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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 28-30 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the newly added claims are directed to configurations for in or out coverage which is a new and different inventive concept.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 28-30 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12-23-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument: “Furthermore, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the assertion that "it would be obvious that no detection is made [during] DRX off-duration period" (Office Action, p.5). Chen clearly did not exclude the performance of SLSS detection during "sidelink DRX inactive time period", which is in contrast to that recited in the amended claim 1. For example, according to teachings of Chen, the SLSS detection could be explicitly performed during "DRX-On duration", while performed sometimes during "DRX-Off duration"; whereas in the claimed subject matter, the SLSS detection is strictly not performed during "sidelink DRX inactive time period".”; the examiner’s position is that although Chen does not explicitly recite the exclusion, Chen discloses in the abstract: “The duration for full search and/or partial search can fall into the SL DRX_On duration to save UE power.”. Since Chen discloses SL DRX_On duration to save UE power and performing SLSS detection during a sidelink DRX inactive time period would be a waste of power, it would be obvious that no detection is made [during] DRX off-duration period.
Applicant submits: “In addition, the "sidelink DRX inactive time period" in amended claim 1 includes a specific time period while a sidelink DRX related timer is not running, and it is not disclosed in Chen whether the SLSS detection is permitted during this specific time period.”; the examiner points that the argument appears to contradict the actual claim language. The argument recites “a sidelink DRX related timer is not running” while the claims recite “while a sidelink DRX related timer is running”. Please note that DRX inherently require a plurality of timers and the claim language only require a relation to a running timer. For examination purposes, the timer can be equated to the same duration, for example 160ms. If applicant’s timer is different, the examiner invites the applicant to add the differences in the claims for proper consideration.
The rest of the arguments they fall for the same reasons as shown above.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,4, 7-8, 15-16, 18-20, 22-23 and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen WO 2022/027189 A1.
As to claims 1, 15 and 22, Chen discloses a method/device/processor performed by a first user equipment (UE) [800], the method comprising: performing candidate sidelink synchronization signal (SLSS) detection to select or reselect a synchronization reference source for a sidelink communication with a second UE, based on at least one of a time period-based condition or a trigger condition, wherein: the first UE is configured with a sidelink discontinuous reception (DRX) configuration, and the first UE performs the candidate SLSS detection during a sidelink DRX active time period [When performing SL synchronization during SL DRX operation, UE can perform partial search,… detect candidate SLSS instead of full search. Additionally, UE can perform full search within a duration (e.g., 160ms SLSS transmission periodicity) with a (pre-) configured periodicity.] (see abstract); and the sidelink DRX active time period includes a time duration of a sidelink DRX on-duration period and a time duration while a sidelink DRX related timer is running [full or partial search timer, offset, etc.] (see par. 0004-0006, 0015, 0022). Chen fails to disclose stops the candidate SLSS detection during a sidelink DRX inactive time period; however, since Chen disclose performing SLSS detection during DRX on-duration period, it would be obvious that no detection is made DRX off-duration period, because, It would serve no purpose to specify detecting during DRX on-duration, if it do it all the time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention stops the candidate SLSS detection during a sidelink DRX off-duration period to save power.
As to claims 2, 16 and 23, Chen discloses the method/device/processor of claim 1/15/22, wherein the first UE is configured with a sidelink discontinuous reception (DRX) configuration, and the first UE performs the candidate SLSS detection during a sidelink DRX on-duration period (see abstract). Chen fails to disclose that stops the candidate SLSS detection during a sidelink DRX off-duration period; however, since Chen disclose performing SLSS detection during DRX on-duration period, it would be obvious that no detection is made DRX off-duration period, because, It would serve no purpose to specify detecting during DRX on-duration, if it do it all the time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention stops the candidate SLSS detection during a sidelink DRX off-duration period to save power.
As to claim 4, 18 and 25, Chen discloses the method/device/processor of claim 1/15/22, wherein: the first UE performs the candidate SLSS detection within a specified time duration periodically; and a period for performing the candidate SLSS detection and the specified time duration for performing the candidate SLSS detection are configured by a base station (BS) or pre-configured (see par. 0005, 0015).
As to claims 7-8, 19-20 and 26-27, Chen discloses the method/device/processor of claim 1/15/22, further comprising: performing periodic candidate SLSS detection during a specified time window when a new synchronization reference source is selected or reselected [it is obvious that periodic require stopping] (see par. 0015); wherein the specified time window is started after the new synchronization reference source is selected or reselected, and a duration of the specified time window is configured by a base station (BS) or pre-configured [timing offset, etc.] (see par. 0022). Although, Chen does not explicitly disclose stopping the candidate SLSS detection, it is obvious that once selected and waiting to apply the new timing, it would be a waste of resources to continue the SLSS detection, since the selection was already made. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention stops the candidate SLSS detection during a sidelink DRX off-duration period to save power.
Claim(s) 9 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Yeo EP 3 823 406 B1.
As to claims 9 and 21, Chen discloses the method/device of claim 1/15, wherein the first UE performs the candidate SLSS detection to select or reselect the synchronization reference source for the sidelink communication with the second UE based at least in part on the trigger condition (see abstract). Chen fails to disclose at least one of the mentioned conditions. In an analogous art, Yeo discloses
a quality of service (QoS) requirement of an upcoming service for the sidelink communication with the second UE is within a first threshold range (see par. 0094);
a measured received power value of a current synchronization reference source of the first UE is lower than a second threshold during a time period; or
a range-based signal from the current synchronization reference source of the first UE is within a third threshold range during the time period. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention stops the candidate SLSS detection during a sidelink DRX off-duration period to use a quality of service (QoS) requirement of an upcoming service for the sidelink communication with the second UE is within a first threshold range for the simple purpose of maintaining the desired QoS for the communication and maintain customer satisfaction.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647