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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because it is unclear how a transmitter in communication with a destination address receives data transmitted to the destination address. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8, 12 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hayashi et al. (US 2024/0298379 as supported by application JP 2021-107507).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi discloses a sidelink communication method (figs. 5), performed by a first terminal (item 1A), comprising: determining that the first terminal performs sidelink communication with a destination address based on a sidelink (para. 47; note: destination ID for Rx UE 1B for the connection between the UEs), and determining whether to not apply a limitation of sidelink discontinuous reception (DRX)(para. 59; note: transmit during OFF duration based on the disable DRX information 502).
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining whether to not apply the limitation of the sidelink DRX comprises: determining whether a second terminal that is unable to use the sidelink DRX (step 502; para. 60, especially line 8; note: not able to perform DRX operations) and that performs sidelink communication with the destination address exists (para. 47; note: destination ID for the RX UE 1B); and determining when it is determined that the second terminal that is unable to use the sidelink DRX and that performs sidelink communication with the destination address exists, determining to not apply the limitation of the sidelink DRX (para. 59).
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein determining whether the second terminal that is unable to use the sidelink DRX and that performs sidelink communication with the destination address exists comprises: obtaining sidelink DRX configuration (step 501); transmitting the sidelink DRX configuration to the second terminal that performs the sidelink communication with the destination address (step 501; paras. 50; note: exchanging messages for DRX negotiation); and determining that at least one second terminal rejects the sidelink DRX configuration (step 502; para. 56), and determining that the second terminal that is unable to use the sidelink DRX and that performs sidelink communication with the destination address exists (para. 56-57 and 59).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood in light of the claim objection, Hayashi discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first terminal is a data transmitting end, and not applying the limitation of the sidelink DRX comprises: transmitting data to the destination address in response to not applying the limitation of the sidelink DRX (step 502 and para. 59).
Regarding claim 24, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 1. In addition, Hayashi discloses the first terminal (fig. 12; paras. 38 and 107-117) comprising: a processor; and a memory for storing a computer program executable by the processor; wherein the processor is configured to perform the method of claim 1.
Regarding claims 25-26, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 1-2, respectively. In addition, Hayashi discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (fig. 12, item 1206; paras. 38 and 107-117) for storing having stored thereon a computer program that, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor of a first terminal, causes the first terminal to perform the method of claims 1-2.
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.
Claims 3 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Hong et al. (US 2024/0251476) and Leng et al. (WO 2022/160106).
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi discloses a DRX configuration by RRC (step 501 and para. 50) and a communication standard of the terminals (para. 4; note: 3GPP Release 17), wherein the communication standard is a version that supports usage of the sidelink DRX (para. 4), but fails to disclose the method according to claim 2, wherein determining whether the second terminal that is unable to use the sidelink DRX and that performs sidelink communication with the destination address exists comprises: determining a communication standard supported by the second terminal; and in response to determining that at least one second terminal does not support a communication protocol of a designated version, and determining that the second terminal that is unable to use the sidelink DRX and that performs sidelink communication with the destination address exists; wherein the designated version is a version that supports usage of the sidelink DRX.
However, Hong discloses UEs communicating where the UEs operate according to communication protocols supporting DRX or not (paras. 4, 151-152 and 166; note: Rel-16 not supporting DRX and Rel-17 supporting DRX, and a receiving UE not supporting SL DRX and the transmitting UE disabling SL DRX for transmission), and Leng discloses exchanging a DRX configuration file that indicates the protocol of a UE (page 6, lines 18-31; note: a configuration file indicating a protocol version and DRX configurations;
“In some embodiments, the information of the data to be sent may include: a configuration file (profile) corresponding to the data to be sent, where the configuration file is used to indicate an available protocol version. The protocol version is used to indicate at least one of the following information: the service corresponds to a terminal device configured with DRX; the service corresponds to a terminal device not configured with DRX; the service corresponds to a terminal device configured with DRX and a terminal device not configured with DRX The destination address corresponding to the service is the address of the terminal device configured with DRX; and the destination address corresponding to the service is the address of the terminal device not configured with DRX. Wherein, the data to be sent may be data in a logical channel; the data data generated by the sending device may be a MAC PDU.
It can be understood that the configuration file indicates the corresponding transmission format. If the protocol version indicated by the configuration file is R14, the terminal device transmits the corresponding data packet according to the available format of R14; if the protocol version indicated by the configuration file is R15, the terminal device uses The R15-available format transmits the corresponding packet. For example, the configuration file is used to indicate that the version number of the protocol is R17, and the DRX mechanism is introduced into the R17 protocol. If the protocol version number indicated by the configuration file corresponding to the service is R17, it needs to be considered when transmitting the service. This service is sent to the receiving device configured with the DRX mechanism.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determining whether the second terminal that is unable to use the sidelink DRX and that performs sidelink communication with the destination address exists comprises: determining a communication standard supported by the second terminal; and determining that at least one second terminal does not support a communication protocol of a designated version, and determining that the second terminal that is unable to use the sidelink DRX and that performs sidelink communication with the destination address exists; wherein the designated version is a version that supports usage of the sidelink DRX in the invention of Hayashi. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, operating SL communications according to protocol information and operating SL communications according to exchanged configuration information as is known in the art (Hong, paras. 4, 151-152 and 166; Leng, page 6, lines 18-31; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 27, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 3.
Claims 4-7, 9, 13 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Tseng et al. (US 2022/0346180). For dependent claims herein, the motivation to combine is the same as the parent claim unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 9, Hayashi fails to disclose the method according to claim 2, wherein determining whether the second terminal that is unable to use the sidelink DRX and that performs sidelink communication with the destination address exists comprises: receiving system information broadcast by a designated cell; and determining that the system information does not include a parameter for configuring the sidelink DRX, and determining that the second terminal that is unable to use the sidelink DRX and that performs sidelink communication with the destination address exists, the method according to claim 2, wherein determining whether the second terminal that is unable to use the sidelink DRX and that performs sidelink communication with the destination address exists comprises: receiving system information broadcast by a designated cell; and determining that the system information indicates that the designated cell does not support usage of the sidelink DRX, and determining that the second terminal that is unable to use the sidelink DRX exists, and the method according to claim 1, wherein determining whether to not apply the limitation of the sidelink DRX comprises: obtaining a service characteristic of the sidelink communication; and determining that the service characteristic indicates that a service does not support the sidelink DRX, and determining to not apply the limitation of the sidelink DRX.
However, Tseng discloses an SL-SIB broadcast by a serving cell (para. 96, last sentence; note: SL-SIB broadcast by a serving cell) lacks information for an SL-DRX multicast/broadcast service (para. 66, especially the first three sentences; note: SL-SIB may not configure an SL-DRX timer for multicast service but does configure a timer for an SL-DRX unicast service), and indicates that the designated cell does not support usage of the sidelink DRX and indicates a service does not support sidelink DRX (para. 66, especially the penultimate sentence; note: disable SL-DRX associated with a destination ID that is associated with a service - paras. 268 and 404), and disabling SL-DRX based on destination address for the service (para. 65; para. 66, especially the last two sentences; paras. 268 and 404). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determining whether the second terminal that is unable to use the sidelink DRX and that performs sidelink communication with the destination address exists comprises: receiving system information broadcast by a designated cell; and determining that the system information does not including include a parameter for configuring the sidelink DRX, and determining that the second terminal that is unable to use the sidelink DRX and that performs sidelink communication with the destination address exists, and determining whether the second terminal that is unable to use the sidelink DRX and that performs sidelink communication with the destination address exists comprises: receiving system information broadcast by a designated cell; and determining that the system information indicating indicates that the designated cell does not support usage of the sidelink DRX, and determining that the second terminal that is unable to use the sidelink DRX exists, and wherein determining whether to not apply the limitation of the sidelink DRX comprises: obtaining a service characteristic of the sidelink communication; and determining that the service characteristic indicates that a service does not support the sidelink DRX, and determining to not apply the limitation of the sidelink DRX in the invention of Hayashi. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, signaling or indicting a DRX condition at a serving cell level as is known in the art (Tseng, paras. 65-66, 96, 268 and 404; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi in view of Tseng teaches and makes obvious the method according to claim 4, wherein the designated cell is a cell that matches a communication frequency of the sidelink communication (Tseng, para. 128; note: the SL-SIB is from serving cell on the sidelink frequency).
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi in view of Tseng teaches and makes obvious the method according to claim 4, wherein the designated cell is at least one of a serving cell and a neighboring cell of the first terminal (para. 65-66; note: serving (camped) cell).
Regarding claim 13, Hayashi fails to disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the destination address is a destination address of sidelink broadcast or sidelink groupcast. However, Tseng discloses this feature (para. 70; para. 66; note: destination ID). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the destination address as a destination address of sidelink broadcast or sidelink groupcast in the invention of Hayashi The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, performing various sidelink communications among devices as is known in the art (Tseng, paras. 66 and 70; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claims 28-30, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 4-6, respectively.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Park et al. (US 2023/0209648 as supported by the corresponding passages of US Provisional application No. 63/104,508).
Hayashi discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first terminal is a data transmitting end (fig. 5, item 1A and para. 59) and operating without DRX to a destination address (step 502; para. 4; note: support for SL-DRX starting in Release 17; para. 47; note: destination ID), but Hayashi fails to disclose not applying the limitation of the sidelink DRX comprises: not applying the limitation of the sidelink DRX while selecting a sidelink resource for transmitting data to the destination address. However, Park discloses a transmitting UE selecting resources not related to SL DRX (paras. 106 and 110; note: not limited by SL DRX active time or on-duration). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have not applying the limitation of the sidelink DRX comprise: not applying the limitation of the sidelink DRX while selecting a sidelink resource for transmitting data to the destination address in the invention of Hayashi. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, using appropriate resources of a wireless network as is known in the art (Park, paras. 106-110; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fujishiro (US 2023/0239957) discloses notifying a base station for a DRX decision (fig. 15B and para. 149).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462