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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. US 18/444,670. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application
US 18/444,670
Claim 1. An apparatus configured for wireless communications, comprising: one or more memories comprising processor-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the processor-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to:
determine a target time for performing a change in activation or deactivation of a current cell discontinuous reception (DRX) operation at a first cell, the target time determined based on a scheduling time offset associated with the first cell, an indication transmission slot, and a preconfigured delay;
send, to one or more user equipments (UEs) served in the indication transmission slot by the first cell, the target time for performing the change in activation or deactivation of the current cell DRX operation at the first cell; and
perform the change in activation or deactivation of the current cell DRX operation at the first cell at the target time.
Claim 1. An apparatus configured for wireless communications, comprising: one or more memories comprising processor-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the processor-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to: determine a target time for performing a change in activation or deactivation of a current cell discontinuous reception (DRX) operation at a first cell, the target time determined based on one or more uplink synchronization reference points, an indication transmission slot, and a preconfigured delay; send, to one or more user equipments (UEs) served in the indication transmission slot by the first cell, the target time for performing the change in activation or deactivation of the current cell DRX operation at the first cell; and perform the change in activation or deactivation of the current cell DRX operation at the first cell at the target time.
Note that the table above only compared the conflicting claim 1. However, the Applicant is advised that the other independent and dependent claims in instant application also have their conflicting claims in US 18444670 and thus are rejected on a similar fashion as that in the table above, resulting in a double patenting rejection to all claims in instant application.
Thus, this double patenting rejection is necessary to prevent unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 18-22, 24 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cirik (US 20250106848).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 1/19/20/30, Cirik teaches An apparatus ([Fig.15A], base station 1504) configured for wireless communications, comprising: one or more memories comprising processor-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the processor-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to:
determine a target time for performing a change in activation or deactivation of a current cell discontinuous reception (DRX) operation at a first cell ([0255], “The Cell DTX/DRX may be activated/deactivated by RRC signaling.” And [0279], “The one or more messages (e.g., the RRC message(s)) may control the cell DRX (or the cell DRX operation) by configuring/indicating/comprising the following parameters in the one or more cell DRX configuration parameters.” And [0249]), the target time determined based on a scheduling time offset associated with the first cell ([0281], “celldrx-StartOffset: defines the subframe where the cycle of the cell DRX (or the cell DRX cycle) starts.”), an indication transmission slot ([0294], “receiving a cell DRX activation indication (e.g., by DCI format 2_9 or by RRC signaling) for the cell DRX of the cell.”), and a preconfigured delay ([0282], “celldrx-SlotOffset: the delay before starting the on-duration timer of the cell DRX (e.g., celldrx-onDurationTimer).”);
send, to one or more user equipments (UEs) served in the indication transmission slot by the first cell ([0294], “receiving a cell DRX activation indication (e.g., by DCI format 2_9 or by RRC signaling) for the cell DRX of the cell.”), the target time for performing the change in activation or deactivation of the current cell DRX operation at the first cell ([0255], “the base station and/or the wireless device may activate/deactivate the Cell DTX/DRX based on the L1 group common signaling. The wireless device may activate the Cell DTX/DRX based on receiving DCI (e.g., DCI format 2_9).”); and
perform the change in activation or deactivation of the current cell DRX operation at the first cell at the target time ([0255], “the base station and/or the wireless device may activate/deactivate the Cell DTX/DRX based on the L1 group common signaling.”).
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 2/21, Cirik teaches wherein the target time for performing the change in activation or deactivation of the current cell DRX operation at the first cell is a beginning of a target slot ([0255], “The Cell DTX/DRX may be activated/deactivated.”), and wherein the target slot is a first slot that is not earlier (DRX operation is activated after the received RRC indication and slot offset and start offset.) than the indication transmission slot ([0294], “receiving a cell DRX activation indication (e.g., by DCI format 2_9 or by RRC signaling) for the cell DRX of the cell.”) plus the preconfigured delay ([0277], “0277] celldtx-SlotOffset: the delay before starting the on-duration timer of the cell DTX (e.g., celldtx-onDurationTimer).”) plus the scheduling time offset associated with the first cell ([0276], “celldtx-StartOffset: defines the subframe where the cycle of the cell DTX (or the cell DTX cycle) starts;.”).
Regarding claim(s) 3/22, Cirik teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to send, to the one or more UEs served by the first cell, the scheduling time offset ([0274], “The one or more messages (e.g., the RRC message(s)) may control the cell DTX (or the cell DTX operation) by configuring/indicating/comprising the following parameters in the one or more cell DTX configuration parameters (e.g., CellDTX-Config): ... [0276] celldtx-StartOffset: defines the subframe where the cycle of the cell DTX (or the cell DTX cycle) starts.”).
Regarding claim(s) 5/24, Cirik teaches wherein the indication transmission slot is a downlink slot containing a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) resource for downlink control information (DCI) in format 2_9 ([0294], “receiving a cell DRX activation indication (e.g., by DCI format 2_9 or by RRC signaling) for the cell DRX of the cell.”).
Regarding claim(s) 18/29, Cirik teaches wherein the apparatus comprises a base station ([Fig.15A], base station 1504).
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cirik in view of Ye (US 20240031983).
Regarding claim(s) 4/23, Ye teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to send, to the one or more UEs served by the first cell, the scheduling time offset in a system information block (SIB) ([0009], “the base station may broadcast the scheduling offset in SIB as part of the paging configuration.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Cirik to specify SIB as taught by Ye. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to transmit offset information as part of paging configuration.
Claim(s) 6 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cirik in view of Kang (US 20230389124).
Regarding claim(s) 6/25, Kang teaches wherein the preconfigured delay is an integer number of slots, and wherein the integer number depends on a subcarrier spacing (SCS) of a downlink active bandwidth part of the first cell ([0166], “An offset may be in units of slots. A slot length for an ‘offset’ may be determined based on SCS of an active DL BWP.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Cirik to specify SCS as taught by Kang. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to determine offset length.
Claim(s) 7 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cirik in view of Kim (US 20180279204).
Regarding claim(s) 7/26, Cirik teaches wherein: the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to send, using a second cell and to the one or more UEs served in the indication transmission slot by the first cell, the target time for performing the change in activation or deactivation of the current cell DRX operation at the first cell ([0255], “The Cell DTX/DRX may be activated/deactivated by RRC signaling.” And [0279], “The one or more messages (e.g., the RRC message(s)) may control the cell DRX (or the cell DRX operation) by configuring/indicating/comprising the following parameters in the one or more cell DRX configuration parameters.” And [0249]), and the target time for performing the change in activation or deactivation of the current cell DRX operation at the first cell is indicated as an absolute time ([0255], “the base station and/or the wireless device may activate/deactivate the Cell DTX/DRX based on the L1 group common signaling. The wireless device may activate the Cell DTX/DRX based on receiving DCI (e.g., DCI format 2_9).”).
However, Cirik does not teach using a second cell.
In an analogous art, Kim teaches wherein: the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to send, using a second cell and to the one or more UEs ([0082], “the first cell transmits DRX configuration information for the first and second cells to the terminal at step 1f-35. Then the terminal triggers a DRX operation at step 1f-40.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Cirik to specify secondary cell as taught by Kim. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to transmit DRX configuration to both cells.
Claim(s) 8 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cirik in view of Kim, and further in view of Jeon (US 20240237133).
Regarding claim(s) 8/27, Jeon teaches wherein the absolute time is indicated by a system frame number, subframe number, slot number, and symbol index of the first cell ([Abs], “determining a start of the cell DTX or DRX on-duration timer based on a system frame number (SFN).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Cirik to specify SFN as taught by Jeon. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to determine start of DRX on duration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-17 and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIREN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/ZHIREN QIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2411