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 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “The method of claim 2, wherein win response…”(emphasis added), the Examiner interprets this as a typographical error and should read “The method of claim 2, wherein in response…” Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the base station" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the base station" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al (US PGPUB US2021/0037468).
(Claim 1 discloses) a method of a first user equipment (UE), the method comprising: generating a discontinuous reception (DRX) control signal for controlling a DRX operation (Huang et al shows a first UE requests information from the second UE (paragraphs 516, 519, 523-528 and 562).); and transmitting the DRX control signal to a second UE in an active time of the second UE according to the DRX operation (Huan et al shows the DRX pattern is transmitted to the second UE (paragraph 524)).
(Claim 11 discloses) A method of a second user equipment (UE), the method comprising: performing a monitoring operation in an active time according to a discontinuous reception (DRX) operation (Huang et al (paragraphs 582 and figure 32).); receiving a DRX control signal for controlling the DRX operation from a first UE by the monitoring operation (Huang et al paragraphs 516, 519, 523-528 and 562, figures 23, 26, and 28).); and performing sidelink (SL) communication with the first UE based on the DRX control signal (Huang et al shows the first UE performs sidelink broadcast transmission on the basis of the updated DRX ON period (paragraphs 466-469)).
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 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.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (US PGPUB US2021/0037468) in view of LG Inc (LG Electronics Inc. “Running CR of TS 38.321 for Sidelink enhancement. “ 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #116 November 2021, NPL).
Claim 2 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the DRX control signal includes at least one of information indicating to stop the DRX operation, information indicating to transition an operating state of the second UE, information indicating to change a DRX cycle according to the DRX operation, or information indicating to extend the active time. Huang et al teaches the first UE performs wakeup for sidelink resource monitoring on the basis of the DRX pattern received from the second UE (paragraphs 546 555, 562, and figure 28). It fails to teach information indicating to stop the DRX operation. LG Inc teaches a terminal stops sl-drx-onDurationTimer and sl-drx-InactivityTime when receiving SL DRX Command MAC CE (Section 5.x.1, pages 18-19).
Huang et al and LG Inc are analogous art because they are both related to DRX usage. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to the use LG Inc with the system in Huang et al because both UEs are able to keep aligned regarding the SL DRX active time (LG Inc, section 5.x.2).
Claim 3 discloses the method of claim 2, wherein in response to the information indicating to stop the DRX operation, the DRX operation is not performed in the second UE, and in response to the information indicating to transition an operating state of the second UE, the operating state of the second UE transitions to a wake-up state. Huang et al further teaches the first UE performs wakeup for sidelink resource monitoring on the basis of the DRX pattern received from the second UE (paragraphs 546 555, 562, and figure 28). LG Inc further teaches a terminal stops sl-drx-onDurationTimer and sl-drx-InactivityTime when receiving SL DRX Command MAC CE (Section 5.x.1, pages 18-19).
Claim 4 discloses the method of claim 2, wherein win response to the information indicating to change a DRX cycle according to the DRX operation, the DRX cycle of the second UE is changed from a first DRX cycle to a second DRX cycle, and a length of the first DRX cycle and a length of the second DRX cycle are different from each other. Huang et al further teaches the first UE applies the default DRX pattern which has a shorter cycle or to which DRX is not applied, when not receiving an indication of the updated DRX pattern from the second UE (paragraphs 528-530).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under the grounds of claims 2-4 respectively as recited above.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 5-10 and 15-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al (US PGPUB US2024/0381483) teaches of SL Mode 1 operation in consideration of SL DRX active time of reception terminal in NR V2X.
Manolakos et al (US PGPUB US2021/0385766) teaches of timing accuracy for reference signal transmission during user equipment (UE) power saving state.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian J Gillis whose telephone number is (571)272-7952. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Nicholas Jensen can be reached at 571-270-5443. 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.
/BRIAN J. GILLIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights