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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9 April 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US 2023/0189041 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Lee”) in view of Lauridsen et al. WO 2024/164304 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Lauridsen”). NOTE: Lauridsen was cited by the applicant in the IDS received 9 April 2026.
As to claim 1, Lee teaches a user equipment (UE) (¶¶45-46, 69, 74, and 131-135; figures 2, 9, 11, and 24), comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (¶¶45-46 and 131-135; figures 2 and 24); and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to (¶¶45-46, 69, 74-76, and 131-135; figures 2, 9, 11-12, and 24):
receive, from a network entity, first control signaling indicating a scheduling configuration for the UE (¶74; figure 11: UE receives and BS transmits measurement gap configuration), wherein the scheduling configuration is associated with a first active period during which the UE is scheduled to communicate one or more first shared channel communications (¶¶69 and 74-75; figures 9 and 11-12: first eCDRX active time during which data traffic is sent), one or more scheduling gaps that occur after the first active period and during which the UE is not to be scheduled for shared channel communications (¶¶69 and 74-75; figures 9 and 11-12: enhanced measurement gap that occurs after the first eCDRX active time during which the UE is not scheduled for data traffic), and a second active period that occurs after the one or more scheduling gaps (¶¶69 and 74-75; figures 9 and 11-12: second eCDRX active time, occurring after the enhanced measurement gap, during which data traffic is sent);
communicate the one or more first shared channel communications during the first active period (¶¶75-76; figures 11-12: data traffic (PDSCH/PUSCH) of first eCDRX is prioritized and sent).
Although Lee teaches “A user…active period,” Lee does not explicitly disclose “determine, during…scheduling gaps”.
However, Lauridsen teaches receive, from a network entity, first control signaling indicating a scheduling configuration for the UE (¶61: UE receives and network apparatus transmits measurement gap configuration); and
determine, during or after the second active period, an expiration of a timer associated with a first timer duration and the one or more first shared channel communications, wherein the expiration of the timer is in accordance with the one or more scheduling gaps (¶¶61-65: detect expiration of the timer relating to the measurement gap and the positioning measurement process period during or after the start of the RLF process period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Lee by including “determine, during…scheduling gaps” as taught by Lauridsen because it provides Lee’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of collision avoidance (Lauridsen, ¶¶61-65).
As to claim 2, Lee in view of Lauridsen teaches the UE of claim 1.
Lauridsen further teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
pause the timer in response to a beginning of the one or more scheduling gaps; and
resume the timer in response to a beginning of the second active period (¶63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Lee in view of Lauridsen by including “wherein the…active period” as further taught by Lauridsen for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1 (Lauridsen, ¶¶61-65).
As to claim 3, Lee in view of Lauridsen teaches the UE of claim 1.
Lauridsen further teaches wherein the expiration of the timer is in accordance with a timer extension added to the first timer duration, and wherein a duration of the timer extension is in accordance with a duration of the one or more scheduling gaps (¶64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Lee in view of Lauridsen by including “wherein the…scheduling gaps” as further taught by Lauridsen for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1 (Lauridsen, ¶¶61-65).
As to claim 4, Lee in view of Lauridsen teaches the UE of claim 3.
Lauridsen further teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
receive an indication of the duration of the timer extension (¶53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Lee in view of Lauridsen by including “wherein the…timer extension” as further taught by Lauridsen for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1 (Lauridsen, ¶¶61-65).
As to claim 5, Lee in view of Lauridsen teaches the UE of claim 1.
Lauridsen further teaches wherein the expiration of the timer is in accordance with a second timer duration that replaces the first timer duration, wherein the second timer duration is longer than the first timer duration, and wherein the second timer duration is in accordance with a duration of the one or more scheduling gaps (¶68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Lee in view of Lauridsen by including “wherein the…scheduling gaps” as further taught by Lauridsen for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1 (Lauridsen, ¶¶61-65).
As to claim 6, Lee in view of Lauridsen teaches the UE of claim 5.
Lauridsen further teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
receive an indication of the second timer duration (¶68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Lee in view of Lauridsen by including “wherein the…timer duration” as further taught by Lauridsen for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1 (Lauridsen, ¶¶61-65).
As to claim 7, Lee in view of Lauridsen teaches the UE of claim 1.
Lauridsen further teaches wherein the expiration of the timer is in accordance with an adjustment to the first timer duration, the adjustment in accordance with a duration of the one or more scheduling gaps (¶68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Lee in view of Lauridsen by including “wherein the…scheduling gaps” as further taught by Lauridsen for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1 (Lauridsen, ¶¶61-65).
As to claim 8, Lee in view of Lauridsen teaches the UE of claim 7.
Lauridsen further teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
receive an indication of the adjustment (¶68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Lee in view of Lauridsen by including “wherein the…the adjustment” as further taught by Lauridsen for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1 (Lauridsen, ¶¶61-65).
As to claim 9, Lee in view of Lauridsen teaches the UE of claim 1.
Lauridsen further teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
receive second control signaling during the one or more scheduling gaps, wherein the expiration of the timer is in accordance with the second control signaling (¶64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Lee in view of Lauridsen by including “wherein the…control signaling” as further taught by Lauridsen for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1 (Lauridsen, ¶¶61-65).
As to claim 10, Lee in view of Lauridsen teaches the UE of claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein the timer is associated with a first bandwidth part that is associated with the scheduling configuration and power saving operations (¶60).
As to claim 11, Lee in view of Lauridsen teaches the UE of claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein the timer is an on duration timer, a hybrid automatic repeat request round trip time timer, a bandwidth part inactivity timer, or a discontinuous reception inactivity timer (¶69).
As to claim 12, Lee in view of Lauridsen teaches the UE of claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein:
the scheduling configuration is associated with a first throughput, at least a first processing timeline, or both;
the one or more scheduling gaps are for the UE to perform baseband processing associated with the one or more first shared channel communications while a baseband of the UE is in a first baseband state that supports communications by the UE in accordance with the first throughput, at least the first processing timeline, or both; and
a second baseband state for the baseband of the UE supports communications by the UE in accordance with a second throughput that is greater than the first throughput, at least a second processing timeline that is shorter than the first processing timeline, or both (¶¶45-46, 69, 74-76, and 131-135; figures 2, 9, 11-12, and 24).
As to claim 1, Lee teaches a network entity (¶¶45-46, 69, 74, and 121-125; figures 2, 9, 11, and 23), comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (¶¶45-46 and 121-125; figures 2 and 23); and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to (¶¶45-46, 69, 74-76, and 121-125; figures 2, 9, 11-12, and 23):
output, to a user equipment (UE), first control signaling indicating a scheduling configuration for the UE (¶74; figure 11: UE receives and BS transmits measurement gap configuration), wherein the scheduling configuration is associated with a first active period during which the UE is scheduled to communicate one or more first shared channel communications (¶¶69 and 74-75; figures 9 and 11-12: first eCDRX active time during which data traffic is sent), one or more scheduling gaps that occur after the first active period and during which the UE is not to be scheduled for shared channel communications (¶¶69 and 74-75; figures 9 and 11-12: enhanced measurement gap that occurs after the first eCDRX active time during which the UE is not scheduled for data traffic), and a second active period that occurs after the one or more scheduling gaps (¶¶69 and 74-75; figures 9 and 11-12: second eCDRX active time, occurring after the enhanced measurement gap, during which data traffic is sent);
communicate the one or more first shared channel communications during the first active period (¶¶75-76; figures 11-12: data traffic (PDSCH/PUSCH) of first eCDRX is prioritized and sent).
Although Lee teaches “A network…active period,” Lee does not explicitly disclose “determine, during…scheduling gaps”.
However, Lauridsen teaches output, to a user equipment (UE), first control signaling indicating a scheduling configuration for the UE (¶61: UE receives and network apparatus transmits measurement gap configuration); and
determine, during or after the second active period, an expiration of a timer associated with a first timer duration and the one or more first shared channel communications, wherein the expiration of the timer is in accordance with the one or more scheduling gaps (¶¶61-65: detect expiration of the timer relating to the measurement gap and the positioning measurement process period during or after the start of the RLF process period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Lee by including “determine, during…scheduling gaps” as taught by Lauridsen because it provides Lee’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of collision avoidance (Lauridsen, ¶¶61-65).
As to claim 14, claim 14 is rejected the same way as claim 2.
As to claim 15, claim 15 is rejected the same way as claim 3.
As to claim 16, claim 16 is rejected the same way as claim 4.
As to claim 17, claim 17 is rejected the same way as claim 5.
As to claim 18, claim 18 is rejected the same way as claim 6.
As to claim 19, claim 19 is rejected the same way as claim 7.
As to claim 20, claim 20 is rejected the same way as claim 8.
As to claim 21, claim 21 is rejected the same way as claim 9.
As to claim 22, claim 22 is rejected the same way as claim 10.
As to claim 23, claim 23 is rejected the same way as claim 11.
As to claim 24, claim 24 is rejected the same way as claim 12.
As to claim 25, claim 25 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
As to claim 26, claim 26 is rejected the same way as claim 2.
As to claim 27, claim 27 is rejected the same way as claim 3.
As to claim 28, claim 28 is rejected the same way as claim 13.
As to claim 29, claim 29 is rejected the same way as claim 2.
As to claim 30, claim 30 is rejected the same way as claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shah WO 2025/093289 A1 – Method and Device for Performing Energy Saving in a UE Performing a Scheduling Request Procedure
Bao et al. US 2022/0007456 A1 – Inactivity Timer Mechanism in Discontinuous Reception
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN T VAN ROIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/JUSTIN T VAN ROIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
