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 to Amendment
This communication is in response to amendment filed on 12/17/2025. Claims 21-40 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 25-29, and 33-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.776 v2.0.0, “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on architecture enhancements for 3GPP support of advanced Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) services; Phase 2 (Release 17), hereinafter TR 23.776.
Regarding claims 21 and 29, TR 23.776 discloses a first wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (section 5.1: UE), comprising a transceiver (all figures: UE has transceiver to communicate with RAN and/or other UEs) and one or more processors (UE has processor(s) to process all the steps), a method performed by a first wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising:
receiving, from a policy control function (PCF), PC5 discontinuous reception (DRX) information (page 13, figure 6.2.2-1 step 1a. Provision PC5 DRX pattern set; second paragraph: “1a. UEs are (pre-)configured with the PC5 DRX related parameters including a set of application PC5 DRX patterns from which UEs can select. The PC5 DRX configuration provided by the PCF),
wherein the PC5 DRX information associates a PC5 DRX cycle with corresponding application layer information (page 12 third paragraph: PC5 DRX pattern includes information about ON/OFF period; figure 6.2.2-1 step 2 and step 3: last paragraph and page 14 2nd paragraph: UE selects one or more PC5 DRX patterns from the configured pattern set based on application layer information/requirements. Thus, PC5 DRX information associates a PC5 DRX on/off cycle with corresponding application layer requirements);
determining, based on the PCS DRX information and the application layer information received by the first WTRU from an application layer, one or more first PC5 DRX parameters (page 12 third paragraph: PC5 DRX pattern includes information about ON/OFF period; figure 6.2.2-1 step 2 and step 3: last paragraph and page 14 2nd paragraph: UE selects one or more PC5 DRX patterns from the configured pattern set based on application layer information/requirements. The one or more PC5 DRX parameter could be on/off period and/or QoS parameters as disclosed in page 12 fourth paragraph);
sending information to a second WTRU (figure 6.2.2-1 step 7; page 14 step 7).
TR 23.776 (solution #2) does not explicitly disclose sending or receiving, by the first WTRU, negotiation information to perform a negotiation with a second WTRU;
determining, based on the negotiation with the second WTRU and the DRX information, one or more second PC5 DRX parameters; and
configuring, based on the one or more second PC5 DRX parameters, a PCS interface.
However, TR 23.776’s solution #2, page 14 Note 2 teaches a potential PC5 DRX negotiations for single unicast connection with other UEs.
TR 23.776’s solution #3: Solution for KI#1 to negotiate a PC5 DRX for Unicast communication in pages 15-17 discloses
sending or receiving, by the first WTRU, negotiation information to perform a negotiation with a second WTRU (figure 6.3.2-1 steps 4 and 5; page 16 steps 4 and 5: UE AS layer performs PC5 DRX parameter negotiation with UE2);
determining, based on the negotiation with the second WTRU and the DRX information, one or more second PC5 DRX parameters (figure 6.3.2-1 steps 4 and 5; page 16 steps 4, 5, and 7: PC5 DRX parameter2 is provided to UE1 by UE2); and
configuring, based on the one or more second PC5 DRX parameters, a PC5 interface (figure 6.3.2-1 steps 7-9; page 17 steps 7-8, and 9: UE1 maps new V2X service types with existing PC5 DRX parameters for communication with UE2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in TR 23.766 sending or receiving, by the first WTRU, negotiation information to perform a negotiation with a second WTRU; determining, based on the negotiation with the second WTRU and the DRX information, one or more second PC5 DRX parameters; and configuring, based on the one or more second PC5 DRX parameters, a PCS interface.
The motivation would have been for Key Issue #1 (Support of QoS aware NR PC5 power efficiency for pedestrians UEs) (section 5.1 and page 15 first paragraph under section 6.3.1).
Regarding claims 25 and 33, all limitations of claims 21 and 29 are disclosed above. TR 23.776 further teaches PC5 DRX information is determined based on one or more quality of service (QoS) parameters and the PC5 DRX cycle is associated with the corresponding application layer information based on the one or more QoS parameters (page 12 section 6.2.1 third and fourth paragraphs: On/off period for DRX cycle, PC5 DRX pattern set take into account QoS requirements of V2X service type. figure 6.2.2-1 step 2 and step 3: last paragraph and page 14 2nd paragraph: UE selects one or more PC5 DRX patterns from the configured pattern set based on application layer information/requirements. The one or more PC5 DRX parameter could be on/off period and/or QoS parameters as disclosed in page 12 fourth paragraph).
Regarding claims 26 and 34, all limitations of claims 21 and 29 are disclosed above. TR 23.776 further teaches the one or more second PC5 DRX parameters comprise a service type (section 6.3.1 “to make the PC5 DRX more flexible and enable V2X services…”).
Regarding claims 27 and 35, all limitations of claims 21 and 29 are disclosed above. TR 23.776 further teaches the PCS5 interface comprises one or more PC5 DRX triggers (section 6.3.1 “PC5 DRX negotiation should be triggered by the QoS flow establishment).
Regarding claims 28 and 36, all limitations of claims 27 and 35 are disclosed above. TR 23.776 further teaches the one or more PC5 DRX triggers comprise a power saving mode parameter (section 5.1 Key issue #1; support of QoS aware NR PC5 power efficiency for pedestrian UEs).
Claim(s) 22, 23, 30, 31, and 37-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.776 v2.0.0, “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on architecture enhancements for 3GPP support of advanced Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) services; Phase 2 (Release 17), hereinafter TR 23.776, in view of Fu et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0217347).
Regarding claims 22, 30, and 38, all limitations of claims 21, 29, and 37 are disclosed above. TR 23.776 does not teach but Fu discloses receive a user equipment route selection policy (URSP) rule indicating a type of application layer traffic (paragraphs 34-38, 40: traffic descriptor (TD) in the URSP rules including application identifiers; TD parameter corresponds to application data) associated with a PC5 link (paragraph 26: V2V communication); and route application traffic through the PC5 link based on the URSP rule (paragraph 41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in TR 23.776 receive a user equipment route selection policy (URSP) rule indicating a type of application layer traffic associated with a PC5 link; and route application traffic through the PC5 link based on the URSP rule.
The motivation would have been to route data according to the provided URSP (paragraph 23).
Regarding claims 23, 31, and 39, all limitations of claims 22, 30 and 37 are disclosed above. TR 23.776 does not teach but Fu discloses the URSP rule comprises a route selection descriptor (paragraphs 35 and 36: route selection descriptor (RSD) indication) and the application traffic is routed based on the route selection descriptor (paragraph 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in TR 23.776 the URSP rule comprises a route selection descriptor and the application traffic is routed based on the route selection descriptor.
The motivation would have been to route data according to the provided URSP (paragraph 23).
Claim 37 is rejected similarly as claim 21 above. TR 23.776 does not teach but Fu discloses a terminal with one or more processors; and memory coupled with the one or more processors, the memory storing executable instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to effectuate operations (figure 4 and paragraph 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in TR 23.776 one or more processors; and memory coupled with the one or more processors, the memory storing executable instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to effectuate operations.
The motivation would have been to provide terminal/UE with processing power to perform its functionality as designed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24, 32, and 40 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
TR 23.776 discloses concept of configuring PC5/sidelink discontinuous reception (DRX) interface. Claims 24, 32, and 40’s elements of a terminal transmitting a non-stratum message proposing/requesting an alternative international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) offset value to align Uu and PC5 DRX cycles, wherein the offset value is based on the PC5 DRX cycle and is used to determine a Uu paging occasion are not found in the art, or if they are found would contain too many disparate references to properly combine with TR 23.776.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In pages 6-7 of Remark, regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claims, the Applicant argues that TR 23.776 does not teach “receive, from a policy control function (PCF), PC5 discontinuous reception (DRX) information, wherein the PC5 DRX information associates a PC5 DRX cycle with corresponding application layer information.” In particular, the Applicant argues the claims “expressly defined as PC5 DRX information that associates a PC5 DRX cycle with corresponding application layer information. The association between DRX cycle(s) and application-layer information is embodied in the PCF-provided information…. there is no teaching in TR 23.776 that the pattern set itself encodes any mapping from specific application layer information present at a given UE to particular DRX cycles.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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 (i.e., the pattern set itself encodes any mapping from specific application layer information present at a given UE to particular DRX cycles) 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).
As stated above, there is no explicit recitation of mapping between application layer information and a PC5 DRX information in the claims. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed limitation, in the wherein clause, is interpreted as the PC5 DRX information implicitly associates a PC5 DRX cycle with corresponding application layer information. TR 23.776 discloses at least one PC5 DRX patterns/cycles from the received DRX pattern set is selected based on application layer information from UE’s application layer (page 12 third paragraph, figure 6.2.2-1, and page 14 second paragraph). Thus, there is an association between application layer information and PC5 DRX cycle in the received PC5 DRX information.
In pages 8-9 of Remark, regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claims, the Applicant argues that TR 23.776 does not teach “determine, based on the PC5 DRX information and the application layer information received by the first WTRU from an application layer, one or more first PC5 DRX parameters." In particular, the Applicant argues “it requires the first PC5 DRX parameters to be determined "based on the PC5 DRX information and the application layer information. In TR 23.776, there is no disclosed step of using PCF-provided association information (e.g., mapping app type or ID to DRX cycles) together with the UE's current application-layer information to determine a first set of PC5 DRX parameters.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the claims do not recite the PC5 DRX information consists only of the mapping between PC5 DRX cycle and application layer information. Thus, the mapping is not equivalent to the PC5 DRX information as the PC5 DRX information contains other information besides the mapping. Second, TR 23.776 discloses at least one PC5 DRX patterns/cycles from the received DRX pattern set is selected based on application layer information from UE’s application layer and the received DRX patterns. Thus, TR 23.776 is determined to teach the claimed limitation.
In pages 9-10 of Remark, regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claims, the Applicant argues that "determine, based on the negotiation with the second WTRU and the DRX information, one or more second PC5 DRX parameters." In particular, the Applicant argues that “the one or more second PC5 DRX parameters are based on the negotiation with the second WTRU and the DRX information. By contrast, in TR 23.776 Solution #3 each UE's unicast DRX parameters are determined based on QoS flows and traffic. The negotiation is based on the locally determined DRX values. There is no teaching that the negotiated values are determined based on PCF-provided association information, as recited in independent claims 21, 29, and 37.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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). In this case, TR 23.776’s solution #2 discloses UE1 determines PC5 DRX parameters based on received configured PC5 DRX information from PCF (page 12 third paragraph and figure 6.2.2-1 steps 2 and 3) and a PC5 DRX parameter negotiation for single unicast connection with other UE (Note 2). TR 23.776’s solution #3 teaches negotiation with UE2 for second PC5 DRX parameter (parameter2). Thus, it would have been obvious to combine Solution #3 and Solution #2 to teach the claimed limitation.
In page 10 of Remark, regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claims, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In pages 10-11, regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claims, the Applicant argues that TR 23.776 fails to teach "configure, based on the one or more second PC5 DRX parameters, a PC5 interface." The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
One skilled in the art knows that for communication/transmission between UEs, a sidelink or PC5 interface needs to be configured/established. Since TR 23.776 discloses communications between sidelink UEs (figure 6.3.2-1 steps 7-9; page 17 steps 7-8, and 9), TR 23.776 is deemed to teach the claimed limitation.
In page 11 of Remark, regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claims, the Applicant argues that 23.776 presents Solution #2 and Solution #3 as separate and distinct solutions to KI#1. There is no suggestion in the reference that one should take the first half of Solution #2 and combine it with the second half of Solution #3. Also, the procedural flows are fundamentally different and conflicting. Solution #2 is a "top-down" flow initiated by network configuration and Solution #3 is a "peer-to-peer" flow initiated by a QoS event at the UE level.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, figure 6.2.2-1 of TR 23.776’s solution #2 and figure 6.3.2-1 of solution #3 show communication for PC5 DRX between RAN and UE1 and between UE1 and UE2. Solution #2 discloses UE1 uses received DRX pattern(s) from RAN/PCF for PC5 communication with UE2. Solution #2 further teaches negotiation between UE1 and UE2 for DRX. Solution #3 discloses negotiation between UE1 and UE2 for PC5 DRX parameters. Thus, it would have been obvious to combine solution #2 and solution #3 to teach the claimed invention.
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 TITO Q PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM 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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/TITO Q PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights