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 .
Priority
1. The present application is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2022/050302.
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. a. Certified copy of application PCT/CN2021/071586 was received on 07/07/23.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
3. Regarding the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection of claim 64, the Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The claim has been amended to recite “wherein the SL DRX parameters for the SL DRX configuration are adjusted to a configured percent of a second configured interval.” In the parent claim, the SL DRX parameters are defined to “include at least one of:
drx-onDurationTimer;
drx-InactivityTimer;
drx-LongCycleStartOffset;
drx-ShortCycle; and
drx-ShortCycleTimer.”
It is unclear to the Examiner how some of these parameters can be “adjusted to a configured percent” of an interval. An interval is a period of time between two points. A parameter like the drx-ShortCycleTimer is simply a counter of the number of times to run the short cycle drx. A counter is not an interval, and because of the type mismatch, it is unclear to the Examiner how this counter can be adjusted to within a configured percentage of an interval.
It is also unclear to the Examiner whether or not the claimed “second configured interval” requires a “first configured interval”, and if so, what the bounds of this may be.
The claim is indefinite, and remains rejected.
4. Regarding the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection of claim 69, the Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Claim 69 recites “an expected active time ratio”. The Applicant argues that this is a known term of art, and therefore obvious. The Examiner disagrees. “Active time” is a known term of art, but it is not clear as to what number is compared with the active time in order to create the ratio, which is by definition a relationship between two numbers. The Applicant states in the arguments that this other number is the total time, but this is not claimed. A different possible reasonable interpretation of “expected active time ratio” is the ratio of active time to drx time. The claim language is indefinite, and the rejection is maintained.
5. Regarding the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection of claim 72, the Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, and remove the grounds for rejection. The previous rejection is withdrawn.
6. Regarding the prior art rejection, the Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the previously cited prior art, 3GPP (3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #103-e R1-2007897), does not disclose the limitation in the independent claims “adapting a sidelink discontinuous reception (SL DRX) configuration based on measured sidelink (SL) congestion.”, and also argues against some of the dependent claim rejections.
First, the Applicant argues that section 2.8 does not teach the independent claims. Specifically, the Applicant agrees that 3GPP discloses both changing the SL DRX configuration, and measuring SL congestion (via a CBR), but appears to disagree that these two concepts which comprise the claim limitation are linked. The Examiner disagrees, and points to section 2.8, which first discusses using CBR measurements to gauge SL congestion, and then discloses “another way of avoiding heavy congestion… is to shift the position of the [DRX] ON duration… or extend the [DRX] ON duration”. The proposed shift in DRX configuration is clearly because of the measured congestion. The Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Next, the Applicant does not make any arguments, but states that the rejection of claim 59 amounts to taking official notice. The Examiner disagrees. The claim language at issue requires measuring SL congestion in a resource pool. The prior art at issue discloses measuring SL resources, and the Examiner pointed out that SL resources are resource pool resources. This is not taking official notice, it is clarifying how the Examiner is interpreting the prior art disclosure. The Applicant’s statements are therefore unpersuasive.
Next, the Applicant argues claims 62 and 77. The Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose multiple measurements over time (and therefore does not disclose those measurements increasing or decreasing). The Examiner disagrees. It is completely clear in context that there is not simply one CBR measurement—that is not how CBR measurement is performed. Cited section 2.8 clearly discloses adjusting the DRX ON duration to the measured CBR. When the CBR is high, this leads to an extended ON duration. In the situation when the CBR is high, and then low, as naturally happens during the course of operation, section 2.8’s disclosure of adjusting the ON duration according to the CBR would lead to a decreasing active time. The Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Next, regarding claim 67, the Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose accepting or rejecting of the adaptation. The Examiner disagrees, and points to cited section 2.1 Proposal 3 which states “When the coordinated UE receives the recommended SL DRX configuration… whether or not to accept the recommendation…” and then goes on to discuss what may affect this recommendation. This clearly discloses that the UE can accept of not a proposed SL DRX configuration. The Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Next, regarding claim 71, the Applicant argues that the claimed “adapting a plurality of SL DRX configurations “cannot be met by a series of SL DRX configuration adaptations, as disclosed by the prior art. The Examiner disagrees, and notes that it is nowhere claimed that the adaptations cannot be sequential in this manner. The Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Next, regarding claim 73, the Applicant argues that the motivation to modify the disclosure of 3GPP in order to apply the SL DRX adaptation to only GBR bearers would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art; particularly that it would not be obvious to do so in order to perform SL DRX adaptation, or to reduce power consumption. The Examiner disagrees. Applying the SL DRX adaptation is one (necessary) step in performing the adaptation process. Further, reducing power consumption in only GBR bearers is obvious at least because strictly better than not reducing power consumption at all. The Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
3. Claim 64 is 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. Claim 64 recites “wherein the SL DRX parameters for the SL DRX configuration are adjusted within a configured percent according a second configured interval.” There are three issues here. First, it is unclear to the Examiner what this “adjusted within a configured percent” is claiming. Second, it is unclear t the Examiner what this “according a second configured interval” is claiming. Third, there is a claimed “second interval”, without a claimed “first interval”. The claim is therefore rejected.
4. Claim 69 is 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. Claim 69 recites “an expected active time ratio”. A ratio involves two numbers, and it is unclear to the Examiner what the other number here, is. It is therefore unclear how this can be a ratio. The claim is therefore rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
7. Claim(s) 58 – 59, 61 – 63, 67, 69 – 71, and 74 - 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 3GPP (3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #103-e R1-2007897)
Regarding claim 58, 3GPP discloses subject matter relating to technical discussion of SL DRX. Specifically, 3GPP discloses a method implemented by a first terminal device (UE; see section 1), the method comprising:
adapting a sidelink discontinuous reception (SL DRX) configuration based on measured sidelink (SL) congestion (if SL UE only transmits during SL DRX, this could cause congestion; instead, if measured CBR is high, change DRX ON duration; see section 2.8)
Regarding claim 59, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses
wherein the measured SL congestion is measured in a resource pool (measured SL CBR; see section 2.8; the Examiner notes that all resources are in a resource pool)
Regarding claim 61, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses wherein the SL congestion is measured in terms of metrics including at least one of:
channel busy ratio (measured SL CBR; see section 2.8);
channel usage ratio;
reference signal receiving power;
reference signal receiving quality;
received signal strength indication;
signal to interference plus noise ratio;
signal to interference ratio;
hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) negative acknowledgement; and
average number of retransmissions of a HARQ transport block.
Regarding claims 62 and 77, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses wherein adapting the SL DRX configuration comprises:
extending active time of the first terminal device when the measured SL congestion is increasing (avoid congestion by increasing ON duration; see section 2.8); and
reducing the active time of the first terminal device when the measured SL congestion is decreasing (avoid congestion by increasing ON duration; see section 2.8; the Examiner notes that this also discloses the inverse—when CBR decreases after a period of high CBR, removing the extension of the ON duration (i.e. reducing the active time))
Regarding claim 63, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses wherein the active time is extended or reduced by adjusting one or more SL DRX parameters for the SL DRX configuration, wherein the SL DRX parameters include at least one of:
drx-onDurationTimer (DRX ON duration is modified based on measured CBR; see section 2.8)
drx-InactivityTimer;
drx-LongCycleStartOffset;
drx-ShortCycle; and
drx-ShortCycleTimer.
Regarding claim 67, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses
transmitting, to a second terminal device, a signaling indicating the adaptation of the SL DRX configuration (WIS configures dynamic reconfiguration of SL DRX; see section 2.6); and
receiving an acceptance or rejection of the adaptation from the second terminal device (RX UE can accept or not the proposed DRX configuration; see section 2.1 proposal 3).
Regarding claim 69, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses
receiving assistance information about the SL DRX configuration from the second terminal device prior to transmitting the signaling (SL DRX configuration info can be sent in AI; see proposal 4; the Examiner understands in context that this would be prior to the signaling) , wherein the assistance information includes at least one of:
an expected active time ratio; and
the measured SL congestion (“SL DRX cycle configuration information that the coordinating UE is using for power saving can be delivered to the coordinated UE as assistance information”; see section 2.1; the Examiner notes that the congestion metric (eg CBR) is used for power saving)
Regarding claim 70, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses
wherein the signaling comprises a whole SL DRX configuration or comprises only one or more changed SL DRX parameters for the SL DRX configuration (“SL DRX cycle configuration information that the coordinating UE is using for power saving can be delivered to the coordinated UE as assistance information”; see section 2.1)
Regarding claim 71, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses
when adapting a plurality of SL DRX configurations, selecting one of the SL DRX configurations and/or one of values of SL DRX parameters for the SL DRX configurations (adapt DRX configurations by changing eg DRX ON parameter; see section 2.8; the Examiner notes that this is a continuous process of adaptation; ie that there are a plurality of adaptations)
Regarding claim 74, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses
wherein the SL DRX configuration is adapted according to a first configured interval (SL DRX configuration is adapted; see section 2.8; the Examiner notes that DRX comprises intervals).
Regarding claim 75, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses
wherein parameters for the adaptation of the SL DRX configuration are configured by a control node or preconfigured (DRX can be configured by network; see section 2.1)
Regarding claim 76, 3GPP discloses a first terminal device (UE; see section 1), comprising:
a processor (UE; see section 1; the Examiner understands UEs as comprising processors); and
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor and configured to store instructions which, when executed by the processor (UE; see section 1; the Examiner understands UEs as comprising memory executing instructions), cause the first terminal device to:
adapt a sidelink discontinuous reception (SL DRX) configuration based on measured sidelink (SL) congestion (if SL UE only transmits during SL DRX, this could cause congestion; instead, if measured CBR is high, change DRX ON duration; see section 2.8)
Regarding claim 78, 3GPP discloses
non-transitory computer readable medium having a computer program stored thereon which, when executed by a set of one or more processors of a first terminal device (UE; see section 1; the Examiner understands UEs as comprising a medium storing a program to execute on processors), causes
the first terminal device to adapt a sidelink discontinuous reception (SL DRX) configuration based on measured sidelink (SL) congestion (if SL UE only transmits during SL DRX, this could cause congestion; instead, if measured CBR is high, change DRX ON duration; see section 2.8)
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.
8. Claim(s) 60, 68, and 72 - 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP (3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #103-e)
Regarding claim 60, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses wherein the SL congestion is measured in terms of metrics (measured SL CBR; see section 2.8) including at least one of:
3GPP does not explicitly disclose using one of the specific metrics claimed.
However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of 3GPP by having the congestion metric be one of packet delay; packet loss ratio; packet error rate; and achieved bit rate of a traffic type, instead of or in addition to the disclosed CBR. The Examiner takes OFFICAL NOTICE that the claimed metrics are well known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify as noted in order to more completely characterize the channel congestion.
Regarding claim 68, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP does not explicitly disclose: using a previous SL DRX configuration when the rejection of the adaptation is received.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICAL NOTICE that using a previous configuration when a proposed configuration is not agreed to is standard procedure. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to do so in order to be able to use a configuration that previously worked, and both devices know of.
Regarding claim 72, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses
transmitting, to a second terminal device, a signaling indicating the adaptation of the SL DRX configuration (WIS configures dynamic reconfiguration of SL DRX; see section 2.6); and
receiving an acceptance or rejection of the adaptation from the second terminal device (RX UE can accept or not the proposed DRX configuration; see section 2.1 proposal 3), wherein the signaling comprises an index associated with each of the plurality of SL DRX configurations and/or the values of the SL DRX parameters for the SL DRX configurations.
3GPP does not explicitly disclose wherein the signaling comprises an index associated with each of the plurality of SL DRX configurations and/or the values of the SL DRX parameters for the SL DRX configurations.
However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of 3GPP by specifying that the signaling includes an index associated with the DRX configurations/parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so, as this is simply a way of addressing particular configuration options, and is a well known method to do so; this would allow for effectively providing multiple configuration options to the device. Further, doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Regarding claim 73, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP does explicitly discloses
wherein the SL DRX configuration is adapted only when guaranteed bit rate (GBR) PC5 bearers are configured between the first terminal device and a second terminal device. (SL DRX is adapted; see section 2.8; the Examiner notes that SL uses the PC5 interface)
3GPP does not explicitly disclose that the bearers are GBR, but does suggest this with mention of V2X, which would generally be GBR.
However, the Examiner notes that it would be obvious to modify the disclosure of 3GPP to be operational on only GBR bearers. This SL DRX adaptation would work on any bearer, and simply limiting it to a particular type of bearer is obvious, and implicitly disclosed by 3GPP’s disclosure of SL DRX adaptation. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to do so in order to perform DRX adaptation and reduce power consumption.
9. Claim(s) 65 – 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP (3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #103-e) in view of Huang (US 20210227604 A1)
Regarding claim 65, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses
wherein the active time is extended (avoid congestion by increasing ON duration; see section 2.8) by applying a secondary DRX cycle during each existing DRX cycle when the measured SL congestion is above a first configured threshold, and
wherein the active time is reduced (avoid congestion by increasing ON duration; see section 2.8; the Examiner notes that this also discloses the inverse—when CBR decreases after a period of high CBR, removing the extension of the ON duration (i.e. reducing the active time)) by disabling the secondary DRX cycle when the measured SL congestion is below a second configured threshold.
3GPP does not disclose the claimed mechanism for extending or reducing active time.
Huang discloses subject matter relating to SL DRX. Specifically, Huang discloses adding (and thereby discloses removing) a second DRX cycle (see paragraph [0341] and Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of 3GPP by incorporating the mechanism of Huang (the secondary DRX cycle) when gated by a threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so, as this mechanism would work just as well for the purposes of managing congestion, and thresholds are typically used in order to determine when to apply specific techniques. Further, doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Regarding claim 66, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses
wherein the active time is extended (avoid congestion by increasing ON duration; see section 2.8) by applying a secondary timer during each existing DRX cycle when the measured SL congestion is above a first configured threshold, and
wherein the active time is reduced (avoid congestion by increasing ON duration; see section 2.8; the Examiner notes that this also discloses the inverse—when CBR decreases after a period of high CBR, removing the extension of the ON duration (i.e. reducing the active time)) by disabling the secondary timer when the measured SL congestion is below a second configured threshold.
3GPP does not disclose the claimed mechanism for extending or reducing active time.
Huang discloses subject matter relating to SL DRX. Specifically, Huang discloses adding (and thereby discloses removing) a second DRX cycle (see paragraph [0341] and Fig. 7). The Examiner notes that the DRX cycle encompasses a timer.
It would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of 3GPP by incorporating the mechanism of Huang (the secondary DRX cycle/timer) when gated by a threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so, as this mechanism would work just as well for the purposes of managing congestion, and thresholds are typically used in order to determine when to apply specific techniques. Further, doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
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 STEPHEN STEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9825. The examiner can normally be reached M - R 08:00 - 16:00; F 08:00 - 12:00.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 5712723139. 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.
/S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/RICKY Q NGO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights