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
Applicant's submission filed on 06/15/26 has been entered.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claims 13-15 were previously canceled.
Objections/Rejection Withdrawn
Objection to claim 1.
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.
Claim 11 remains 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. Specifically, abbreviations should be spelled out prior to first use. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the independent claims, Applicant argues MediaTek does not disclose the scheduling request [Remarks pg. 7] and Xu does not disclose the SL DRX command [Remarks pg. 8]. 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). MediaTek discloses the SL DRX Command and Xu discloses triggering a scheduling request. Therefore, since the combination of MediaTek and Xu disclose the features as claimed, the claims remain rejected.
Applicant additionally argues the claims can trigger the first scheduling request at a specific time to request network device to allocate appropriate SL resources …, thereby avoiding waste of SL resources [Remarks pg. 8]. 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 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MediaTek (“On aligning wake-up time between TX and RX UE”, R2-2101645, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #112, 8.15.2.2 (cited by Applicant of Record) in view of Xu (US 20220210801 A1).
Regarding claim 1, MediaTek discloses an apparatus (Tx UE [[pg. 5 sec. 2.4 (inherent)] to which a sidelink discontinuous reception command corresponds, configured in a first terminal equipment (Tx UE [[pg. 5 sec. 2.4]), the first terminal equipment performing sidelink transmission to a second terminal equipment (Rx UE [[pg. 5 sec. 2.4]), the second terminal equipment using sidelink discontinuous reception (SL DRX) (Tx and Rx UEs using DRX in SL communication, including MAC CE (i.e., to which DRX reception command corresponds) [pg. 5 sec. 2.4]), the apparatus comprising:
to which a sidelink discontinuous reception command (SL DRX Command) corresponds after the first terminal equipment triggers the sidelink discontinuous reception command [pg. 5 sec. 2.4].
Although MediaTek discloses SL DRX, as discussed above, MediaTek does not explicitly disclose for triggering a scheduling request: first triggering processor circuitry configured to trigger a first scheduling request. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Xu.
In the same field of endeavor, Xu discloses:
for triggering a scheduling request [par. 0093]:
first triggering processor circuitry [par. 0093, fig. 12 no. 1201] configured to trigger a first scheduling request [par. 0093, fig. 4 “SR”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MediaTek with Xu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of sending data to terminal 2 when it does not have a SL grant [Xu par. 0093].
Regarding claim 2, MediaTek and Xu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
MediaTek and Xu further disclose:
wherein the first triggering processor circuitry triggers the first scheduling request [Xu, as discussed above] to which the sidelink discontinuous reception command corresponds [MediaTek, as discussed above] when one of the following conditions is satisfied that:
there exists no sidelink resource used for new transmission [Xu par. 0093]; and
a sidelink resource used for new transmission is unable to accommodate a sidelink discontinuous reception command MAC CE and its sub-header.
Regarding claim 3, MediaTek and Xu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
MediaTek and Xu further disclose the apparatus further comprising:
second triggering processor circuitry [Xu par. 0093, fig. 12 no. 1201] configured to trigger a second scheduling request [par. 0093, fig. 4, where UE1 and UE2 continue communicating over time] to which the sidelink discontinuous reception command corresponds after the first terminal equipment transmits the sidelink discontinuous reception command [MediaTek, as discussed above].
Regarding claim 4, MediaTek and Xu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
MediaTek and Xu further disclose:
wherein the second triggering processor circuitry triggers the second scheduling request to which the sidelink discontinuous reception command corresponds when one of the following conditions is satisfied that:
a sidelink resource used for new transmission is able to accommodate a sidelink discontinuous reception command MAC CE and its sub-header and all data waiting to be transmitted (SL data is transmitted (i.e., must accommodate the above) [fig. 4 “SL data”]); and
a sidelink resource used for new transmission is able to accommodate a sub- header of a sidelink discontinuous reception command MAC CE and all data waiting to be transmitted (SL data is transmitted (i.e., must accommodate the above) [fig. 4 “SL data”]).
Regarding claim 5, MediaTek and Xu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Xu further discloses the apparatus further comprising:
a receiver [fig. 16 no. 160, “Control circuit”, “Antenna”] configured to receive configuration information transmitted by a network device, the configuration information comprising at least one SR configuration [par. 0112]; and
a transmitter [fig. 16 no. 160, “Control circuit”, “Antenna”] configured to transmit the first scheduling request to which the sidelink discontinuous reception command corresponds by using at least one SR configuration in the at least one SR configuration [par. 0112].
Regarding claim 6, MediaTek and Xu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
MediaTek further discloses:
wherein the configuration information is contained in RRC signaling [pg. 2 sec. 2.1 “Drawback 2”].
Regarding claim 7, MediaTek and Xu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Xu further discloses:
wherein the SR configuration comprises PUCCH resources on a bandwidth part (BWP) (Freq. domain position (i.e., BWP) [par. 0111]).
Regarding claim 9, MediaTek and Xu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Xu further discloses the apparatus further comprising:
canceling processor circuitry [fig. 12 no. 1202] configured to, when a sidelink discontinuous reception command MAC CE is transmitted, cancel the first scheduling request to which the sidelink discontinuous reception command corresponds [par. 0098-99].
Regarding claim 10, MediaTek and Xu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Xu further discloses the apparatus further comprising:
a first transmitter [fig. 16 no. 160, “Control circuit”, “Antenna”] configured to transmit a sidelink discontinuous reception command MAC CE (SL DRX command MAC CE) to the second terminal device, and a priority of the sidelink discontinuous reception command MAC CE is predefined [par. 0094, 116, where the priority is previously known].
Regarding claim 11, MediaTek and Xu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Xu further discloses:
wherein during the LCP process of the first terminal device, the priority of the sidelink discontinuous reception command MAC CE is lower than a priority of the sidelink CSI reporting MAC CE and higher than a priority of the sidelink traffic channel data (SL BSR priority is higher than UL data priority and the UL BSR MAC CE priority is higher than the SL BSR MAC CE priority or SL BSR MAC CE priority is higher than UL BSR MAC CE (i.e., one of ordinary skill in the art would choose priorities based on the requirements of the system processing) [par. 0116, 257]).
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MediaTek and Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20220007388 A1).
Regarding claim 8, MediaTek and Xu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although MediaTek discloses SL DRX, as discussed above, MediaTek and Xu do not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one SR configuration is SR configuration configured by the network device for a sidelink channel state information reporting. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Lee.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses:
wherein the at least one SR configuration is SR configuration configured by the network device for a sidelink channel state information reporting [fig. 16 no. S1640, fig. 13-14].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MediaTek and Xu with Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of alleviating the overhead of an eNB caused by increasing data traffic [Lee par. 0002].
Regarding claim 12, MediaTek and Xu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although MediaTek and Xu disclose a generator [fig. 16 “Processor”, “Control circuit”], configured to generate a MAC PDU [Xu par. 0087 (and following)] if there is the SL DRX command MAC CE generated [MediaTek, as discussed above], as discussed above, MediaTek and Xu do not explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus further comprises: for a PSSCH transmission. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Lee.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses the apparatus further comprising:
for a PSSCH transmission [par. 0112, 118].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MediaTek and Xu with Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of alleviating the overhead of an eNB caused by increasing data traffic [Lee par. 0002].
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 Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights