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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 10-13 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1,3-5 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
RE claims 1, 3-5 and 10-13, the claims have been amended to remove all claims language directed to sidelink, including a feature that requires establishment of a PC5 connection between the two UEs involved in the sidelink connection. The claims are now directed to an “Inter-UE” connection.
However, the originally filed specification is rather explicitly directed to specifically sidelink and its associated connections. A claim to a “Inter-UE” connection is broader, and encompasses any current or future connection types between two UE’s that do not necessarily involve sidelink communication. None of the paragraphs cited in the remarks provide support for this broader coverage and Examiner cannot locate any support elsewhere. In fact, every disclosed embodiment is directed to DRX configuration after establishing a sidelink connection via a PC5 connection.
In totality, the removal of establishing a PC5 connection combined with the replacement of all mentions of sidelink with “Inter-UE” cause Examiner to view this as new matter and the claims as a whole have been improperly shifted broader than the originally filed specification supports to cover DRX configurations for connections between UE’s that do not necessarily involve sidelink itself or the PC5 connection. Examiner can find no evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to conclude that the applicant possessed a method of DRX configuration for non-PC5, Inter-UE connections. At this time, unless Applicants can show explicit support that Examiner has missed, Examiner recommends reverting both back to include the PC5 connection and the recitation of sidelink in order to overcome this rejection. Note that for the purposes of Examination, use of “inter-UE” is being treated as inclusive of sidelink.
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.
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 1, 3-5, 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2023/0064488, Han hereafter), in view of Tseng et al. (US 2022/0346180, Provisional 63/178,458, Tseng hereafter) and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2005/0272426, Yang hereafter), in view of Freda et al. (WO2021/163527, Freda hereafter) and further in view of Hong (US 2023/0156857, Hong-B hereafter to avoid confusion with Hong previously and currently cited for claim 11).
RE claims 1, 10, 12 and 13, Han discloses an method by a first user equipment (UE), a first user equipment (UE), processor for performing operations for a first user equipment (UE) and non-volatile computer-readable storage medium for storing at least one computer program including an instruction for causing at least one processor to perform operations for a first user equipment (UE) when being executed by the at least one processor (Figure 6), the operations comprising: establishing a connection with a second UE (Paragraph 50 discloses: “in or after PC5-RRC signaling for radio configuration or capability message, UE2 can inform UE1 the sidelink DRX configuration request. The request from UE2 includes several different types of assistance information”. UE1 is the first/TX UE, UE2 is the second/RX UE. PC5-RRC signaling indicates a PC5 connection has been established between them to establish a sidelink communication); transmitting, to the second UE, a first inter-UE DRX configuration to be used by the second UE (Paragraph 54 discloses: “In step 102, UE1 checks the existing sidelink DRX configuration, or the initial sidelink DRX configuration, which may be broadcasted in the SIB to UE1, or transmitted in dedicate RRC signaling for UE1, or preconfigured as discussed above. Taking the assisting information from UE2, such as the traffic pattern, the Uu DRX configuration, UE2's capability, UE1 determines that the existing sidelink DRX configuration can satisfy the requirement from UE2, then UE1 sends the sidelink DRX configuration to UE2 in step 103.”).
Han does not explicitly disclose the first UE performing the steps of: transmitting a measurement report to a source base station (BS); receiving a handover command related to a handover procedure from the source BS; transmitting a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration complete message related to the handover procedure to a target BS; based on the handover command including inter-UE DRX configurations, extracting, from among the inter-UE DRX configurations, a second inter-UE DRX configuration corresponding to a quality of service (QoS) identifier related to the second UE; and transmitting, to the second UE, the second inter-UE DRX configuration after transmission of the RRC reconfiguration complete message
However, Tseng teaches the first UE performing the steps of: receiving a handover command related to a handover procedure from the source BS (Paragraph 218-219 teaches events performed during handover from a source cell toa target cell. Paragraph 219, teaches that “the target cell may provide the SL-DRX configuration to a UE in a handover command (e.g., via the relaying of the source cell after the source cell).” This is supported by page 22, condition#1 of Table 5 of the provisional); and based on the handover command including an inter-UE DRX configuration, extracting, the second inter-UE DRX configuration; and transmitting, to the second UE the second inter-UE DRX configuration after completion of the handover (Paragraph 236, “the target cell/target base station may configure an NR sidelink radio configuration (which may include an updated SL-DRX configuration) to the UE in the handover command message to the source cell. Then, after receiving the handover command message from one or more target cell(s)/target base station(s) through inter-node signaling, the source cell/source base station may transmit an UE-specific DL control signaling (e.g., RRCReconfiguration message with an IE “conditional reconfiguration” (the “conditional handover” IE covers the RRCReconfiguration message associated with each candidate target cell(s) in a CondReconfigToAddModList) for the UE to trigger the conditional handover (CHO) procedure or conditional PCell change (CPC) procedure based on the associated condExecutionCond) to the UE.” The UE performs handover to the target cell/base station and receives an updated SL-DRX configuration configured by the target cell/base station via the source cell/base station. Support may be found at item 4 spanning pages 26-27 of the provisional of table 5 for Conditional Handover Procedure).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method, UE, processor and non-volatile medium of Han with the teachings of Tseng in order to provide for SL-DRX configuration updates during instances of handover.
Han in view of Tseng does not explicitly disclose the first UE performing the steps of: transmitting a measurement report to a source base station (BS); transmitting a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration complete message related to the handover procedure to a target BS; based on the handover command including inter-UE DRX configurations, extracting, from among the inter-UE DRX configurations, a second inter-UE DRX configuration corresponding to a quality of service (QoS) identifier related to the second UE; and transmitting, to the second UE, the second inter-UE DRX configuration after transmission of the RRC reconfiguration complete message
However, Yang teaches the first UE transmitting a measurement report to a source base station (BS) (Paragraph 6 teaches “the mobile terminal measures the wireless signal from an adjacent cell, mainly measuring power, distance, and voice quality since these three values determine the handover threshold, then compares the handover threshold thereof with a handover decision criterion established in the mobile terminal; if the handover threshold thereof exceeds the decision threshold, the mobile terminal reports the measurement report containing a handover request and measuring results to the network” This causes handover to a second base station with a prepared wireless link).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method, UE, processor and non-volatile medium of Han in view of Tseng with the teachings of Yang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Han in view of Tseng and further in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose the first UE performing the steps of: transmitting a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration complete message related to the handover procedure to a target BS; based on the handover command including inter-UE DRX configurations, extracting, from among the inter-UE DRX configurations, a second inter-UE DRX configuration corresponding to a quality of service (QoS) identifier related to the second UE; and transmitting, to the second UE, the second inter-UE DRX configuration after transmission of the RRC reconfiguration complete message.
However, Freda teaches the first UE performing the steps of: based on the handover command including inter-UE DRX configurations, extracting, from among the inter-UE DRX configurations, a second inter-UE DRX configuration corresponding to a quality of service (QoS) identifier related to the second UE (Figure 8 and at least claim 1 of Freda teaches that a UE may be configured with a plurality of DRX configurations associated with QoS information. The WRTU/UE determines the DRX configuration that is applicable to the QoS need identified by the WRTU);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method, UE, processor and non-volatile medium of Han in view of Tseng and further in view of Yang with the teachings of Freda since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
As set forth above, the combination of at least Han in view of Tseng discloses or teaches a first UE provisioned with sidelink DRX configuration to be given to the second UE. This is either by the serving UE when sidelink is being established or during handover in a handover command that originates with the target BS and is delivered to the first UE by the soon to be former serving BS. The teachings of Freda predictably yield the ability for a first UE to be configured with multiple QoS dependent options for DRX configurations from which it can select one that meets the QoS needs of the sidelink connection
Accordingly, Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at1396.
Han in view of Tseng, in view of Yang and further in view of Freda does not explicitly disclose transmitting a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration complete message related to the handover procedure to a target BS; and transmitting, to the second UE, the second inter-UE DRX configuration after transmission of the RRC reconfiguration complete message
However, Hong-B teaches transmitting a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration complete message related to the handover procedure to a target BS; and transmitting, to the second UE, the second inter-UE DRX configuration after transmission of the RRC reconfiguration complete message (Paragraphs 257-259, paragraph 259 teaching “according to still another embodiment, when the UE (e.g., a UE having the capability of providing preference information about the sidelink DRX parameter) is instructed/requested/permitted/configured to provide preference to the sidelink DRX parameter and/or when the UE receives an RRC reconfiguration message (RRC reconfiguration with Sync) including a handover command to execute handover and transmit an RRC reconfiguration complete message, the UE may include the corresponding preference message in the RRC reconfiguration complete message and transmit it to the base station.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method, UE, processor and non-volatile medium of Han in view of Tseng, in view of Yang and further in view of Freda with the teachings of Hong-B since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
As set forth above, the combination of at least Han in view of Tseng discloses or teaches a first UE provisioned with sidelink DRX configuration to be given to the second UE. This is either by the serving UE when sidelink is being established or during handover in a handover command that originates with the target BS and is delivered to the first UE by the soon to be former serving BS. The teachings of Hong predictably yield a system whereby a first UE which receives sidelink DRX parameters from a base station to further transmit an RRC Reconfiguration Complete message which in the art ends a handover process to a target BS, but further within this message is an indication of sidelink DRX parameter preferences to a base station which in combination with the process already disclosed by Han in view of Tseng, would predictably result in a DRX configuration sent to a second UE after the RRC Reconfiguration Complete message ending the handover from one BS to another.
Accordingly, Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at1396.
RE claim 3, Han in view of Tseng, in view of Yang, in view of Freda and further in view of Hong-B discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Tseng further teaches wherein the second inter-UE DRX configuration is based on assistance information (Paragraph 219, page 22, condition#1 of Table 5 of the provisional, teaches “the handover request message may include the UE's assistance information about NR sidelink communication (e.g., the sidelink related UEAssistanceInformation which the UE has transmitted to the serving RAN/source cell and/or SL-DRX configuration which the source cell has configured to the UE with/without associated Layer-2 Destination UE ID(s))”. The target cell then provides the SL-DRX configuration in the handover command.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method, UE, processor and non-volatile medium of Han with the teachings of Tseng in order to provide for SL-DRX configuration updates during instances of handover.
RE claim 4, Han in view of Tseng, in view of Yang, in view of Freda and further in view of Hong-B discloses the method of claim 3 as set for the above. Han in view of Tseng, in view of Yang, in view of Freda and further in view of Hong-B discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first UE requests assistance information from the second UE based on the measurement report being triggered.
However, such an outcome is predictable outcome of the combination of Han in view of Tseng and further in view of Yang. Paragraph 219 of Tseng, page 22, condition#1 of Table 5 in the provisional, teaches “the handover request message may include the UE's assistance information about NR sidelink communication (e.g., the sidelink related UEAssistanceInformation which the UE has transmitted to the serving RAN/source cell and/or SL-DRX configuration which the source cell has configured to the UE with/without associated Layer-2 Destination UE ID(s)). As set forth above by the already cited portions of Han the assistance information has been provided to UE1 from UE2. Further, a handover request and a measurement report are one and the same. This combination predictably yields a system in which wherein the TX UE requests assistance information from the RX UE based on the measurement report being triggered as claimed.
Accordingly, Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at1396.
RE claim 5, Han in view of Tseng, in view of Yang, in view of Freda and further in view of Hong-B discloses the method of claim 4 as set forth the above. Note that Tseng further teaches wherein the first UE transmits the assistance information for determining the second inter-UE DRX configuration to the target BS (Paragraph 219, page 22, condition#1 of Table 5 of the provisional, teaches “the handover request message may include the UE's assistance information about NR sidelink communication (e.g., the sidelink related UEAssistanceInformation which the UE has transmitted to the serving RAN/source cell and/or SL-DRX configuration which the source cell has configured to the UE with/without associated Layer-2 Destination UE ID(s))”. The target cell then provides the SL-DRX configuration in the handover command.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method, UE, processor and non-volatile medium of Han with the teachings of Tseng in order to provide for SL-DRX configuration updates during instances of handover.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Tseng, in view of Yang, in view of Freda, in view of Hong-B and further in view of Hong (US 2022/0346011).
RE claim 11, Han in view of Tseng, in view of Yang, in view of Freda and further in view of Hong-B discloses the UE of claim 10 as set forth the above. Note that Han further discloses wherein the TX UE communicates with at least one of another UE, a base station (BS), or a network (Figure 2A. UE1 is mapped to the claimed TX UE. It is communication with BS 1 which can be mapped to either the claimed base station or “a network”. It further establishes a sidelink connection with UE2 which is mapped to the claimed RX UE).
Han in view of Tseng, in view of Yang, in view of Freda and further in view of Hong-B does not explicitly disclose wherein the TX UE communicates with a UE related to an autonomous driving vehicle.
However, Hong teaches wherein the TX UE communicates with a UE related to an autonomous driving vehicle (Paragraph 5 and 6 teach application of sidelink communication, such as V2X, to autonomous vehicles, Paragraph 159 further teaches “base station may provide discontinuous reception configuration information (DRX configuration information, hereinafter referred to below as SL-DRX-Config for convenience of description) for sidelink communication”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the UE of Han in view of Tseng, in view of Yang, in view of Freda and further in view of Hong-B with the teachings of Hong since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
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 James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/James P Duffy/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights