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 .
Claims 34-39 are pending.
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.
Claims 34-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP RAN WG2 Meeting #113 electronic R2-2100515 Online, January, 2021 Agenda Hem: 8.15.2.1 Source: interDigital Inc. Title: Procedures for Handling the DRX Configuration hereinafter known as Interdigital. (IDS submitted art) in view of Cheng et al, application no. 2022/0304103, hereinafter known as Cheng.
As to claim 34, Interdigital dicloses a method for a first terminal apparatus, the method comprising: receiving, from a second terminal apparatus, a first message including a sidelink-related configuration including a Discontinuous Reception (DRX) configuration set by the second terminal apparatus (Interdigital, page 3, proposal 7, First mobile terminal (Rx UE) receives from the second mobile terminal (TX UE) DRX configuration message); and transmitting, to the second first terminal apparatus, a second message indicating that the first terminal apparatus applies the sidelink configuration, (Interdigital, page 3, proposal 8, First mobile terminal sends to from the second mobile terminal message indicated DRX is enabled or disabled (rejected)). Interdigital does not disclose however Cheng discloses wherein the second message includes information that indicates that the first terminal apparatus rejects the DRX configuration in a case where the first terminal apparatus rejects the DRX configuration (Cheng, figure 10, step 1024, [0105]-[0116], exchange of configuration information between device including where DRX is rejected but Sidelink communications are accepted and configured).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Interdigital to include the limitations of wherein the second message includes information that indicates that the first terminal apparatus rejects the DRX configuration in a case where the first terminal apparatus rejects the DRX configuration as taught by Cheng. Device may choose to communicate with just sidelink communications as sidelink communications remove traffic from the backhaul and can expedite communications between devices.
As to claim 35, Interdigital discloses further comprising transmitting, to the second terminal apparatus, the second message without the information that indicates that the first terminal apparatus rejects the DRX configuration if the first terminal apparatus accepts the DRX configuration (Interdigital, page 3, proposal 8, First mobile terminal sends to from the second mobile terminal message indicated DRX is enabled or disabled; Sending back enabled indicated DRX is accepted thus being without indicated DRX is rejected).
As to claims 36 and 37, the claims are rejected as applied to claims 34 and 35 respectively above by Interdigital in view of Cheng. Interdigital teaches RX UE and TX UE at page 1, section 2: discussion. UE are well defined in the art as comprising memory and processor therein.
As to claims 38 and 39, the claims are rejected as applied to claims 34 and 35 respectively above by Interdigital in view of Cheng.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 34-39 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 GAUTAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)270-7182. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-8pm.
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, Hassan Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
/GAUTAM SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2467 /HASSAN A PHILLIPS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights