DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This Action is in response to Applicant’s arguments filed on June 12, 2026. Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21-24, 26-28, and 30 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made NON-FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/30/2026 has been 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.
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.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAGI et al. (US 20210235539 A1) hereinafter YAGI, in view of Shellhammer et al. (US 20180115952 A1), hereinafter Shellhammer, further in view of PRIYANTO et al. (US 20230189139 A1), hereinafter PRIYANTO.
Regarding claim 13, YAGI discloses a non-transitory computer readable memory medium ((FIG. 2: Storage 140), [0041] “The storage 140 includes volatile memory and non-volatile memory, and stores a program to be executed by the controller 130”) storing program instructions executable by processing circuitry to cause a user equipment device (UE) to:
support transition between a first radio resource control (RRC) state and a low power state, ([0069] “The communication equipment 100 transitions from the RRC connection state (Connect state) to the RRC idle state (Idle state). When the transitioning to the RRC idle state, the state shifts to the sleep state where the monitoring of paging messages is stopped”).
However, YAGI does not disclose, wherein in the first RRC state, a primary communication radio of the UE is powered on and a wakeup radio of the UE is powered off, and wherein in the low power state, the primary communication radio is powered off and the wakeup radio is powered on.
In the same field of endeavor, Shellhammer discloses, wherein in the first RRC state, a primary communication radio of the UE is powered on and a wakeup radio of the UE is powered off, and wherein in the low power state, the primary communication radio is powered off and the wakeup radio is powered on, ([0080], [0079] “At block 605, the wireless device 115-c may initiate a low-power mode. A wireless device 115-c may initiate the low-power mode due to a lack of user activity. In an effort to conserve power in a battery-powered device, the wireless device 115-c may enter the low-power state such as a sleep state or a connected standby state. As part of the low-power mode, the wireless device 115-c may turn-off a primary radio (e.g., primary radio 116, 816) to conserve power”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication equipment 100, disclosed by YAGI ([0069]) to include the wireless device 115-c, disclosed by Shellhammer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the wireless device 115-c may initiate a low-power mode, thus conserve power during the inactivity time, Shellhammer ([0080], [0079]).
However, YAGI as modified by Shellhammer does not disclose, and report, to a base station, a required resource in terms of one or more of time occupancy or frequency occupancy for a wake-up signal.
In the same field of endeavor, PRIYANTO discloses, and report, to a base station, a required resource in terms of one or more of time occupancy or frequency occupancy for a wake-up signal, ([0256] transmitting uplink control information (4000) indicative of at least one of the following: a receive bandwidth capability of a low-power receiver or a low-power receiver state of the wireless communication device; a data rate capability of the low-power receiver or low-power receiver state; a decoding and/or demodulation capability of the low-power receiver or a low-power receiver state; or constraints for values of one or more signal design parameters of the wake-up signal (4003)”, (essentially, UE transmits a receive bandwidth capability of a low-power receiver, where bandwidth reads on frequency resource (see for example paragraphs [0006] and [0014] for bandwidth and subcarrier relationship)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication equipment 100, disclosed by YAGI ([0069]) as modified by Shellhammer to integrate the uplink control information, disclosed by PRIYANTO. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to indicate the value of the wake-up signal, PRIYANTO ([0256]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAGI et al. (US 20210235539 A1) hereinafter YAGI, in view of Shellhammer et al. (US 20180115952 A1), hereinafter Shellhammer, further in view of PRIYANTO et al. (US 20230189139 A1), hereinafter PRIYANTO, and further in view of TIIROLA et al. (US 20190349815 A1), hereinafter TIIROLA.
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 13 above, YAGI as modified by
Shellhammer and PRIYANTO does not disclose wherein the program instructions are further executable by the processing circuitry to cause the UE to: receive, from the base station, a configuration for a preamble bandwidth of a wakeup signal.
In the same field of endeavor, TIIROLA discloses, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the processing circuitry to cause the UE to: receive, from the base station, a configuration for a preamble bandwidth of a wakeup signal; ([0049] “the UE may receive an indication from the network entity, which may be either implicit or explicit. [0056] The UE may determine downlink transmission burst bandwidth based on a specific preamble on the sub-band. The specific preamble may be CSI-RS, PDCCH DMRS, or a wake-up signal”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication equipment 100, disclosed by YAGI ([0069]) as modified by Shellhammer and PRIYANTO to include the downlink transmission burst bandwidth capability disclosed by TIIROLA. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to enable the UE to receive the specific preamble, which may be a wake-up signal, TIIROLA ([0049], [0056]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAGI et al. (US 20210235539 A1) hereinafter YAGI, in view of Shellhammer et al. (US 20180115952 A1), hereinafter Shellhammer, further in view of PRIYANTO et al. (US 20230189139 A1), hereinafter PRIYANTO, and further in view of LJUNG et al. (US
20200022081 A1), hereinafter LJUNG.
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 13 above, YAGI as modified by Shellhammer and PRIYANTO does not disclose wherein the program instructions are further executable by the processing circuitry to cause the UE to: receive, while in the low power state, a wakeup signal from the base station, wherein a preamble of the wakeup signal is constructed with at least one of: a one-dimensional optical orthogonal code (OOC); a two-dimensional OOC; a Hadamard code; or an m-sequence or a segment of Gold sequence, and wherein selection of the preamble is based, at least in part, on one or more of: a cell identifier (cell-ID);a UE identifier (UE-ID);a UE group identifier (UE-group ID); time parameters; or a wakeup signal configuration index.
In the same field of endeavor, LJUNG discloses, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the processing circuitry to cause the UE to: receive, while in the low power state, a wakeup signal from the base station, wherein a preamble of the wakeup signal is constructed with at least one of: a one-dimensional optical orthogonal code (OOC); a two-dimensional OOC; a Hadamard code; or an m-sequence or a segment of Gold sequence, and wherein selection of the preamble is based, at least in part, on one or more of: a cell identifier (cell-ID);a UE identifier (UE-ID);a UE group identifier (UE-group ID); time parameters; or a wakeup signal configuration index; ([0044] “The wake-up signal may be received by a dedicated low-power receiver of the UE. [0079] it may be possible to add a preamble to the wake-up signal. [0073] FIG. 7 illustrates aspects with respect to constructing the wake-up signal. [0074] First, a certain base sequence is selected, 2001. For example, the base sequence may be a randomly generated set of bits. For example, the base sequence may be unique for a UE or a group of UEs, and hence may correspond to a UE identity number. For example, the base sequence may be selected from the group including: a Zadoff-Chu sequence; a sequence selected from a set of orthogonal or quasi-orthogonal sequences; a Walsh-Hadamard sequence; a PN sequence; and a M sequence. For example, selecting the particular base sequence or type of base sequence can be subject to sequence design of the wake-up signal”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication equipment 100, disclosed by YAGI ([0069]) as modified by Shellhammer and PRIYANTO to include the dedicated low-power receiver disclosed by LJUNG. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to enable the UE to receive the wake-up signal, with an added a preamble, LJUNG ([0079], [0073]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAGI et al. (US 20210235539 A1) hereinafter YAGI, in view of Shellhammer et al. (US 20180115952 A1), hereinafter Shellhammer, further in view of PRIYANTO et al. (US 20230189139 A1), hereinafter PRIYANTO, further in view of LJUNG et al. (US 20200022081 A1), hereinafter LJUNG, and further in view of PARK et al. (US 20180288705 A1), hereinafter PARK.
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 16 above, YAGI as modified by Shellhammer, PRIYANTO and LJUNG does not disclose wherein the preamble includes a cyclic extension, wherein the cyclic extension is a prefix extension, a postfix extension, or a prefix extension and a postfix extension.
In the same field of endeavor, PARK discloses wherein the preamble includes a cyclic extension, wherein the cyclic extension is a prefix extension, a postfix extension, or a prefix extension and a postfix extension; ([0019] “a concept for LP-WUR has been contemplated which is based on the 802.11a/g/n/ac specification which uses a 4 μsec (3.2 μsec+Cyclic Prefix (CP)) Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) duration. In a time-domain, the above would provide a symbol duration of 3.2 μsec (taking the Inverse Fast Fourier Transform (IFFT) as 64/20 MHze6). Taking into consideration the legacy preambles using a fixed 0.8 μsec guard band or cyclic prefix extension, the total symbol duration becomes 4 μsec”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication equipment 100, disclosed by YAGI ([0069]) as modified by Shellhammer, PRIYANTO, and LJUNG to incorporate specifications of the 802.11a/g/n/ac disclosed by PARK. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow a consideration of the legacy preambles using a cyclic prefix extension, PARK ([0019]).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAGI et al. (US 20210235539 A1) hereinafter YAGI, in view of Shellhammer et al. (US 20180115952 A1), hereinafter Shellhammer, further in view of PRIYANTO et al. (US 20230189139 A1), hereinafter PRIYANTO, further in view of LJUNG et al. (US 20200022081 A1), hereinafter LJUNG, and further in view of Van Nee (US 20110211594 A1), hereinafter Nee.
Regarding claim 21, as applied to claim 16 above, YAGI as modified by Shellhammer, PRIYANTO, and LJUNG does not disclose wherein the preamble is generated using a first sequence to spread a second sequence.
In the same field of endeavor, Nee discloses wherein the preamble is generated using a first sequence to spread a second sequence; ([0045] “the preambles are generated by multiplying at least a portion of the training sequence (such as the STF or the LTF) in each of the data packets with a different spreading sequence. The spreading sequences may be an orthogonal sequence. ACD or CCD may be applied to one or more of the different spreading sequences. Furthermore, each of the training sequences may have nonzero subcarriers, and each of the different spreading sequences may have k values”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication equipment 100, disclosed by YAGI ([0069]) as modified by Shellhammer, PRIYANTO, and LJUNG to integrate the preambles generating capability disclosed by Nee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to enable a multiplication of the training sequence in the data packets with a different spreading
sequence to generate preambles, Nee ([0045]).
Regarding claim 22, as applied to claim 21 above, Nee as included in the combination of references, also discloses wherein at least one of the first sequence or second sequence is an orthogonal code sequence, ([0045] “the preambles are generated by multiplying at least a portion of the training sequence (such as the STF or the LTF) in each of the data packets with a different spreading sequence. The spreading sequences may be an orthogonal sequence. A CD or CCD may be applied to one or more of the different spreading sequences. Furthermore, each of the training sequences may have nonzero subcarriers, and each of the different spreading sequences may have k values”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication equipment 100, disclosed by YAGI ([0069]) as modified by Shellhammer, PRIYANTO, and LJUNG to integrate the preambles generating capability disclosed by Nee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to enable a multiplication of the training sequence in the data packets with a different spreading sequence to generate preambles, Nee ([0045]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 23, 24, 26-28, and 30 are allowed.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 23, 24, 26-28, and 30 are allowed in view of Applicant’s remarks in particular the arguments set forth on pages 10-13 of the remarks filed on June 12, 2026.
The following is the Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The best prior art references found during the prosecution of this application:
Shellhammer et al. (US 20180115952 A1), discloses PHYSICAL LAYER DESIGN FOR WAKEUP RADIO ([0040], ([0080], [0079]), YAGI et al. (US 20210235539 A1) disclose COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT, CONTROL METHOD, PROGRAM, AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM ([0069]), however, they fail to specifically teach, in combination with the other limitations recited, … support a transition between a first radio resource control (RRC) state and a low power state, wherein in the first RRC state, the at least one primary communication radio of the UE is powered on and the at least one wakeup radio of the UE is powered off, and wherein in the low power state, the at least one primary communication radio is powered off and the at least one wakeup radio is powered on; and report, to a base station, supported sensitivity of the at least one wakeup radio in response to a transition from the first RRC state to the low power state, as recited on independent claims 1 and 23.
Claims 2, 4-8, 11 and 24, 26-28, 30 are allowed by virtue of their dependency on claims 1 and 23, respectively.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERT GRANT whose telephone number is (703)756-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 7:00 pm, Monday - Thursday.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. 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.
/GILBERT M. GRANT/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2642
/Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights