DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to the RCE filed on 7/28/2026. Claims 1, 23-40, 44 are pending in this application.
Examiner Note
The examiner is here to serve, to assist, and to help applicant to the very best of his ability. The Primary Patent Examiner position is a position of serving and it is an honor to externally serve the applicant and attorney and to internally serve junior examiners and supervisors. The goal of the examiner is to work with and assist applicant to move cases along as efficiently as possible.
Applicant is encouraged to call examiner to schedule an interview if applicant has any questions about this action, wants to discuss any possible paths forward, has proposed amendments to the claims to run by the examiner, or for any other issues that applicant would like to discuss.
Examiner can normally be reached at (571) 270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov, Monday-Friday, from about 6 AM - 10 PM EST and if your call is missed examiner will try to return call quickly, thank you.
Priority
This application claims priority of 63,276,942, filed 11/8/2021. The assignee of record is Nokia Technologies Oy. The listed inventor(s) is/are: TAYYAB, Muhammad; KHLASS, Ahlem; RATASUK, Rapeepat.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Response to Amendment
Examiner Note
The applicant has claimed “and/or” several times throughout the claims.
The examiner is taking the position that in the case of “element A and/or element B” that the “and/or” covers embodiments having element A alone, element B alone, or elements A and B taken together. The phrase “and/or” is not inherently indefinite and therefore is not objected to or rejected as indefinite.
When construing the claims in the context of a possible anticipation or obviousness rejection, the examiner’s disclosure of any one item from the claimed list will provide sufficient teaching of the entire limitation. In Medline, for example, the PTAB stated that “and/or” is a “disjunctive alternative,” and the prior art showing one of the elements so joined renders the claim unpatentable (See, Medline Indus. Inc. v. Paul Hartmann AG, Case No. IPR2013-00173, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2013)).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 23-40, & 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP (3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #106-e, R1-2107377, 8/2021, copy provided on file 2/22/2024; hereinafter 3GPP377) in view of Li et al. (US 20220346015 A1, filed 10/22/2021; hereinafter Li).
For Claim 1, 3GPP377 teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a user equipment, an indication from a network to adjust a discontinuous reception operation (3GPP377 2.1, Figs. 1-2);
determining, by the user equipment, an adjustment to the discontinuous reception operation, wherein the adjustment is based at least on an arrival rate of traffic received by the user equipment (3GPP377 2.1, Figs. 1-2); and
applying, by the user equipment, the adjusted discontinuous reception operation to one or more frames carrying the traffic (3GPP377 2.1, Figs. 1-2).
3GPP377 does not explicitly teach wherein the indication is a message received by the user equipment.
However, Li teaches wherein the indication is a message received by the user equipment (Please see Li ¶ 0129-0134, 0138-0140. Please see screenshot of Li Fig. 16 below, thank you:
PNG
media_image1.png
640
890
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
Li and 3GPP377 are analogous art because they are both related to DRX.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the adjustment and messaging techniques of Li with the system of 3GPP377 because the receiver UE can determine whether to respond to the indication of the one or more first adjustments to the sidelink DRX configuration based on parameters of the receiver UE (Li ¶ 0078) thereby ensuring the receiver UE agree and is capable of the adjustments.
For Claim(s) 23, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim 24, 3GPP377-Li teaches the apparatus of claim 23, wherein the adjusted discontinuous reception operation includes adjusting at least one cycle length applied to the one or more frames and/or adjusting at least one on-duration time applied to the one or more frames (3GPP377 2.1, Figs. 1-2).
For Claim 25, 3GPP377-Li teaches the apparatus of claim 23, wherein the discontinuous reception operation comprises a connected mode discontinuous reception operation (3GPP377 2.1, Figs. 1-2).
For Claim 26, 3GPP377-Li teaches the apparatus of claim 23, wherein the apparatus further receives a minimum on-duration time for the discontinuous reception operation (3GPP377 2.1, Figs. 1-2).
For Claim 27, 3GPP377-Li teaches the apparatus of claim 23, wherein the determination of the adjustment further includes selecting a cycle length from a set of possible cycle lengths for the discontinuous reception operation, wherein the cycle length is selected based at least on the arrival rate of the traffic (3GPP377 2.1, Figs. 1-2).
For Claim 28, 3GPP377-Li teaches the apparatus of claim 27, wherein the cycle length selected is a largest value in the set that is less than or equal to the arrival rate of the traffic (3GPP377 2.1, Figs. 1-2).
For Claim 29, 3GPP377-Li teaches the apparatus of claim 27, wherein the determination of the adjustment further includes determining, based at least on a rounding error of a given frame and a minimum on-duration time, an applied on-duration time to apply to the one or more frames carrying the traffic, wherein the adjusted discontinuous reception operation comprises the applied on-duration time and the selected cycle length (3GPP377 2.1, Figs. 1-2).
For Claim 30, 3GPP377-Li teaches the apparatus of claim 27, wherein the the determination of the adjustment further includes checking to confirm a rounding error of a given frame does not equal or exceed a threshold amount; and in response to the rounding error being equal to or exceeding the threshold amount, selecting another, larger cycle length from the set of possible cycle lengths, and wherein the adjusted discontinuous reception operation, for the given frame, comprises applying the larger cycle length (3GPP377 2.1, Figs. 1-2).
For Claim 31, 3GPP377-Li teaches the apparatus of claim 30, wherein the threshold amount corresponds to a difference between the selected cycle length and a next, larger cycle length in the set of possible cycle lengths (3GPP377 2.1, Figs. 1-2).
For Claim 32, 3GPP377-Li teaches the apparatus of claim 23, wherein the apparatus is further caused to at least send a response to the network, wherein the response indicates application by the apparatus of the adjusted discontinuous reception operation to the one or more frames carrying the traffic (3GPP377 2.1, Figs. 1-2).
For Claim 33, 3GPP377-Li teaches the apparatus of claim 23, wherein the traffic comprises traffic with a non-integer arrival time, and/or wherein the traffic comprises video traffic (3GPP377 2.1, Figs. 1-2).
For Claim 34, 3GPP377 teaches an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to at least: determine whether to trigger an adjustment to a discontinuous reception operation for one or more frames of traffic on a downlink to a user equipment (3GPP377 2.1, Figs. 1-2); send an indication to adjust the discontinuous reception operation for the one or more frames of the traffic on the downlink to the user equipment, the adjustment based at least on a frame rate of the one or more frames of the traffic (3GPP377 2.1, Figs. 1-2); and receive a response from the user equipment, wherein the response indicates the adjustment by the user equipment of the discontinuous reception operation for the one or more frames of the traffic on the downlink to the user equipment (3GPP377 2.1, Figs. 1-2).
3GPP377 does not explicitly teach wherein the indication is a message received by the user equipment.
However, Li teaches wherein the indication is a message received by the user equipment (Please see Li ¶ 0129-0134, 0138-0140, Fig. 16).
Li and 3GPP377 are analogous art because they are both related to DRX.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the adjustment and messaging techniques of Li with the system of 3GPP377 because the receiver UE can determine whether to respond to the indication of the one or more first adjustments to the sidelink DRX configuration based on parameters of the receiver UE (Li ¶ 0078) thereby ensuring the receiver UE agree and is capable of the adjustments.
For Claim 35, 3GPP377-Li teaches the apparatus of claim 34, wherein the adjustment includes adjusting at least one cycle length applied to the one or more frames and/or at least one on-duration time applied to the one or more frames (3GPP377 2.1, Figs. 1-2).
For Claim 36, 3GPP377-Li teaches the apparatus of claim 34, wherein the determining to trigger the adjustment is based at least on a frame inter-arrival time of the one or more frames of the traffic not corresponding to an integer value of at least one of a set of possible cycle lengths (3GPP377 2.1, Figs. 1-2).
For Claim 37, 3GPP377-Li teaches the apparatus of claim 34, wherein the discontinuous reception operation comprises a connected discontinuous reception operation, and/or wherein the apparatus comprises a gNB base station and/or a distributed unit of a gNB (3GPP377 2.1, Figs. 1-2).
For Claim 38, 3GPP377-Li teaches the apparatus of claim 34,wherein the sending further comprises sending a minimum on-duration time for the discontinuous reception operation (3GPP377 2.1, Figs. 1-2).
For Claim 39, 3GPP377-Li teaches the apparatus of claim 34, wherein the apparatus is further caused to at least: adapt transmission of the traffic on the downlink, the adapting based at least on the adjustment of the discontinuous reception operation (3GPP377 2.1, Figs. 1-2).
For Claim 40, 3GPP377-Li teaches the apparatus of claim 34, wherein the adjusting further comprises: selecting a cycle length from a set of possible cycle lengths for the discontinuous reception operation, wherein the cycle length is selected based at least on the frame rate of the traffic (3GPP377 2.1, Figs. 1-2).
For Claim 44, 3GPP377-Li teaches the apparatus of claim 34, wherein the traffic comprises traffic with a non-integer arrival time, and/or wherein the traffic comprises video traffic (3GPP377 2.1, Figs. 1-2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Keller at (571)270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952.
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.
/MICHAEL A KELLER/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights