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 .
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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-4 7,8-11 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zacharias et al. (12,207,339) in view of Yang et al. (2018/0227856).
For independent claims 1,8, and 16, Zacharias et al. (12,207,339) discloses a system comprising transmitting, to a network entity, a request to change a connected mode discontinuous reception (CDRX) cycle based on detecting the one or more conditions are satisfied ( See paragraphs 54 lines -17, 55 lines 1-7, 47 lines 1-9, and 48 lines 1-5) and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a user equipment (UE), cause the UE to perform a method of wireless communications ( See paragraph 2 lines 1-2).
For independent claim 1, Zacharias et al. (12,207,339) discloses all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exception of detecting one or more conditions are satisfied during a streaming session during which the UE buffers downlink data for playback in a communications network. Yang et al. (2018/0227856) from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches a provision of detecting one or more conditions are satisfied during a streaming session during which the UE buffers downlink data for playback in a communications network ( See paragraphs 0082 lines 1-6 and 0087 lines 1-8). Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use detecting one or more conditions are satisfied during a streaming session during which the UE buffers downlink data for playback in a communications network as taught by Yang et al. in the communications network of Zacharias et al. (12,207,339) for the purpose of detecting one or more conditions are satisfied during a streaming session during which the UE buffers downlink data for playback in a communications network.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
For dependent claims 2-4 ,7,9-11, 18-20, and 31-35, Zacharias et al. (12,207,339) also discloses further comprising receiving, from the network entity, a response indicating disablement of a first duration of the CDRX cycle, based on the request, wherein a second duration of the CDRX cycle is longer than the first duration of the CDRX cycle( See paragraphs 54 lines -17, 55 lines 1-7, 47 lines 1-9, and 48 lines 1-5); wherein detecting the one or more conditions are satisfied comprises: detecting the UE is configured with one or more parameters associated with the first duration of the CDRX cycle( See paragraphs 54 lines -17, 55 lines 1-7, 47 lines 1-9, and 48 lines 1-5); wherein detecting the one or more conditions are satisfied comprises: detecting a duration of an inactivity timer is more than or equal to the first duration of the CDRX cycle; wherein the request is transmitted to the network entity via UE assistance information (UAI) ( See paragraphs 54 lines -17, 55 lines 1-7, 47 lines 1-9, and 48 lines 1-5); wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to receive, from the network entity, a response indicating disablement of a first duration of the CDRX cycle, based on the request, wherein a second duration of the CDRX cycle is longer than the first duration of the CDRX cycle( See paragraphs 54 lines -17, 55 lines 1-7, 47 lines 1-9, and 48 lines 1-5); wherein detecting the one or more conditions are satisfied comprises: detecting the apparatus is configured with one or more parameters associated with the first duration of the CDRX cycle; and wherein detecting the one or more conditions are satisfied comprises: detecting a duration of an inactivity timer is
more than or equal to the first duration of the CDRX cycle, and wherein detecting the one or more conditions are satisfied comprises detecting the one or more conditions are satisfied during a streaming session; and wherein detecting the one or more conditions are satisfied comprises detecting the one or more conditions are satisfied during the streaming session during which the UE buffers downlink data for playback ( See paragraphs 54 lines -17, 55 lines 1-7, 47 lines 1-9, and 48 lines 1-5).
5. 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.
6. Claims 5,6,12,15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zacharias et al. (12,207,339) in view of Yang et al. (2018/0227856) and further in view of Li et al. (2016/0359942).
For dependent claims 5,6,12,15, and 20, Zacharias et al. (12,207,339) in view of Yang et al. (2018/0227856) discloses all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exception of wherein detecting the one or more conditions are satisfied comprises: detecting a radio quality of a channel is more than or equal to a predetermined threshold and wherein the radio quality of the channel is based on one or more of: a reference signal power (RSRP), a reference signal received quality (RSRQ), a reference signal strength indicator (RSSI), channel quality information (CQI), or a block error rate (BLER) in a communications network. Li et al. from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches a provision of wherein detecting the one or more conditions are satisfied comprises: detecting a radio quality of a channel is more than or equal to a predetermined threshold and wherein the radio quality of the channel is based on one or more of: a reference signal received power (RSRP), a reference signal received quality (RSRQ), a reference signal strength indicator (RSSI), channel quality information (CQI), or a block error rate (BLER) in a communications network ( See paragraphs 0016 lines 1-5, 0020 lines 1-7, 0037 lines 1-6, 0047 lines 1-17 and 0087 lines 1-10). Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use wherein detecting the one or more conditions are satisfied comprises: detecting a radio quality of a channel is more than or equal to a predetermined threshold and wherein the radio quality of the channel is based on one or more of: a reference signal received power (RSRP), a reference signal received quality (RSRQ), a reference signal strength indicator (RSSI), channel quality information (CQI), or a block error rate (BLER) in a communications network as taught by Li et al. in the communication of Zacharias et al. (12,207,339) in view of Yang et al. (2018/0227856) for the purpose of making the system more reliable.
7. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
In the remarks of 7/9/2026, applicant traverses the rejection under 103(a). The traversal is based on the ground that claim 1 has been amended to remove the element that the one or more conditions are satisfied during the streaming session during which the UE buffers downlink data for playback, thereby rendering the reliance of Yang to support the rejection of claim 1 moot. The addition of Yang fails to cure the deficiencies of Zacharias to teach or suggest the elements of claim 1 regarding a request to change a connected mode discontinuous reception (CDRX) cycle based on detecting that one or more conditions are satisfied to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, neither Zacharias nor Yang teach or suggest claim 1 to one of ordinary skill in the art. Withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1 is respectfully requested. This arguments are not found to be persuasive. Applicant’s attention is directed at paragraphs 0082 lines 1-6 and 0087 lines 1-8 wherein it teaches a request to change a connected mode discontinuous reception (CDRX) cycle based on detecting that one or more conditions are satisfied.
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANG T TON whose telephone number is (571)272- 3171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 5:30 AM to 3:00 PM.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/DANG T TON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476 /D.T.T/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights