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 .
Response filed on 4/1/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Claim status
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 11, 13, 16-17, 19, 21-22, 26, and 28 are amended.
Claims 2, 14, 20, and 29 are canceled.
Claims 31-34 are newly added.
Claims 1, 3-13, 15-19, 21-28, and 30-34 are pending for examination.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s response filed on 4/1/2026 has been fully considered.
Applicant argues: (Pg.10 of applicant’s argument) “the DRX configurations described in VIVO do not disclose "receiving a configuration for a periodicity of communication times that are factors of a time division duplex (TDD) periodicity, wherein the communication times are configured to align with a multimedia traffic periodicity, the TDD periodicity, and granted resources of a TDD pattern," as recited in amended claim 1”.
Applicant argues: (Pgs.10-11 of applicant’s argument) “configuring a configured grand (CG) periodicity set or pattern, as described in CMCC, does not disclose "receiving a configuration for a periodicity of communication times that are factors of a time division duplex (TDD) periodicity, wherein the communication times are configured to align with a multimedia traffic periodicity, the TDD periodicity, and granted resources of a TDD pattern," as recited in amended claim 1”.
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. As per office action and also cited in applicant’s response, Vivo’s teaching, "the periodicity of the XR service is 16.67 ms., and the UE is configured with the most closed value of standard DRX cycle (i.e. 16ms)." Additionally, section 3 recites, in part: "one approach is to configure three DRX configurations, as depicted in Figure 4 of approach 1. The three DRX configurations have the same DRX parameters except for the DRX cycle value (i.e. 16/l 7/l 7ms in this example). The three DRX configurations are applied in turn according to pre-configured order and repeated every 50ms.", as well as CMCC teaching, cited in the applicant’s response, “section 2.1.3 of CMCC recites: "Configure a CG periodicity set or pattern that contains multiple CG periodicities and apply this pattern cyclically in the time domain. For example, a CG periodicity pattern of {16ms, 17ms, 17ms} can be used to align with XR traffic with a 60fps frame rate."”, repetition of every 50ms, as cited in the office action guarantees the alignment with the multimedia traffic. TDD periodicity is based on slot duration and is inherent in LTE and 5G resource design. Communication times are repeated of every 50ms and thus are aligned with TDD periodicity. Granted resources are slot based and preconfigured pattern, as disclosed by Vivo and cited in the office action.
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is not withdrawn.
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 1-4, 6-10, 12-25, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R2-2209488, “Discussion on DRX Enhancements for XR Power Saving, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #119bis-e Electronic, 10th Oct. – 19th Oct. 2022, hereinafter “vivo”.
Claims 1, 13, 19, and 28:
Regarding claim 1, vivo teaches, a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) (implied based on discussion in § 2.5), comprising: receiving a configuration for a periodicity of communication times that are factors of a time division duplex (TDD) periodicity (“Values for long DRX cycle: 10, 20, 32, 40ms, etc.”; the DRX cycle values are factors of 10240ms, which is the length of a superframe; “Proposal 1: Non-integer values for DRX cycle are not introduced.”), wherein the communication times are configured to align with a multimedia traffic periodicity, (vivo: 2.1, “video stream for a single UE can be 30, 60 (baseline), 90, and 120, i.e. the corresponding periodicities would be 33.33ms, 16.67ms, 11.11ms, 8.33ms.”; “UE is configured with the most closed value of standard DRX cycle (i.e. 16ms)”; configuration with 16ms is based on the closeness of multimedia traffic for which the periodicity is 16.67ms; communication times are related to DRX configuration and communication in general happens during the on-duration of the DRX cycle) and granted resources of a TDD pattern (§ 3, Approach 1: Configure multiple DRX configurations with the same DRX parameters except for the DRX cycle length. The DRX configurations are applied in turn according to a pre-configured pattern.; see also fig.4 describing DRX configuration in TDD deployment).
Though vivo does not expressly disclosure the TDD periodicity in its disclosures, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art based on the idea that DRX periodicity in integer number of milliseconds and the following disclosures in vivo:
“several slots within a periodicity are configured as UL slots according to the TDD pattern configuration;
Fig.4 displays DRX configuration in TDD deployment showing enhancement of DRX configuration based on TDD pattern.
The obviousness may also be attributed to the fact the all the disclosures in the prior art lead to aligning DRX Configuration with Non-integer Periodicity of XR Service, as per § 2.1, as disclosed above.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combined the disclosures in vivo and come up with the claimed invention so that “non-integer value for DRX cycle are not introduced”, as disclosed by vivo in proposal 1 of § 2.1.
The claim, transmitting or receiving communications at the communication times, is implied. Communication times are configured so that communication may happen during these times.
Claim 13 is for method of wireless communication performed by a network entity complimentary to method of claim 13. Claim elements are discussed in claim 1. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 1.
Claim 19 is for a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, implementing method of claim 1. Claim is a change in category with respect to claim 1. Existence of memory and processor is implied. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 1.
Claim 28 is for a network entity for wireless communication performing method of claim 13 and thus a change in category with respect to claim 13. Existence of memory and processor is implied. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 13.
Claims 3, 15, 31, and 34:
Regarding claim 3, vivo teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the communication times are of a discontinuous reception (DRX) cycle (vivo: § 2.1, “the UE is configured with the most closed value of standard DRX cycle (i.e. 16ms).”).
Claim 15 is for a method of network entity complimentary to method of claim 3. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 3.
Claim 31 is for a user equipment implementing method of claim 3. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 3.
Claim 34 is for a network entity implementing method complimentary to method of claim 3. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4 and 32:
Regarding claim 4, vivo teaches the method of claim 3 (discussed above), further comprising adjusting DRX offsets values such that DRX on-durations align with downlink slots of a TDD pattern (vivo: Approach 2: “Configure multiple DRX configurations with the same DRX parameters except for different DRX start offsets. The DRX configurations are applied simultaneously”; § 2.5 “the timers are controlled by absolute time duration, without considering TDD pattern configuration.” ). vivo: Fig.2 is reproduced below disclosing DRX start offsets.
PNG
media_image1.png
713
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 32 is for a user equipment implementing method of claim 4. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 4.
Claims 6, 16, and 21:
Regarding claim 6, vivo teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the communications are channel state information (CSI) reference signals (CSI-RSs) or CSI interference measurement resources, the method further comprising aligning a periodicity and offset of the CSI-RSs with downlink slots of a TDD pattern associated with the TDD periodicity (channel state information (CSI) reference signals (CSI-RSs) or CSI interference measurement resources are communications in a downlink direction. The alignment of periodicity and offset with TDD pattern are implied (as described in claim 4).).
Claim 16 is for a network entity implementing method complimentary to method of claim 6. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 6.
Claim 21 is a change in category with respect to claim 6. Claim elements are discussed in claim 6. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 6.
Claims 7, 17, and 22:
Regarding claim 7, vivo teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the communications are sounding reference signals (SRSs), the method further comprising aligning the SRSs with uplink slots of a TDD pattern associated with the TDD periodicity (SRS is signal transmitted by user equipment to the network and is an uplink communication using uplink resource. When uplink signal is transmitted in an uplink slot, the alignment is implied.).
Claim 17 is for a network entity implementing method complimentary to method of claim 7. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 7.
Claim 22 is a change in category with respect to claim 7. Claim elements are discussed in claim 7. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 7.
Claims 8 and 23:
Regarding claim 8, vivo teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the communications are at least one of: scheduling requests, channel state information reports, buffer status reports, synchronization signal blocks (SSBs), random access channel messages, cross-link interference measurement resources, signal strength or signal quality measurement resources, paging messages, or system information blocks (scheduling request is implied by the disclosure, “Once the UE detects a scheduling PDCCH (which implicitly indicates the arrival of the traffic burst), the UE can automatically switch to dense SSSG for data transmission.” (vivo: § 2.4).
Claim 23 is a change in category with respect to claim 8. Claim elements are discussed in claim 8. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 8.
Claims 9 and 24:
Regarding claim 9, vivo teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the communications are transmitted in physical uplink channel resources or received in physical downlink channel resources (Though not expressly taught by the prior art, the use of uplink and downlink resources for uplink and downlink communication is implied).
Claim 24 is a change in category with respect to claim 9. Claim elements are discussed in claim 9. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 9.
Claims 10, 25, and 30:
Regarding claim 10, vivo teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above),further comprising aligning a resource timing among multiple multimedia traffic flows based at least in part on a common multiple quantity of multimedia traffic flows for a common outer cycle (vivo: § 2.4, “two-stage DRX introduces Inner DRX cycles within an Outer DRX cycle. The outer onDurationTimer determines the period over which shorter Inner DRX cycles run.”; see also Table 1; § 2.3, Proposal 4: Multiple DRX configurations (e.g., with different periodicities/on-duration timers) could be configured to UE, to match the different characteristics for multi-flow of XR traffic.).
Claim 25 is a change in category with respect to claim 10. Claim elements are discussed in claim 10. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 10.
Claim 30 is for a network entity implementing method complimentary to method of claim 10. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 10.
Claims 12, 18, and 27:
Regarding claim 12, vivo teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the multimedia traffic periodicity is a rational number (vivo: § 2.1 “it was agreed that the FPS of DL video stream for a single UE can be 30, 60 (baseline), 90, and 120, i.e. the corresponding periodicities would be 33.33ms, 16.67ms, 11.11ms, 8.33ms.”; the cited numbers are rational number equivalent to 100/3, 50/3, 100/9, 25/3, and are rational numbers).
Claim 18 is for a network entity implementing method complimentary to method of claim 12. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 12.
Claim 27 is a change in category with respect to claim 18. Claim elements are discussed in claim 18. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 18.
Claims 5 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over vivo as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of R1-2211698, “Discussion on XR-specific capacity enhancements techniques”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #111, Toulouse, France, November 14th -18th, 2022, hereinafter “CMCC”.
Claims 5 and 33:
Regarding claim 5, vivo teaches the method of claim 3 (discussed above).
Vivo however does not expressly teach, adjusting DRX offsets values such that DRX on-durations align with configured grant or semi-persistent scheduling cycles, but in the same field of endeavor CMCC teaches the claim (CMCC: 2.1.3 “Scheme #1: Configure a CG periodicity set or pattern that contains multiple CG periodicities and apply this pattern cyclically in the time domain. For example, a CG periodicity pattern of { l 6ms, l 7ms, l 7ms} can be used to align with XR traffic with a 60fps frame rate.”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine disclosure by CMCC with that of vivo to come up with the claimed invention motivated by solving the non-integer periodic issue, as disclosed by CMCC, “mismatch between XR traffic and the CG configurations because the periodicity of CG in the current specification can only be an integer number of slots” ( § 2.1.3).
Claim 33 is for a user equipment implementing method of claim 5. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 5.
Claims 11 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over vivo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of R2-2212040, “Discussion of DRX enhancement”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #120, Toulouse, France, 14th - 18th Nov 2022, hereinafter “Lenovo”
Claims 11 and 26:
Regarding claim 11, vivo teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the one or more communications are configured grant communications or semi-persistent scheduling communication, wherein the configuration indicates that the one or more communication times are included in a next available slot in a TDD pattern associated with the TDD periodicity (implied by the disclosure in Lenovo: § 2.1, “Option 1. Dynamically adjust C-DRX parameters e.g., start offset or periodicity length for the next DRX cycle For example, NW send a delayed or advanced value against the legacy start offset in Nth DRX period, UE adjust the start offset of the N+1th DRX period. This can flexibly adapt the C-DRX pattern to traffic transmission.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine disclosure by Lenovo with that of vivo motivated by flexibly adapt the C-DRX pattern to traffic transmission, as disclosed above.
Claim 26 is for a network entity implementing method complimentary to method of claim 11. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 11.
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 INTEKHAAB AALAM SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 571-272-3927. 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.
/INTEKHAAB A SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights