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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4-6-2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
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)(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, 6, 15, 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cheng 2025/0142474.
As to claim 1, Cheng discloses an apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE) [120], comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled with the at least one processor, the at least one memory storing instructions executable [if the instruction are not required to be executed, Cheng’s has the same structure; thereby can execute the same instructions] by the at least one processor to cause the UE to:
receive, via a first radio [1104] of the UE, first downlink control signaling [1112] indicating one or more parameters that configure reception of second downlink signaling via a second radio of the UE [At the operation 1112, the main radio 1104 of the UE receives from the gNB 1102 one or more configurations. The one or more configurations configure one or more BWPs or one or more RBs dedicated to WUS transmission.] (see par. 0089), wherein the second radio comprises a wake up radio [1106] having a lower power consumption than the first radio (see par. 0002); and
receive, via the second radio and in accordance with the one or more parameters, a signal the second downlink signaling [1118] indicating system information [WUS] from a network entity (see par. 0092) [see fig. 11 in priority document and related descriptions].
As to claim 6, Cheng discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions to receive the second downlink signaling are executable by the at least one processor to cause the UE to:
receive the are executable by the at least one processor to cause the UE to: receive the signal second downlink signaling while the first radio is in a sleep mode [At the operation 1116... The main radio 1104 of the UE transitions to deep sleep] [116] (see par. 0091).
Regarding claim 15 is the corresponding network entity claim of UE claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
Regarding claims 27 and 30, they are the corresponding method claims of device claims 1 and 15. Therefore, claims 27 and 30 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
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(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Yu 20240163797.
As to claim 7, Cheng fails to disclose wherein the instructions to receive the signal comprise instructions for the at least one processor to cause the UE to: receive the signal while in communication with the network entity via the first radio. In an analogous art, Yu discloses to receive the signal comprise instructions for the at least one processor to cause the UE to: receive the signal while in communication with the network entity via the first radio (see fig. 7, right side; par. 0112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of receiving both packets 750 and 760 and avoiding losing information, compatibility with existing standards, etc.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM 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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights