DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant's arguments, filed on January 29, 2026, with respect to objections to claims 1-4, 14, and 28-32 have been considered and are persuasive. Objections to claims 1-4, 14, and 28-32 have been withdrawn, with the exceptions noted below.
3. Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1-4, 14, and 28-34 have been considered and are persuasive. Rejections of claims 1-4, 14, and 28-34 under 35 USC 112(a) have been withdrawn, with the exceptions noted below.
4. Applicant’s arguments regarding rejection of claims 1, 4, 28, 31, and 35-40, as amended, under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any combination of the references being used in the current rejection. Examiner has applied Thyagarajan ‘362 (US 2024/0147362), Shin ‘526 (US 2023/0276526), and Li ‘718 (US 2023/0319718) to clearly teach the amended limitations in claims 1, 4, 28, 31, and 35-40.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 4, 31, and 39-40 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“In a case where the sidelink transmission is for the groupcast or the broadcast" in claim 4 (line 4-5) and claim 31 (line 4-5) should be replaced with - - in the case where the sidelink transmission is for the groupcast or the broadcast - - to be consistent with the first citation of “in a case where the sidelink transmission is for groupcast or broadcast” in claim 1 (line 10) and claim 28 (line 12), respectively.
“In a case where the sidelink transmission is for the group case or the broadcast" in claim 39 (line 4) and claim 40 (line 4) should be replaced with - - in the case where the sidelink transmission is for the groupcast or the broadcast - - to be consistent with the first citation of “in a case where the sidelink transmission is for groupcast or broadcast” claim 1 (line 10) and claim 28 (line 12), respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
6. Claims 1, 4, 28, 31, and 35-40 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 claims contain 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 28 are amended to recite “wherein the sidelink DRX active time is a longest on-duration determined based on a plurality of on-durations in a case where the sidelink transmission is for groupcast or broadcast”. However, the specification fails to show “the sidelink DRX active time is a longest on-duration determined based on a plurality of on-durations.” The applicant states that claim amendments are supported at least in FIG. 4B and paragraph 61 of the specification (See Remarks, page 6, para 1). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that no support is found in FIG. 4B and paragraph 61 for “the sidelink DRX active time is a longest on-duration determined based on a plurality of on-durations”.
Claims 4 and 31 are amended to recite “wherein the sidelink DRX active time is a largest on-duration determined based on the plurality of on-durations in a case where the sidelink transmission is for the groupcast or the broadcast”. However, the specification fails to show “the sidelink DRX active time is a largest on-duration determined based on the plurality of on-durations.” The applicant states that claim amendments are supported at least in FIG. 4B and paragraph 61 of the specification (See Remarks, page 6, para 1). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that no support is found in FIG. 4B and paragraph 61 for “the sidelink DRX active time is a largest on-duration determined based on the plurality of on-durations”.
Claims 35-40 are rejected as being dependent of rejected claims 1 and 28.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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. Claims 1, 4, 28, 31, 36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP ‘141 (OPPO, 'Power saving mechanisms in NR sidelink", 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #104-e, R1-2100141, January 19th, 2021, “3GPP ‘141”), in view of Thyagarajan ‘362 (US 2024/0147362, “Thyagarajan ‘362”).
Regarding claims 1 and 28, 3GPP ‘141 discloses a first terminal device (Section 2.4; TX UE reads on a first terminal device):
communicate with a second terminal device (Introduction, Section 2.4; TX UE communicates with RX UE over sidelink (SL); RX UE reads on a second terminal device);
select at least one resource for a sidelink transmission to the second terminal device taking into account a sidelink discontinuous reception (DRX) active time (Sections 2.2 and 2.4; TX UE knows RX UE’s DRX parameter, and knows RX UE’s DRX on-duration and DRX off-duration; for the purpose of sensing for SL resource selection, TX UE includes only resources within the RX UE’s DRX on-duration; TX UE performs sensing, and determines candidate resources; thus, TX UE selects at least one sensed resource taking into account the RX UE’s DRX on-duration in candidate resources, for sidelink communication); and
report the at least one resource to higher layer (Sections 2.2 and 2.4; for the purpose of sensing for SL resource selection, TX UE includes only resources within the RX UE’s DRX on-duration; TX UE performs sensing, and determines candidate resources; UE reports the candidate resources to higher layer; thus, TX UE knows RX UE’s DRX on-duration, performs sensing to determine candidate resources, and UE reports the candidate resources to higher layer).
However, 3GPP ‘141 does not specifically disclose a first terminal device comprising: a processor configured to cause the first terminal device to: communicate with a second terminal device; wherein the sidelink DRX active time is a longest on-duration determined based on a plurality of on-durations in a case where the sidelink transmission is for groupcast or broadcast.
Thyagarajan ‘362 teaches a first terminal device comprising: a processor configured to cause the first terminal device to: communicate with a second terminal device (FIGS. 1 and 12, para 61, 70, 147, and 157; a UE that performs direct communication with other UEs includes a processor that performs functions);
wherein the sidelink DRX active time is a longest on-duration determined based on a plurality of on-durations in a case where the sidelink transmission is for groupcast or broadcast (para 4, 70, and 91; UE is in a wake state for communication during an on-duration, where the on-duration is the longer of two on-durations, and where the UE communicates directly with a group of other UEs; thus, the UE performs groupcast sidelink communication with the group of other UEs, during a wake state that is the longest on-duration determined based on two on-durations; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine 3GPP ‘141’s first terminal device that communicates with a second terminal device over sidelink, to include Thyagarajan ‘362’s on-duration that is the longer of two on-durations. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide improved methods that support power saving for DRX in a shared spectrum (Thyagarajan ‘362, para 4).
Regarding claims 4 and 31, 3GPP ‘141 and Thyagarajan ‘362 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 28, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Thyagarajan ‘362 teaches wherein the sidelink DRX active time is a largest on-duration determined based on the plurality of on-durations in a case where the sidelink transmission is for the groupcast or the broadcast (para 4, 70, and 91; UE is in a wake state for communication during an on-duration, where the on-duration is the longer of two on-durations, and where the UE communicates directly with a group of other UEs; thus, UE performs groupcast sidelink communication with the group of other UEs, during a wake state that is the largest on-duration determined based on two on-durations; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined first terminal device of 3GPP ‘141 and Thyagarajan ‘362, to further include Thyagarajan ‘362’s on-duration that is the longer of two on-durations. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide improved methods that support power saving for DRX in a shared spectrum (Thyagarajan ‘362, para 4).
Regarding claims 36 and 38, 3GPP ‘141 and Thyagarajan ‘362 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 28, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, 3GPP ‘141 teaches wherein the first terminal device is caused to select the at least one resource by: selecting the at least one resource within the sidelink DRX active time (Sections 2.2 and 2.4; TX UE knows RX UE’s DRX parameter, and knows RX UE’s DRX on-duration and DRX off-duration; for the purpose of sensing for SL resource selection, TX UE includes only resources within the RX UE’s DRX on-duration; TX UE performs sensing, and determines candidate resources; thus, TX UE selects at least one sensed resource taking into account the RX UE’s DRX on-duration in candidate resources, for sidelink communication).
9. Claims 35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP ‘141, in view of Thyagarajan ‘362, and further in view of Shin ‘526 (US 2023/0276526, “Shin ‘526”).
Regarding claims 35 and 37, 3GPP ‘141 and Thyagarajan ‘362 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 28, respectively, as outlined above.
However, 3GPP ‘141 and Thyagarajan ‘362 does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of on-durations are associated with a plurality of terminal devices including the second terminal device.
Shin ‘526 teaches wherein the plurality of on-durations are associated with a plurality of terminal devices including the second terminal device (FIGS. 7A-7D, para 129; DRX on-duration vary for each UE; thus, a plurality of on-duration values are associated with a plurality of UEs, including each UE in the plurality of UEs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined first terminal device of 3GPP ‘141 and Thyagarajan ‘362, to include Shin ‘526’s plurality of on-duration values that are associated with a plurality of UEs. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase communication reliability by efficiently restoring information distortions (Shin ‘526, para 6).
10. Claims 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP ‘141, in view of Thyagarajan ‘362, and further in view of Li ‘718 (US 2023/0319718, “Li ‘718”).
Regarding claims 39 and 40, 3GPP ‘141 and Thyagarajan ‘362 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 28, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Thyagarajan ‘362 teaches in a case where the sidelink transmission is for the group case or the broadcast (para 70; UE communicates directly with a group of other UEs; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined first terminal device of 3GPP ‘141 and Thyagarajan ‘362, to further include Thyagarajan ‘362’s UE that communicates directly with a group of other UEs. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide improved methods that support power saving for DRX in a shared spectrum (Thyagarajan ‘362, para 4).
However, 3GPP ‘141 and Thyagarajan ‘362 does not specifically disclose wherein the sidelink DRX active time is a combined on-duration determined based on an earliest start time of an on duration among the plurality of on durations and a latest end time of an on duration among the plurality of on durations.
Li ‘718 teaches wherein the sidelink DRX active time is a combined on-duration determined based on an earliest start time of an on duration among the plurality of on durations and a latest end time of an on duration among the plurality of on durations (para 28; in response to determining that the mapping relationship between a power saving signal, for channel monitoring, and the number of on-durations is 1:N, when the power saving signal is detected, channel monitoring is performed for subsequent N consecutive DRX on-durations, without redetection of the power saving signal; the power saving signal is redetected before the N+1 DRX on-duration; thus, the active period during which channel monitoring is performed is a combined on-duration based on the start time of the first of the subsequent N consecutive on-durations and the end time of the last of the subsequent N consecutive on-durations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined first terminal device of 3GPP ‘141 and Thyagarajan ‘362, to include Li ‘718’s channel monitoring that is performed for subsequent N consecutive DRX on-durations, without redetection of the power saving signal. The motivation for doing so would have been to solve power saving for a UE in the idle sate/inactive state (Li ‘718, para 26).
Conclusion
Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only. (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.0.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA SANDHU whose telephone number is (571) 272-0679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST, Friday variable.
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, Michael Thier can be reached on (571)272-2832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NEVENA ZECEVIC SANDHU/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights