DETAILED ACTION
CONTINUED EXAMINATION UNDER 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 29, 2026, has been entered with the request for continued examination dated August 31, 2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. Applicant's arguments, filed on July 29, 2026, with respect to objections to claims 4, 31, and 39-40 have been considered and are persuasive. Objections to claims 4, 31, and 39-40 have been withdrawn, with the exceptions noted below.
4. Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of claims 1, 4, 28, 31, and 35-40 have been considered and are persuasive. Rejections of claims 1, 4, 28, 31, and 35-40 under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn.
5. Applicant’s arguments regarding rejection of claims 1, 4, 28, 31, 36, and 38-40 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 Ko ‘121 (US 2023/0389121, “Ko ‘121”), Shin ‘105 (US 2023/0020105, “Shin ‘105”), and Park ‘486 (US 2022/0322486, “Park ‘486”) to clearly teach the amended limitations in claims 1, 4, 28, 31, 36, and 38-40.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 4, 28, 31, 36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko ‘121 (US 2023/0389121, “Ko ‘121”), in view of Shin ‘105 (US 2023/0020105, “Shin ‘105”), further in view of Thyagarajan ‘362 (US 2024/0147362, “Thyagarajan ‘362”), and further in view of Park ‘486 (US 2022/0322486, “Park ‘486”).
Regarding claims 1 and 28, Ko ‘121 discloses a first terminal device comprising: a processor configured to cause the first terminal device to: communicate with a second terminal device (FIGS. 16 and 17, para 240-248; a first wireless device includes a processor that causes the first wireless device to communicate with a second wireless device over sidelink);
select at least one resource for a sidelink transmission to the second terminal device taking into account a sidelink discontinuous reception (DRX) active time (FIG. 12, para 2 and 204-205; UE selects a sidelink (SL) resource from resources in a DRX on-duration period).
However, Ko ‘121 does not specifically disclose report the at least one resource to higher layer.
Shin ‘105 teaches report the at least one resource to higher layer (para 115; UE reports selected resource candidates to the higher layer).
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 , Ko ‘121’s first terminal device that communicates with a second terminal device over sidelink, to include Shin ‘105’s UE that reports selected resource candidates to the higher layer. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a requirement for a pedestrian UE to select transmission resources while minimizing power (Shin ‘105, para 38).
However, Ko ‘121 in combination with Shin ‘105 does not specifically disclose 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 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 add features to the combined first terminal device of Ko ‘121 and Shin ‘105, to include Thyagarajan ‘362’s on-duration that is the longer of two on-durations. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve power savings at a UE (Thyagarajan ‘362, para 84).
Although Ko ‘121 in combination with Shin ‘105 and Thyagarajan ‘362 discloses 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, Ko ‘121 in combination with Shin ‘105 and Thyagarajan ‘362 does not specifically disclose a plurality of on-durations associated with a plurality of terminal devices including the second terminal device.
Park ‘486 discloses a plurality of on-durations associated with a plurality of terminal devices including the second terminal device (para 189; sidelink DRX on-duration intervals of multiple TX and RX UEs are brought to match each other, to make it possible for a TX UE to transmit a message to each of multiple RX UEs in a single sidelink DRX on-duration interval; thus, a plurality of on-duration intervals are associated with the multiple RX UEs and the TX UE).
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 Ko ‘121, Shin ‘105, and Thyagarajan ‘362, to include Park ‘486’s plurality of on-duration intervals that are associated with the multiple RX UEs and the TX UE. The motivation for doing so would have been to address reduction of a power saving effect in a TX UE (Park ‘486, para 180).
Regarding claims 4 and 31, Ko ‘121 in combination with Shin ‘105, Thyagarajan ‘362, and Park ‘486 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 Ko ‘121, Shin ‘105, Thyagarajan ‘362, and Park ‘486, 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 improve power savings at a UE (Thyagarajan ‘362, para 84).
Regarding claims 36 and 38, Ko ‘121 in combination with Shin ‘105, Thyagarajan ‘362, and Park ‘486 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 28, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Ko ‘121 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 (FIG. 12, para 2 and 204-205; UE selects a sidelink (SL) resource from resources in a DRX on-duration period).
8. Claims 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko ‘121, in view of Shin ‘105, further in view of Thyagarajan ‘362, further in view of Park ‘486, and further in view of Li ‘718 (US 2023/0319718, “Li ‘718”).
Regarding claims 39 and 40, Ko ‘121 in combination with Shin ‘105, Thyagarajan ‘362, and Park ‘486 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 Ko ‘121, Shin ‘105, Thyagarajan ‘362, and Park ‘486, 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 improve power savings at a UE (Thyagarajan ‘362, para 84).
However, Ko ‘121 in combination with Shin ‘105, Thyagarajan ‘362, and Park ‘486 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 Ko ‘121, Shin ‘105, Thyagarajan ‘362, and Park ‘486, 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.
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