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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because expression “bit in the bitmap represents a slot or subframe” may not be accurate, as corresponding claim 3 recites “bit in the bitmap represents a cell activity at a slot or subframe”.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap among the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. Independent Claims 1 and 11 recite merely sending discontinuous reception and discontinuous transmission pattern configuration information from one node to another, without reciting any operation and purpose for such data transmission. Other dependent claims are subjected to the same rejection because of their dependency.
Claims 6 and 17 recite expression “probability vector information element” which lacks clarity, as it does not provide any information on its meaning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-5, 9-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Babaei; Alireza US 20240267987 A1, hereinafter Babaei.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Babaei teaches, an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory storing instructions that (see Babaei Fig. 15), when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
send, to a node, information of at least one of a discontinuous reception and a discontinuous transmission pattern configuration of a cell (Babaei [190] “the cell DTX/DRX information may be considered necessary to be exchanged and coordinated between neighbor gNBs. The gNB may use the received cell DTX/DTX information to determine its own cell DTX/DRX configuration for network energy saving purposes”, teaches DTX/DRX (discontinuous transmission and discontinuous reception) information is exchanged (= send) to a gNB node), wherein the information comprises a mapping of an indication of an activity status in the cell to one or more time periods (Babaei [223] “A cell DTX pattern and/or a cell DRX pattern may be a time domain pattern. In an example, in case of separate configurations of cell DTX pattern and cell DRX pattern, a cell DTX pattern for a cell may indicate, …, timings that the cell is in a no-transmission/reduced transmission mode … and timings that the cell is not in the no-transmission/reduced transmission mode;”, teaches information of cell activity status, associated with transmission, in time periods in DTX/DRX pattern information).
With respect to claim 11, claim recites the identical features of claim 1 for an apparatus of corresponding inter-working receiving side. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Babaei teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1 and 11.
Babaei further teaches, wherein the mapping of an indication of an activity status in the cell comprises a bitmap information element (“bitmap” is interpreted as representing ON and OFF state of the cell. Babaei [224] “In an example, a cell DTX pattern or a cell DRX pattern or a cell DTX/DRX pattern (e.g., joint cell DTX/DRX pattern) may comprise OFF duration(s) and ON duration(s).”, suggesting representing cell status with bits for ON and OFF status of the cell).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Babaei teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 2 and 13.
Babaei further teaches, wherein each bit in the bitmap represents a cell activity at a slot or subframe level in the at least one of a discontinuous reception and discontinuous transmission pattern (Babaei [207] “In an example, at least the following parameters may be configured per cell DTX/DRX configuration: periodicity, start slot/offset, on duration.”, suggests DTX/DRX is lot based, thus, bit indication can be associated with slot).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Babaei teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 2 and 13.
Babaei further teaches, wherein, in the bitmap, a first value is used to represent activity in the cell, and a second value is used to represent inactivity in the cell (Babaei [224] “An OFF duration for a cell DTX pattern for a cell may indicate (based on which the wireless device may determine) that the cell is in a no-transmission/reduced transmission mode and an ON duration for the cell DTX pattern for the cell may indicate (based on which the wireless device may determine) that the cell is not in the no-transmission/reduced transmission mode.”).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Babaei teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 2 and 11.
Babaei further teaches, wherein the bitmap comprises a first bitmap corresponding to discontinuous reception and a second bitmap relating to discontinuous transmission (Babaei [224] “An OFF duration for a cell DTX pattern … and an ON duration for the cell DTX pattern for the cell …. An OFF duration for a cell DRX pattern for a cell … and an ON duration for the cell DRX pattern for the cell …., suggesting two different bit fields indications for DTX and DRX).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Babaei teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1 and 11.
Babaei further teaches, wherein the discontinuous reception or discontinuous transmission pattern configuration comprises one or more of: a time offset for initiation of the discontinuous reception or discontinuous transmission cycle; or a duration of the discontinuous reception or discontinuous transmission cycle (Babaei [188] “At least the following parameters may be configured per Cell DTX/DRX configuration: periodicity, start slot/offset, on duration.”).
Regarding claim 10, Babaei teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
Babaei further teaches, wherein the apparatus comprises a base station of the cell (Babaei [45] “The exemplary embodiments of the disclosed technology enhance the processes in … one or more base stations for cell discontinuous transmission (DTX) discontinuous reception (DRX).”).
Regarding claim 12, Babaei teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claim 11.
Babaei further teaches, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: align operation of the apparatus with the at least one of a discontinuous reception and discontinuous transmission pattern configuration (This is implied in Babaei. See also Babaei [181] “… to align/omit DRX cycles or start offsets of DRX, …”, [190 “The gNB may use the received cell DTX/DTX information to determine its own cell DTX/DRX configuration for network energy saving purposes.”).
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 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.
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.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei, as applied to the rejection of claims 1 and 11 above, in view of VIRTEJ; Elena et al US 20130121220 A1, hereinafter VIRTEJ.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Babaei teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1 and 11.
Babaei does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, VIRTEJ suggests, wherein the indication of an activity status in the cell comprises a probability vector information element (DTX or DRX configuration information having “a probability vector information element” is interpreted as having predicted state of DTX or DRX pattern. VIRTEJ [59] “The method can also include, at 320, determining an adaptive state of the discontinuous reception pattern of the user equipment based on the discontinuous reception pattern and at least one adaptation rule. In other words, knowing what communications have been conducted or scheduled with the user equipment and knowing one or more rule, the base station can predict a current state of the discontinuous reception pattern.”; [60] “The method can further include, at 330, configuring a second discontinuous reception pattern of the user equipment. … Configuring the second pattern may be a way of ensuring synchronization between the user equipment and the base station, in the event that there is ambiguity about whether the state of the user equipment corresponds to a state calculated or otherwise predicted by the base station.”).
Therefore, 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 invention of Babaei to include the features as taught by VIRTEJ above in order to improve adaptability to time-varying traffic profiles and to application requirements, thereby allowing for an improved optimization of the trade-off between performance and battery consumption in user equipment (VIRTEJ [0007]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 18 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. Claims 8 and 19 are subjected to the same rejection because of their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
IDS Reference, XU; Xiaodong, US 20170202052 A1 - DEVICE IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM AND METHOD.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0232. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST; Friday variable.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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.
/MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475