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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection as necessitated by the amendments.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-14, 17, 20-23, 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nory (2021/0092681).
Regarding Claims 1 and 26, Nory teaches an apparatus (Fig.2A) for wireless communication, comprising: a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and operable, when executed by the processor, to cause the apparatus to: receive, in a component carrier (CC)( (Par.7:lines 3-7, Pcell is operated on a component carrier) configured for a first radio access technology (RAT)(Par.49, first cell 11 (Rat1), LTE, Wifi, WIMAX or similar) , a wake-up signal (Par.52, lines 1-4, wakeup signal (WUS) transmitted by first or second network node and received by UE) indicating whether to activate communications for [multiple] a first RAT (Par.52, Par.67, multibit indications for each cell/RAT. Par.9, PDCCH monitoring and receiving is active of communications), wherein the first RAT is different than a second RAT (Par.117, its known that RATs can be different); and wherein the wake-up signal indicates whether to activate communications for a primary cell in the first RAT (Par.52:lines 4-7; lines 10-11, first cell… primary) and dormancy information for a secondary cell group (Par.52:lines 7-9 and Par.62, SCell or group of SCells) in the first RAT (Par.47, ”The wireless communication network 1 may use one or a number of different technologies, such as Wi-Fi, Long Term Evolution (LTE)…”); and activate, based on the wake-up signal, communications in the first RAT (Par.52, Par.67, receives wakeup indication bit and starts time and monitor PDCCH (if it receives scheduling messages). Par.9, PDCCH monitoring and receiving is active communications) or the second RAT (no patentable weight due to optional language). However, Nory does not explicitly teach the wakeup signal indicating whether to activate communications for each of multiple RATs including the first RAT and a second RAT, wherein the first RAT is different than the second RAT.
Nory teaches the use of a multibit WUS for controlling activation/dormancy across multiple cells and teaches applicability to multi-RAT systems (Par.47 and Par.117). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply the same mechanism across multiple RATs, given the explicit teachings.
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to extend the WUS mechanism to control activation/dormancy for cells in different RATs, as suggested in the reference to provide an efficient system which reduces the signaling overhead and complexity in the network. Instead of sending separate wake-up instructions for each RAT, the network can use one compact message to control the device’s behavior across all RATs, improving efficiency and scalability. Further aligning with industry standards of multiple RATs within devices to extend WUS to cover multiple RATs also supports seamless mobility to provide enhanced quality of service.
Regarding Claims 14 and 29, Nory teaches an apparatus (Fig.2A) for wireless communication, comprising: a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and operable, when executed by the processor, to cause the apparatus to: transmit, in a component carrier (CC)( (Par.7:lines 3-7, Pcell is operated on a component carrier) configured for a first radio access technology (RAT)(Par.49, LTE, Wifi, WIMAX or similar) , a wake-up signal (Par.52, lines 1-4, wakeup signal (WUS) transmitted by first or second network node) indicating whether to activate communications for [multiple] a first RAT (Par.52, Par.67, multibit indications for each cell/RAT. Par.9, PDCCH monitoring and receiving is active of communications), wherein the first RAT is different than a second RAT (Par.117, its known that RATs can be different); and wherein the wake-up signal indicates whether to activate communications for a primary cell in the first RAT (Par.52:lines 4-7; lines 10-11, first cell… primary) and dormancy information for a secondary cell group (Par.52:lines 7-9 and Par.62, SCell or group of SCells) in the first RAT (Par.47, ”The wireless communication network 1 may use one or a number of different technologies, such as Wi-Fi, Long Term Evolution (LTE)…”); and transmit or receive, for a user equipment (UE) and based on transmitting the wake-up signal, communications in the first RAT (Par.67, Par.9, PDCCH monitoring in the corresponding on-duration is receiving communications) or the second RAT (no patentable weight due to optional language). However, Nory does not explicitly teach the wakeup signal indicating whether to activate communications for each of multiple RATs including the first RAT and a second RAT, wherein the first RAT is different than the second RAT.
Nory teaches the use of a multibit WUS for controlling activation/dormancy across multiple cells and teaches applicability to multi-RAT systems (Par.47 and Par.117). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply the same mechanism across multiple RATs, given the explicit teachings.
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to extend the WUS mechanism to control activation/dormancy for cells in different RATs, as suggested in the reference to provide an efficient system which reduces the signaling overhead and complexity in the network. Instead of sending separate wake-up instructions for each RAT, the network can use one compact message to control the device’s behavior across all RATs, improving efficiency and scalability. Further aligning with industry standards of multiple RATs within devices to extend WUS to cover multiple RATs also supports seamless mobility to provide enhanced quality of service.
Regarding Claim 2, 15, 27, and 30, Nory teaches wherein the wake-up signal includes a bit for each of the multiple RATs including the second RAT (Par.52).
Regarding Claim 3, 16, 28, Nory teaches wherein the wake-up signal includes a bit for each of a first set of multiple CCs related to the first RAT or {each of a second set of multiple CCs related to the second RAT} (no patentable weight given due to optional language), and wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to activate the communications in the first RAT or {the second RAT} (no patentable weight given) at least in part by activating communications with one of the multiple CCs related to the first RAT or {the second RAT} (no patentable weight given) as indicated by the bits of the wake-up signal. (Par.70: DCI format in a wake-up signal… DCI format may have one or more fields i.e. bits indicating information related to one or more serving cells. Par.71: the DCI may have multiple bits, with at least 1 bit corresponding to a Pcell and one or more bit(s) corresponding to one or more Scells).
Regarding Claims 4, and 17, Nory teaches wherein the wake-up signal includes a bit for each of multiple secondary cells (SCells) related to the first RAT (Par.52, Par.47, and Par.117), and wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to activate the communications in the first RAT at least in part by activating communications with one of the multiple SCells related to the first RAT as indicated by the bits of the wake-up signal (Par.27, Par.70 and Par.71, i.e. primary cell (Rat1) and secondary cells (Rat2)).
Regarding Claims 7 and 20, Nory teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to activate communications for the first RAT or the second RAT based on a waveform of the wake-up signal indicating the first RAT or the second RAT (Par.52. Waveform must be processed to identify bits, hence “based” on waveform of wakeup signal).
Regarding Claims 8 and 21, Nory further teaches wherein the CC is a fifth generation (5G) primary cell CC (Par.47).
Regarding Claims 9 and 22, Nory further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to activate communications for the first RAT or the second RAT based on a waveform of the wake-up signal indicating a secondary cell (SCell) group corresponding to the first RAT or the second RAT (Par.27, Par.70 and Par.71, i.e. primary cell (Rat1) and secondary cells (Rat2). Waveform must be processed to identify bits, hence “based” on waveform of wakeup signal).
Regarding Claims 10 and 23, Nory further teaches wherein the CC is a fifth generation (5G) primary cell CC (Par.47).
Regarding Claim 13, Nory teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to process at least one of time, frequency, or beamforming synchronization for the first RAT and the second RAT based on the wake-up signal (Par.52, timer start).
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.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nori in view of Kim (US 2022/0264459)
Regarding Claims 11 and 24, Nory does not expressly teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to receive a wake-up signal indication signal that indicates resources for receiving the wake-up signal, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to receive the wake-up signal based on receiving the wake-up signal indication signal.
Kim teaches it is well known to receive a wake-up signal indication signal that indicates resources for receiving the wake-up signal, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to receive the wake-up signal based on receiving the wake-up signal indication signal (Par.9, indication of monitoring PDCCH and information about search space). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nory with Kim such that a more efficient system is provided where power consumption is reduced while providing faster wakeup.
Regarding Claim 12 and 25, Nory teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to receive the wake-up signal indication signal over a fifth generation (5G) primary cell CC (Par.47).
Claim(s) 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nori in view of Gao (WO 2021160042)
Regarding Claim 5 and 18, Nory does not expressly teach the wake-up signal includes sets of bits for each of multiple UEs, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to receive a configuration indicating a position, within the sets of bits, of at least one of the bit for each of the multiple RATs corresponding to the apparatus, or a starting bit of the bit for each of the multiple RATs corresponding to the apparatus.
Gao discloses wherein the wake-up signal includes sets of bits for each of multiple UEs (Par.94, UE 0: configuring an RNTI Radio Network Identity (PS- RNTI) value, wherein the UE 0 information indicates that the start bit position of the PSS DCl is 0), and wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to receive a configuration indicating a position, within the sets of bits, of at least one of the bit for each of the multiple RATs corresponding to the apparatus (Par.95, UE 1: configuring the same PS-RNTI value, wherein the UE 1 information indicates that the start bit position of the PSS DCI is 6. Par.106, SCell group 1 and the SCell group 2), or a starting bit of the bit for each of the multiple RATs corresponding to the apparatus (Par.95, UE 1: configuring the same PS-RNTI value, wherein the UE 1 information indicates that the start bit position of the PSS DCI is 6. Par.106, SCell group 1 and the SCell group 2).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Nory invention with the teachings of Gao to include the claimed limitations so as to allow the network to configure downlink control information DCI with different formats with different starting bit in order schedule each of different UEs to perform monitoring and receiving downlink data when needed.
Claim(s) 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nori in view of Niu (US 2024/0072973).
Regarding Claims 6 and 19, Nory teaches the wake-up signal includes a downlink control information (DCI) format (Par.62-63, Par.70) however Nory does not explicitly teach the DCI format is 2_6.
Niu teaches the wake-up signal is transmitted using DCI format 2_6 (Par.90). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Nory invention with the teachings of Niu such that the wake-up signal is transmitted using DCI format 2_6 in order to ensure that power is conserved and to utilize the higher bit availability to provide support for UE groups.
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 WESLEY LEO KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7867. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 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.
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.
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648