rejection.
Therefore, the prior art rejection of the Non-Final Rejection is maintained, but adjusted as necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claims 9-12, 14-16, 19, 43-44, and 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (US 2023/0066041, previously cited, hereinafter Guo).
Regarding Claim 9, Guo disclose a Discontinuous Reception (DRX) configuration method, performed by a second terminal (Figs. 6, 9, ¶¶ 89 and 109), comprising:
sending time domain location information used by the second terminal for sensing a transmission resource to a first terminal (¶¶ 90 and 110-111; see also ¶¶ 71-72 — compare to ¶ 111 of the instant application), wherein the time domain location information is used by the first terminal for determining a DRX configuration of the second terminal (¶¶ 45, 52-53, 71-72, 95 and 112), and wherein the time domain location information is used by the first terminal for determining the DRX configuration of the second terminal (Note: how the time domain location information is claimed to be used here does not appear to define the scope of the time domain location information since its use by a first terminal for determining a DRX configuration would not impose any structural or manipulative constraints on the claimed time domain location information provided by the claimed second terminal) by one of:
reporting, in response to a determination that the first terminal is in a connected state, the time domain location information to a base station, so that the base station determines the DRX configuration of the second terminal according to the time domain location information;
determining, in response to a determination that the first terminal is in an idle state or an inactive state, the DRX configuration of the second terminal from a DRX configuration broadcast by the base station according to the time domain location information; and
determining, in response to a determination that the first terminal is outside a coverage range of the base station, the DRX configuration of the second terminal from a pre-configured DRX configuration according to the time domain location information.
Regarding Claim 10, Guo discloses the method according to claim 9, further comprising:
determining, according to a sensing parameter used by the second terminal for sensing the transmission resource on SL, the time domain location information (¶ 71 and Table 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Guo discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the sensing parameter comprises one or more of:
a sensing cycle (¶ 71 and Table 2);
a sensing offset (Id.); and
a sensing duration (Id.).
Regarding Claim 12, Guo discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein a time period indicated by the DRX configuration, during which the second terminal enters an active state, at least partially overlaps with a time location indicated by the time domain location information (Figs. 3,4, ¶¶ 58 and 61-64).
Regarding Claim 14, Guo discloses the Discontinuous Reception (DRX) configuration method, performed by a base station (Figs. 9-17 and ¶¶ 109, 114, 121, 127, 131, 139, 146, 149, and 151), comprising:
receiving time domain location information reported by a first terminal and for indicating sensing on a transmission resource on Sidelink (SL) by a second terminal (¶¶ 110-111, 117, 123, 129, 135, 142, 147, 150, and 152), wherein the first terminal is a terminal having an established SL with the second terminal (Note: this feature does not appear to define the scope of the claimed method performed by the base station, since the base station need not be involved for a first terminal to establish a SL with a second terminal; Figs. 10-12, 13-14 and ¶¶ 119, 125, 137, and 144), the time domain location information is at least for determination of the DRX configuration of the second terminal (¶¶ 45, 52-53, and 71-72), and the time domain location information is reported by the first terminal when the first terminal determines that the first terminal is in a connected state (Fig. 1 and ¶ 34).
Regarding Claim 15, Guo discloses the method according to claim 14, further comprising:
sending, according to the time domain location information, at least one DRX configuration, wherein the at least one DRX configuration comprises at least the DRX configuration of the second terminal (Figs. 9-16 and ¶¶ 112, 118, 124, 130, 136, 143, 147, and 150).
Regarding Claim 16, Guo discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein sending, according to the time domain location information, at least one DRX configuration comprises:
sending, according to the time domain location information, the at least one DRX configuration to the first terminal, wherein the at least one DRX configuration is used by the first terminal for determining the DRX configuration of the second terminal (Figs. 10-12, 13-14 and ¶¶ 119, 125, 137, and 144).
Regarding Claim 19, Guo discloses the method according to claim 14, wherein a time period indicated by the DRX configuration of the second terminal, during which the second terminal enters an active state, at least partially overlaps with a time location indicated by the time domain location information (Figs. 3,4, ¶¶ 58 and 61-64 disclose an ON Sensing duration for Partial Sensing as overlapping in time with an On Duration for SL DRX).
Regarding Claim 43, Guo discloses a second terminal, comprising at least a processor and a memory for storing executable instructions capable of running on the processor, wherein the processor is configured to perform the DRX configuration method according to claim 9 (Figs. 6, 9, ¶¶ 89 and 109; and ¶ 7 discloses the receiving UE as including a processor coupled to a non-transitory computer readable medium).
Regarding Claim 44, Guo discloses a base station, comprising at least a processor and a memory for storing executable instructions capable of running on the processor, wherein the processor is configured to perform the DRX configuration method according to claim 14 (Figs. 9-17 and ¶¶ 109, 114, 121, 127, 131, 139, 146, 149, and 151; and ¶ 9 discloses a base station as including a processor, non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to the processor to implement the disclosed method performed by the bases station).
Regarding Claims 46-47, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 46-47 are substantially similar or identical to those of claims 43-44, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 41-42, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Pan et al. (US 2022/0191795, previously cited, hereinafter Pan).
Regarding Claim 1, Guo discloses a Discontinuous Reception (DRX) configuration method, performed by a first terminal (Figs. 6, 8-14 and ¶¶ 89, 101, 109, 114, 121, 127, 131, and 139 disclose a method performed by transmission user equipment (Tx UE)), comprising:
determining, according to time domain location information (¶¶ 90, 102, 111, 116, 122, , 129, 134, and 142 disclose the Tx UE receiving partial sensing configuration information; ¶¶ 71-72 and 91 disclose partial sensing configuration information, as detailed in Table 2, as including ‘Partial Sensing Cycle Gap’, ‘Partial Sensing Active Time’, ‘Partial Sensing Offset’, ‘Partial Sensing Priority’, indicating a duration of a partial sensing cycle defined by “ON time” and “OFF time” measured by multiplying a partial sensing cycle gap by a pre-defined time duration, an indication of the duration for “On sensing” or a sensing window, and an indication of offset of an on sensing duration or partial sensing window from a certain reference time unit — instant application’s ¶ 111 describes time domain location information as including time, a cycle, duration, and an offset for the second terminal to perform sensing, thought the broadest reasonable interpretation may not be so limited — thus, Guo’s partial sensing configuration information is well within the scope of the claimed time domain location information) used by a second terminal on a Sidelink (SL) (¶¶ 52-53 disclose a partial sensing mechanism and a SL DRX mechanism as for sidelink communication; ¶¶ 90 and 102 disclose the Tx UE receiving the partial sensing configuration from an Rx UE as illustrated in Fig. 1, showing UEs in SL communication) for sensing a transmission resource (¶ 45 discloses that, according to 3GPP TS 36.213, a UE configured to use partial sensing will monitor (i.e., sense) a resource only in a subset of subframes (i.e., during an ON time or “On Sensing” or sensing window); ¶ 52 discloses the partial sensing mechanism as for transmission resource selection — thus, the partial sensing configuration information is disclosed as for an Rx UE on SL for sensing a transmission resource), a DRX configuration of the second terminal (¶¶ 95, 102, 112, 118, 124, 130, 136, , and 143 disclose the Tx UE determining SL DRX configuration information for the Rx UE based on the partial sensing configuration information).
wherein determining, according to the time domain location information used by the second terminal on the SL for sensing the transmission resource, the DRX configuration of the second terminal comprises one of:
reporting, [given] that the first terminal is in a connected state (Fig. 1 and ¶ 34 disclose UEs as communicating directly with a base station), the time domain location information to a base station (Figs. 9-14, ¶¶ 110-111, 117, 123, 129, 135, and 142 disclose the Tx UE reporting the partial sensing configuration information to a base station), so that the base station determines the DRX configuration of the second terminal according to the time domain location information (Note: how the time domain location information is claimed to be used here does not appear to define the scope of the time domain location information since its use by a base station for determining a DRX configuration would not impose any structural or manipulative constraints on the claimed time domain location information provided by the claimed first terminal — thus, this feature is given no patentable weight; even if it did, Figs. 9-14 and ¶¶ 112, 118, 124, 130, 136, and 143 disclose the BS determining the SL DRX configuration for the Rx UE based on the partial configuration information received from the Tx UE);
determining, in response to a determination that the first terminal is in an idle state or an inactive state, the DRX configuration of the second terminal from a DRX configuration broadcast by the base station according to the time domain location information (Note: this limitation is written in the alternative and need not be disclosed by the prior art to reject the claim as a whole — see MPEP § 2117(II)(A) 2nd ¶); and
determining the DRX configuration of the second terminal from a pre-configured DRX configuration according to the time domain location information (¶ 65 discloses the UE determining configurations from pre-configured SL DRX configurations).
Guo may not explicitly disclose:
wherein determining, according to the time domain location information used by the second terminal on the SL for sensing the transmission resource, the DRX configuration of the second terminal comprises one of:
reporting, in response to a determination that the first terminal is in a connected state, the time domain location information to a base station, so that the base station determines the DRX configuration of the second terminal according to the time domain location information;
determining, in response to a determination that the first terminal is in an idle state or an inactive state, the DRX configuration of the second terminal from a DRX configuration broadcast by the base station according to the time domain location information; and
determining, in response to a determination that the first terminal is outside a coverage range of the base station, the DRX configuration of the second terminal from a pre-configured DRX configuration according to the time domain location information.
However, in analogous art, Pan discloses:
reporting, in response to a determination that the first terminal is in a connected state (Fig. 15 and ¶ 222, sub-¶ staring with “to coordinate” disclose a serving network configuring PC5 DRX patterns for in-coverage operation); and
determining, in response to determination that the first terminal is outside a coverage range of a base station, the DRX configuration of the second terminal from a pre-configured DRX configuration according to the time domain location information (Fig. 15 and ¶ 222, sub-¶ staring with “to coordinate” disclose coordinating SL DRX configurations using a DRX pattern pre-configured for out-of-coverage operation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Pan to modify Guo in order to determine connectivity prior and responsively report the partial sensing configuration information and coordinate SL DRX configuration when the UEs are not in coverage of a base station. One would have been motivated to do this, because use of such a pre-configuration appears to be described in an industry-defined protocol: 3GPP TS 23.776, which one skilled in the art would know to apply (Pan ¶ 221).
Regarding Claim 2, Guo-Pan disclose the method according to claim 1.
Guo discloses wherein a time period indicated by the DRX configuration, during which the second terminal enters an active state, at least partially overlaps with a time location indicated by the time domain location information (Figs. 3,4, ¶¶ 58 and 61-64 disclose an ON Sensing duration for Partial Sensing as overlapping in time with an On Duration for SL DRX).
Regarding Claim 6, Guo-Pan disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the DRX configuration broadcast by the base station comprises multiple DRX configurations, and determining the DRX configuration of the second terminal from the DRX configuration broadcast by the base station comprises:
determining, from the multiple DRX configurations, a DRX configuration resulting in a maximum overlapped duration between a duration indicating that the second terminal is in an active state and a duration for the sensing by the second terminal indicated by the time domain location information, as the DRX configuration of the second terminal (Note: this claim is contingent on an alternative limitation being practiced, and need not be disclosed by the prior art to be rejected if the contingency is not practiced — see MPEP § 2111.04 (II), and the prior art of record is sited as disclosing a different the alternative limitation — thus, this claim need not be disclosed by the prior art to be rejected as a whole — see MPEP § 2117(II)(A) 2nd ¶).
Regarding Claim 41, Guo-Pan disclose the method according to claim 6, wherein determining, from the multiple DRX configuration a DRX configuration resulting in a maximum overlapped duration between a duration indicating that the second terminal is in an active state and a duration for the sensing by the second terminal indicated by the time domain location information, as the DRX configuration of the second terminal comprises:
determining, within a predetermined duration, a DRX configuration resulting in a maximum overlapped duration as a whole in multiple DRX cycles between a duration indicating that the second terminal is in an active state and a duration for the sensing by the second terminal indicated by the time domain location information, as the DRX configuration of the second terminal (Note: this claim is contingent on an alternative limitation being practiced, and need not be disclosed by the prior art to be rejected if the contingency is not practiced — see MPEP § 2111.04 (II), and the prior art of record is sited as disclosing a different the alternative limitation — thus, this claim need not be disclosed by the prior art to be rejected as a whole — see MPEP § 2117(II)(A) 2nd ¶).
Regarding Claim 42, Guo-Pan disclose a first terminal, comprising at least a processor and a memory for storing executable instructions capable of running on the processor, wherein the processor is configured to perform the DRX configuration method according to claim l (Figs. 6, 8-14 and ¶¶ 89, 101, 109, 114, 121, 127, 131, and 139 disclose a method performed by the Tx UE; and Fig. 18 and ¶¶ 5 and 154-158 disclose the Tx UE as including a non-transitory medium coupled to a processor for performing the disclosed methods of the Tx UE).
Regarding Claim 45, though of a different scope, the limitations of claim 45 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 42, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo-Pan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (WO 2022/077518, citing the description from the provided machine-generated English translation and citing the drawings form the WIPO publication, previously cited, hereinafter Huang).
Regarding Claim 8, Guo-Pan disclose the method according to claim 1.
Guo-Pan may not explicitly disclose wherein the pre-configured DRX configuration comprises multiple DRX configurations, and determining the DRX configuration of the second terminal from the pre-configured DRX configuration comprises:
determining, from the multiple DRX configurations, a DRX configuration resulting in a maximum overlapped duration between a duration indicating that the second terminal is in an active state and a duration for the sensing by the second terminal indicated by the time domain location information, as the DRX configuration of the second terminal.
However, in analogous art, Huang discloses wherein the pre-configured DRX configuration comprises multiple DRX configurations, and determining the DRX configuration of the second terminal from the pre-configured DRX configuration comprises:
determining, from the multiple DRX configurations, a DRX configuration resulting in a maximum overlapped duration between a duration indicating that the second terminal is in an active state and a duration for the sensing by the second terminal indicated by the time domain location information, as the DRX configuration of the second terminal (Fig. 11 and ¶ 162 disclose the DRX and sensing operation as occurring within a time slot; ¶ 167 discloses the operation as occurring over time slot 5 as shown in Fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Huang to modify Guo-Bergquist in order to consider an entire duration during which a DRX active time and sensing operation overlap. One would have been motivated to do this, because the entire time slot may need to be considered to reduce frequent retransmissions caused by data transmission on high-interference resources — thereby improving transmission reliability and meet service quality requirements (Huang ¶¶ 164 and 168).
Conclusion
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 THOMAS R CAIRNS whose telephone number is (571)270-0487. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM ET 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, MARCUS SMITH can be reached at (571) 270-1096. 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.
/Thomas R Cairns/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468