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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 08/01/2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 9 has been canceled in this amendment. No New Claim has been added in this amendment.
Claims 1-10 are pending in this application, with claim 1 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claim Objections have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 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 1,5-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ang et al. (US 2020/0389933 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Ang”)-IDS in view of Xue et al. (US 2024/0049347 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Xue”).
Regarding Claim 1, Ang discloses a method, comprising: receiving, by a processor (Ang Fig.11 Para[0130] A processor) of an apparatus (Ang Fig.11 Para[0130] A UE (i.e. apparatus)), a downlink control information (DCI) (Ang Fig.5 Para[0095,0107] A DCI with DRX starting offset) or a downlink (DL) media access control (MAC) control element (MAC CE) (Ang Fig.5 Para[0095,0107] A MAC-CE with DRX starting offset); obtaining, by the processor, a discontinuous reception (DRX) start offset from the DCI or the DL MAC CE (Ang Fig.5,6 Para[0095,0107] A DRX starting offset is received by the UE); adjusting, by the processor, a start time of an on-duration of a DRX cycle dynamically according to the DRX start offset (Ang Fig.5 Para[0093-94] An adjustment is made to DRX on-duration to increase start time); and monitoring, by the processor, a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) transmitted from a network node during the adjusted on-duration (Ang Fig.5 Para[0083,0108] The UE monitors for downlink transmissions from the base station).
Ang does not explicitly disclose wherein a shift corresponding to the DRX start offset is cumulative and applies to all following on-durations or active times.
However, Xue from the same field of invention discloses wherein a shift corresponding to the DRX start offset is cumulative and applies to all following on-durations or active times (Xue Fig.7 Para[0245-246] A DRX start offset is in an increasing order (i.e. cumulative) for every on-duration (i.e. DRX cycle)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ang to have the feature of “wherein a shift corresponding to the DRX start offset is cumulative and applies to all following on-durations or active times” as taught by Xue. The motivation would have been to have reduced power consumption of a terminal without increased delay (Xue Para[0006]).
Regarding claim 5, Ang in view of Xue discloses the method as explained above for Claim 1. Ang further discloses wherein a granularity of the DRX start offset comprises at least one of a time duration (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), a slot (Ang Fig.5 Para[0083] The start offset in number of slots), a sub-slot (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), and a fraction of the DRX cycle (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim).
Regarding claim 6, Ang in view of Xue discloses the method as explained above for Claim 1. Ang further discloses wherein the adjusting comprises adjusting the start time of the on-duration earlier or later according to a sign of the DRX start offset (Ang Fig.5 Para[0094-95] The start offset moves On-duration to align with the downlink burst).
Regarding claim 10, Ang in view of Xue discloses the method as explained above for Claim 1. Ang further discloses wherein a length of the on-duration or an end time of the on-duration is fixed (Ang Fig.5 Para[0094-95] The on-duration is fixed at 1ms).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ang in view of Xue and LI et al. (US 2023/0199906 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Li”).
Regarding claim 2, Ang in view of Xue discloses the method as explained above for Claim 1. Ang in view of Xue does not explicitly disclose performing, a fallback operation in an event that the DCI or the DL MAC CE with the DRX start offset is missed.
However, Li from the same field of invention discloses performing, a fallback operation in an event that the DCI or the DL MAC CE with the DRX start offset is missed (Li Para[0045] A DCI with start offset is not detected (i.e. missed) by the UE from the network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ang and Xue to have the feature of “performing, a fallback operation in an event that the DCI or the DL MAC CE with the DRX start offset is missed” as taught by Li. The motivation would have been to reduce packet loss rate due to smaller DRX cycle (Li Para[0004]).
Regarding claim 3, Ang in view of Xue and Li discloses the method as explained above for Claim 1. Li further discloses wherein the fallback operation comprises using an existing DRX start offset, an earliest DRX start offset or a default DRX start offset (Li Para[0045] A default DRX start offset is used when the DCI is not detected).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ang and Xue to have the feature of “wherein the fallback operation comprises using an existing DRX start offset, an earliest DRX start offset or a default DRX start offset” as taught by Li. The motivation would have been to reduce packet loss rate due to smaller DRX cycle (Li Para[0004]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ang in view of Xue and Islam et al. (US 2023/0389125 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Islam”).
Regarding claim 4, Ang in view of Xue discloses the method as explained above for Claim 1. Ang in view of Xue does not explicitly disclose receiving, the DCI indicating an index of a DRX start offset look-up table; and obtaining, by the processor, the DRX start offset from the DRX start offset look-up table according to the index.
However, Islam from the same field of invention discloses receiving, the DCI indicating an index of a DRX start offset look-up table; and obtaining, by the processor, the DRX start offset from the DRX start offset look-up table according to the index (Islam Para[0150] Multiple configurations (i.e. look-up table) having an index for each configuration for offset to start location is provided via DCI or MAC CE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ang and Xue to have the feature of “receiving, the DCI indicating an index of a DRX start offset look-up table; and obtaining, by the processor, the DRX start offset from the DRX start offset look-up table according to the index.” as taught by Islam. The motivation would have been to reduce unnecessary monitoring of PDCCH (Islam Para[0003]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ang in view of Xue and Bergquist et al. (US 2017 /0156176 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Bergquist”).
Regarding claim 7, Ang in view of Xue discloses the method as explained above for Claim 1. Ang in view of Xue does not explicitly disclose transmitting, an acknowledgement in response to obtaining the DRX start offset.
However, Bergquist from the same field of invention discloses transmitting, an acknowledgement in response to obtaining the DRX start offset (Bergquist Para[0059] The UE sends ACK for received updated DRX configuration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ang and Xue to have the feature of “transmitting, an acknowledgement in response to obtaining the DRX start offset” as taught by Bergquist. The motivation would have been to improve user experience (Bergquist Para[0005]).
Regarding claim 8, Ang in view of Xue discloses the method as explained above for Claim 1. Ang in view of Xue does not explicitly disclose wherein the acknowledgement is transmitted via one of uplink control information (UCI) and an uplink (UL) media access control (MAC) control element (MAC CE).
However, Bergquist from the same field of invention discloses wherein the acknowledgement is transmitted via one of uplink control information (UCI) and an uplink (UL) media access control (MAC) control element (MAC CE) (Bergquist Para[0059] The UE sends ACK on the PUCCH (i.e. UCI)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ang and Xue to have the feature of “wherein the acknowledgement is transmitted via one of uplink control information (UCI) and an uplink (UL) media access control (MAC) control element (MAC CE)” as taught by Bergquist. The motivation would have been to improve user experience (Bergquist Para[0005]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
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 Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM 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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights