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 .
This communication is in response to claims filed on 03/10/26.
Claims 1-11 are presented for examination.
Claims 4-5 & 7 are currently amended.
Claims 12-13 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s amendment filed on 03/10/26, regarding a specification objection (abstract) has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the specification has been withdrawn.
7. Applicant’s amendment filed on 03/10/26, regarding a claim objection (4-5, 7 & 12) has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the claim objection has been withdrawn.
8. Applicant's amendment filed on 03/10/26, regarding a 101 rejection (Claim 12) has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
9. Applicant's arguments and amendment filed on 03/10/26, regarding a 103 rejection (Claims 1-11) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as set forth below.
10. Regarding to claim 1 : The Applicant’s arguments on Page 7 states, “….the combination of OPPO and ZTE fails to teach at least “determining whether SL discontinuous reception (DRX) is to be applied for the SL communication or not at least based on multiple associated transmitter (TX) profiles, at least one of the multiple associated TX profiles being mapped to a feature or a feature group”
11. The examiner respectfully disagrees with arguments since OPPO clearly disclose determine whether sidelink (SL) (See FIG. 2; SL link establishment) discontinuous reception (DRX) is to be applied for the SL communication or not at least based on associated transmitter (TX) profile (See Section 3.2; if the profile for a specific service indicates Rel-17, then the UE shall use Rel-17 compatible format, i.e., considers this transmission/reception is DRX enabled UE (with UE). if the profile for a specific service indicates Rel-16, then the UE shall use Rel-16 compatible format, i.e., considers this transmission/reception is DRX disabled (without) UE)), and
perform the SL communication with or without the SL DRX applied at least based on the determination of whether the SL DRX is to be used for the SL communication or not (See Section 3.2; if the profile for a specific service indicates Rel-17, then the UE shall use Rel-17 compatible format, i.e., considers this transmission/reception is DRX enabled UE (with UE). if the profile for a specific service indicates Rel-16, then the UE shall use Rel-16 compatible format, i.e., considers this transmission/reception is DRX disabled (without) UE)).
OPPO does not explicitly discloses multiple TX profiles and at least one of the multiple associated TX profiles being mapped to a feature or a feature group.
However, ZTE from the same field of endeavor discloses multiple TX profiles (See Observation 3; For RRC idle or inactive UE, the network may configure multiple SL DRX cycle and mapping relationship between different QoS profile and SL DRX cycle) and at least one of the multiple associated TX profiles being mapped to a feature or a feature group (See Section 1-3; For a groupcast and broadcast, since there is no PC5-RRC signaling between Tx UE and Rx UE. The UE acquire a common SL DRX configuration for SL groupcast and broadcast via the network (in coverage) or pre configuration (out of coverage). For example, the network can consider to configure multiple SL DRX configurations and mapping relationship between different QoS profile and SL DRX configuration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include multiple TX profiles and at least one of the multiple associated TX profiles being mapped to a feature or a feature group as taught by ZTE in the system of OPPO ,would have yield predictable results of interoperability and compatibility between the telecommunication equipment vendors and service providers and resulted in the improve system (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
12. Accordingly, amended claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 103 rejection (OPPO in view of ZTE) for at least the above rejection.
13. Independent claim 11 recite similar elements as independent claim 1.
14. Since the dependent claims (2-10) depend, either directly or indirectly, from applicant’s amended independent claims 1 & 11 are rejected under 35 USC 103 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
16. Claims 1, 6-8 & 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OPPO et al. (hereinafter referred as OPPO) NPL Document, “Discussion on DRX configuration and DRX timers” 05/11/2021 (as disclosed in the IDS), in view of ZTE et al. (hereinafter referred as ZTE) NPL Document, “Discussion on Principle for sidelink DRX” Jan 25th – Feb 5th 2021 (as disclosed in the IDS).
Regarding claims 1 & 11: OPPO discloses a user equipment (UE) (See section 3.2; TX UE)/method, comprising:
a processor (See section 3.2; TX UE is equipped with a CPU/Controller/Processor); a memory (See section 3.2; TX UE is equipped with a memory/storage) storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
determine whether sidelink (SL) (See FIG. 2; SL link establishment) discontinuous reception (DRX) is to be applied for the SL communication or not at least based on associated transmitter (TX) profiles (See Section 3.2; if the profile for a specific service indicates Rel-17, then the UE shall use Rel-17 compatible format, i.e., considers this transmission/reception is DRX enabled UE (with UE). if the profile for a specific service indicates Rel-16, then the UE shall use Rel-16 compatible format, i.e., considers this transmission/reception is DRX disabled (without) UE)), and
perform the SL communication with or without the SL DRX applied at least based on the determination of whether the SL DRX is to be used for the SL communication or not (See Section 3.2; if the profile for a specific service indicates Rel-17, then the UE shall use Rel-17 compatible format, i.e., considers this transmission/reception is DRX enabled UE (with UE). if the profile for a specific service indicates Rel-16, then the UE shall use Rel-16 compatible format, i.e., considers this transmission/reception is DRX disabled (without) UE)).
OPPO does not explicitly disclose at least one of the multiple associated TX profiles being mapped to a feature or a feature group.
However, ZTE from the same field of endeavor discloses determine whether sidelink (SL) discontinuous reception (DRX) is to be applied for the SL communication or not at least based on multiple associated transmitter (TX) profiles and at least one of the multiple associated TX profiles being mapped to a feature or a feature group (corresponds to SL DRX configuration) (See Section 1-3; For a groupcast and broadcast, since there is no PC5-RRC signaling between Tx UE and Rx UE. The UE acquire a common SL DRX configuration for SL groupcast and broadcast via the network (in coverage) or pre configuration (out of coverage). For example, the network can consider to configure multiple SL DRX configurations and mapping relationship between different QoS profile and SL DRX configuration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one of the multiple associated TX profiles being mapped to a feature or a feature group as taught by ZTE in the system of OPPO ,would have yield predictable results of interoperability and compatibility between the telecommunication equipment vendors and service providers and resulted in the improve system (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 6: The combination of OPPO and ZTE disclose a method.
Furthermore, OPPO discloses a method, wherein the SL communication is SL groupcast communication or SL broadcast communication (See page 5; proposal 13; SL groupcast and broadcast).
Regarding claim 7: The combination of OPPO and ZTE disclose a method.
Furthermore, OPPO discloses a method, wherein each of the multiple associated TX profiles indicates at least one of: one or more service types (See Section 3.2; service types).
Regarding claim 8: The combination of OPPO and ZTE disclose a method.
Furthermore, OPPO discloses a method, wherein a service type of the SL communication is mapped to at least one of the multiple TX profiles (See Section 3.2; the mapping of services types and Tx profiles).
Regarding claim 10: The combination of OPPO and ZTE disclose a method.
Furthermore, OPPO discloses a method, wherein the multiple associated TX profiles comprises at least one of: one or more TX profiles that are received by the UE from a network node for the D2D communication (See Section 2.2; For groupcast and broadcast, common SL DRX configuration can be configured per QoS profile via the network (in coverage UE) or pre-configuration (out of coverage UE)).
17. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OPPO, in view of ZTE, further in view of Kim et al. (hereinafter referred as Li) US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0070965 A1.
Regarding claim 9: The combination of OPPO and ZTE disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention with an exception of wherein the service type is at least one of: Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X).
However, LI from the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the service type is at least one of: Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) (See Para. 0049; V2X services).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the service type is at least one of: Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) as taught by LI in the combined system of ZTE and OPPO to provide advantages that include improved feedback signaling (See Para. 0006; lines 4-5
Allowable Subject Matter
18. Claims 2-5 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
19. The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
A. Kim et al. 2022/0022279 A1 (Title: Low power operation method for terminal supporting…) (See Abstract, Para. 0012 & 0037-0038).
B. PAN et al. 2021/0227620 A1 (Title: Method and apparatus for configuring sidelink discontinuous reception in a wireless…) (See abstract, Para. 0006 & 00813-0016).
C. PAN et al. 2021/0227621 A1 (Title: Method and apparatus for configuring sidelink discontinuous reception in a wireless (See FIG. 1, Para. 0046, 0050 & 0160).
20. 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 extension fee 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.
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEWALE A AMBAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-1076. The examiner can normally be reached on M.F 6a.m.-2p.m..
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571)272-3085. 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.
/MEWALE A AMBAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights