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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/24/2025 has been entered and considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 4 and 7 are 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. Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “the one or more SL DRX configurations,” which has unclear antecedent basis. For instance, it is unclear if “the one or more SL DRX configurations” is intended to refer to “the plurality of SL DRX configurations” recited in claim 1, to “one or more SL DRX configurations whose active time completely overlaps with the active time of the second SL DRX configuration” recited in claim 4, or to something else. Claim 4 is thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret “the one or more SL DRX configurations” as potentially referring to “the plurality of SL DRX configurations” or to “one or more SL DRX configurations whose active time completely overlaps with the active time of the second SL DRX configuration.” Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “the one or more SL DRX configurations,” which has unclear antecedent basis. For instance, it is unclear if “the one or more SL DRX configurations” is intended to refer to “the plurality of SL DRX configurations” recited in claim 1, to “one or more SL DRX configurations whose active time is within the PDB” recited in claim 7, or to something else. Claim 7 is thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret “the one or more SL DRX configurations” as potentially referring to “the plurality of SL DRX configurations” or to “one or more SL DRX configurations whose active time is within the PDB.”
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.
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) 1-9, 14, and 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adjakple et al. (US 2024/0172325, full support for cited subject matter exists in at least provisional application No. 63/185,872 filed on May 7, 2021, Adjakple hereinafter) in view of Freda et al. (US 2023/0063472, Freda hereinafter). Regarding claims 1, 14, and 24, Adjakple teaches a method, a processing device adapted to control a first device (A User Equipment (UE)/Wireless Transmit Receive Unit (WTRU) may be comprised of at least a processor and memory, which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as a processing device adapted to control a first device (i.e., a UE/WTRU); Adjakple; Fig. 10F; [0346]-[0348]), and a first device adapted to perform wireless communication (User Equipment (UE)/Wireless Transmit Receive Unit (WTRU); Adjakple; Fig. 10F; [0346]-[0348]), the first device comprising: at least one transceiver (The UE may be comprised of at least one transceiver; Adjakple; Fig. 10F; [0346]-[0348]); at least one processor (The UE may be comprised of at least one processor; Adjakple; Fig. 10F; [0346]-[0348]); and at least one memory connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions (The UE may be comprised of at least one memory storing instructions for execution by the at least one processor; Adjakple; Fig. 10F; [0346]-[0348]) that, based on being executed, cause the first device to perform operations comprising: receiving, from the second device, an RRC message including a plurality of sidelink (SL) discontinuous reception (DRX) configurations (As can be seen in at least paragraph [0252], the UE may be configured with multiple DRX configurations by a serving base station or by peer sidelink UE(s). As can be seen in at least paragraph [0270], configuration signaling throughout Adjakple is described as potentially including RRC signaling. The multiple DRX configurations may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as being received in an RRC message. The UE may be broadly reasonably interpreted as receiving, from the second device, an RRC message including a plurality of sidelink (SL) discontinuous reception (DRX) configurations; Adjakple; [0107], [0251]-[0252], [0270]); determining priorities of the plurality of SL DRX configurations (The UE may select a SL DRX configuration having the highest priority. The UE may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as determining priorities of the plurality of SL DRX configurations; Adjakple; [0253]); selecting, based on the priorities of the plurality of SL DRX configurations, a first SL DRX configuration with a highest priority among the plurality of SL DRX configurations (The UE may select a SL DRX configuration having the highest priority, which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as selecting, based on the priorities of the plurality of SL DRX configurations, a first SL DRX configuration with a highest priority among the plurality of SL DRX configurations; Adjakple; [0253]); and performing physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) monitoring from the second device within active time of the first SL DRX configuration (UEs are described as monitoring PSCCH resources during SL DRX Active Time, which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as comprising performing physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) monitoring from the second device within active time of the first SL DRX configuration; Adjakple; [0085], [0107], [0251]-[0253]). However, although Adjakple discusses transmitting/receiving RRC messages Adjakple; [0107], [0251]-[0252], [0270], Adjakple does not specifically disclose establishing a radio resource control (RRC) connection with a second device. Freda teaches establishing a radio resource control (RRC) connection with a second device (Link establishment between WTRUs may be performed via PC5-RRC signaling, which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as comprising establishing a radio resource control (RRC) connection with a second device; Freda; Fig. 2; [0103], [0310]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Freda regarding sidelink discontinuous reception with the teachings as in Adjakple regarding sidelink discontinuous reception. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by allowing deriving of Packet Delay Budget (PDB) from the ProSe Per-Packet Priority (PPPP) and by supporting PC5 QoS parameter negotiation between two WTRUs (Freda; Fig. 2; [0091], [0103], [0310]). Regarding claims 2, 21, and 25, Adjakple and Freda teach the limitations of claims 1, 14, and 24 respectively. Freda further teaches the priorities of the plurality of SL DRX configurations are determined based on active time of a second SL DRX configuration used by the first device (Active slots for DRX for a WTRU may be determined by selecting active slots which overlap with the WTRUs active time (i.e., a second SL DRX configuration). The WTRU may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as determining priority based on which DRX configuration overlaps with a second SL DRX configuration used by the WTRU (i.e., the first device); Freda; [1016], [1109]-[1110]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Freda regarding sidelink discontinuous reception with the teachings as in Adjakple regarding sidelink discontinuous reception. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by allowing deriving of Packet Delay Budget (PDB) from the ProSe Per-Packet Priority (PPPP) and by supporting PC5 QoS parameter negotiation between two WTRUs (Freda; Fig. 2; [0091], [0103], [0310]). Regarding claims 3, 22, and 26, Adjakple and Freda teach the limitations of claims 2, 15, and 25 respectively. Freda further teaches the first SL DRX configuration is a SL DRX configuration whose active time overlaps the most with the active time of the second SL DRX configuration among the plurality of SL DRX configurations (Active slots for DRX for a WTRU may be determined by selecting active slots which overlap with the WTRUs active time (i.e., a second SL DRX configuration). The WTRU may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as determining priority based on which DRX configuration overlaps with a second SL DRX configuration used by the WTRU (i.e., the first device). The selected SL DRX configuration (i.e., the first SL DRX configuration) may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as being a SL DRX configuration whose active time overlaps the most with the active time of the second SL DRX configuration among the plurality of SL DRX configurations; Freda; [1016], [1109]-[1110]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Freda regarding sidelink discontinuous reception with the teachings as in Adjakple regarding sidelink discontinuous reception. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by allowing deriving of Packet Delay Budget (PDB) from the ProSe Per-Packet Priority (PPPP) and by supporting PC5 QoS parameter negotiation between two WTRUs (Freda; Fig. 2; [0091], [0103], [0310]). Regarding claims 4 and 23, Adjakple and Freda teach the limitations of claims 2 and 15 respectively. Freda further teaches based on one or more SL DRX configurations whose active time completely overlaps with the active time of the second SL DRX configuration, the first SL DRX configuration is a SL DRX configuration with a longest off-duration among the one or more SL DRX configurations (Active slots for DRX for a WTRU may be determined by selecting active slots which overlap with the WTRUs active time (i.e., a second SL DRX configuration). The WTRU may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as determining priority based on which DRX configuration overlaps with a second SL DRX configuration used by the WTRU (i.e., the first device). A broadest reasonable interpretation wherein only one DRX configuration completely overlaps with the active time of the second SL DRX configuration, and such a single overlapping DRX configuration may thus also be broadly reasonably interpreted as having a longest off-duration among the one or more SL DRX configurations. The selected SL DRX configuration (i.e., the first SL DRX configuration) may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as being a SL DRX configuration whose active time completely overlaps with the active time of the second SL DRX that also has a longest off-duration among the one or more SL DRX configurations; Freda; [1016], [1109]-[1110]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Freda regarding sidelink discontinuous reception with the teachings as in Adjakple regarding sidelink discontinuous reception. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by allowing deriving of Packet Delay Budget (PDB) from the ProSe Per-Packet Priority (PPPP) and by supporting PC5 QoS parameter negotiation between two WTRUs (Freda; Fig. 2; [0091], [0103], [0310]). Regarding claim 5, Adjakple and Freda teach the limitations of claim 1. Freda further teaches receiving, from the second device, information related to packet delay budget (PDB) (An WTRU may receive information regarding the ProSe Per-Packet Priority (PPPP) from another WTRU (i.e., the second device), and the PPPP may be used to derive the Packet Delay Budget (PDB) from the PPPP. Such an WTRU may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as receiving, from the second device, information related to packet delay budget (PDB); Freda; Fig. 2; [0091], [0103], [0310]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Freda regarding sidelink discontinuous reception with the teachings as in Adjakple regarding sidelink discontinuous reception. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by allowing deriving of Packet Delay Budget (PDB) from the ProSe Per-Packet Priority (PPPP) and by supporting PC5 QoS parameter negotiation between two WTRUs (Freda; Fig. 2; [0091], [0103], [0310]). Regarding claim 6, Adjakple and Freda teach the limitations of claim 5. Freda further teaches the first SL DRX configuration is a SL DRX configuration whose active time is within the PDB among the plurality of SL DRX configurations (A command to change DRX configuration may have a value set based on a the PDB. The WTRU may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as choosing a DRX configuration whose active time is within the PDB. The first SL DRX configuration may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as a SL DRX configuration whose active time is within the PDB among the plurality of SL DRX configurations; Freda; [0748]-[0751]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Freda regarding sidelink discontinuous reception with the teachings as in Adjakple regarding sidelink discontinuous reception. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by allowing deriving of Packet Delay Budget (PDB) from the ProSe Per-Packet Priority (PPPP) and by supporting PC5 QoS parameter negotiation between two WTRUs (Freda; Fig. 2; [0091], [0103], [0310]). Regarding claim 7, Adjakple and Freda teach the limitations of claim 5. Freda further teaches based on one or more SL DRX configurations whose active time is within the PDB, the first SL DRX configuration is a SL DRX configuration with a longest off-duration among the one or more SL DRX configurations (A command to change DRX configuration may have a value set based on a the PDB. The WTRU may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as choosing a DRX configuration whose active time is within the PDB. The first SL DRX configuration may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as a SL DRX configuration whose active time is within the PDB among the plurality of SL DRX configurations. A broadest reasonable interpretation wherein only one DRX configuration has an active time that is within the PDB, and such a single configuration may thus also be broadly reasonably interpreted as having a longest off-duration among the one or more SL DRX configurations. The selected SL DRX configuration (i.e., the first SL DRX configuration) may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as being a SL DRX configuration whose active time is within the PDB that also has a longest off-duration among the one or more SL DRX configurations; Freda; [0748]-[0751]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Freda regarding sidelink discontinuous reception with the teachings as in Adjakple regarding sidelink discontinuous reception. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by allowing deriving of Packet Delay Budget (PDB) from the ProSe Per-Packet Priority (PPPP) and by supporting PC5 QoS parameter negotiation between two WTRUs (Freda; Fig. 2; [0091], [0103], [0310]). Regarding claim 8, Adjakple and Freda teach the limitations of claim 1. Adjakple further teaches receiving, from the second device, information related to an offset for adjusting active time (The first device may receive configuration parameters from a second device that include DRX offset parameters; Adjakple; [0080]-[0082]), wherein the first SL DRX configuration is obtained by applying the offset to one SL DRX configuration among the plurality of SL DRX configurations (The first SL DRX configuration may be broadly reasonably interpreted as being obtained by applying the configured DRX offset parameters to one SL DRX configuration among the plurality of SL DRX configurations; Adjakple; [0080]-[0082], [0251]-[0253]). Regarding claim 9, Adjakple and Freda teach the limitations of claim 1. Adjakple further teaches the RRC message includes information related to the priorities of the plurality of SL DRX configurations (As can be seen in at least paragraph [0252], the UE may be configured with multiple DRX configurations by a serving base station or by peer sidelink UE(s). As can be seen in at least paragraph [0270], configuration signaling throughout Adjakple is described as potentially including RRC signaling. The multiple DRX configurations may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as being received in an RRC message, and such information may be broadly reasonably interpreted as being related to the priorities of the plurality of SL DRX configurations. The RRC message may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as including information related to the priorities of the plurality of SL DRX configurations; Adjakple; [0107], [0251]-[0252], [0270]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 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 ERIC A MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30am to 7:00pm.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/ERIC MYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474