DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 2/23/2026.
In the amendment, Applicant amended claims 1, 11, and 20.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has fully considered Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 2/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 but they are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on the newly-cited Yue reference for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 11-13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2025/0106756) in view of Yue et al (US 2025/0142428).
Regarding claim 1: Kim discloses a method comprising:
transmitting, by a wireless device, a message comprising one or more information elements indicating whether the wireless device supports a network energy saving (NES) cell, wherein an NES cell is associated with one or more processes resulting in energy saving compared to a non-NES cell (disclosed throughout; see step 1301 of Figure 13, for example, which discloses a UE transmitting a message indicating “base station energy saving mode support capability” to a base station; the energy saving mode is associated with one or more processes that result in energy saving compared to a non-NES cell (a cell in “normal mode”) as indicated in [0007] and [0162], for example, which indicates that these processes include at least control of downlink transmission, switching off of antennas or power amplifiers, adjusting downlink bandwidth and/or power spectral density); and
receiving configuration parameters of an NES cell in response to transmitting the message and the one or more information elements indicating that the wireless device supports an NES cell (disclosed throughout; see step 1302 of Figure 13 and [0258], which discloses the UE receiving signaling including “at least one piece of configuration information related to base station energy saving mode”).
Kim does not explicitly disclose the limitation that the message indicates that the wireless device supports a handover to a network energy saving (NES) cell. However, Yue discloses a similar system that distinguishes between a UE that supports network energy savings and a UE that does not support network energy saving (see [0004], for example). Further, Yue discloses that the UE capability report indicating that “the UE supports network energy saving techniques” can be used to infer the handover preferences of the UE. That is, “if a UE capability report indicates that the UE supports all of the states of the cell which implements energy saving techniques, it can be considered as the preference of handover of the UE is preference for a target new cell or preference for any state of a target new cell”. Thus, the capability report indicates that the UE supports a handover to an NES cell. To the extent that Kim does not explicitly disclose that an indication that the UE supports NES also indicates that the UE supports a handover to an NES cell, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In particular, it would have been obvious to utilize the UE capability report indicating support for NES to determine that the UE supports (and has certain preferences for) handing over to an NES cell. The rationale for doing so would have been to identify the most preferable target cell for a given UE when multiple target cells are available by at least considering the NES capability of the UE as suggested by Yue.
Regarding claim 11: Kim discloses a wireless device comprising:
one or more processors (see processor 1630 of Figure 16, for example); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to (see memory 1620 of Figure 16 and [0280], for example):
transmit a message comprising one or more information elements indicating whether the wireless device supports a network energy saving (NES) cell, wherein an NES cell is associated with one or more processes resulting in energy saving compared to a non-NES cell (disclosed throughout; see step 1301 of Figure 13, for example, which discloses a UE transmitting a message indicating “base station energy saving mode support capability” to a base station; the energy saving mode is associated with one or more processes that result in energy saving compared to a non-NES cell (a cell in “normal mode”) as indicated in [0007] and [0162], for example, which indicates that these processes include at least control of downlink transmission, switching off of antennas or power amplifiers, adjusting downlink bandwidth and/or power spectral density); and
receive configuration parameters of an NES cell in response to transmitting the message and the one or more information elements indicating that the wireless device supports an NES cell (disclosed throughout; see step 1302 of Figure 13 and [0258], which discloses the UE receiving signaling including “at least one piece of configuration information related to base station energy saving mode”).
Kim does not explicitly disclose the limitation that the message indicates that the wireless device supports a handover to a network energy saving (NES) cell. However, Yue discloses a similar system that distinguishes between a UE that supports network energy savings and a UE that does not support network energy saving (see [0004], for example). Further, Yue discloses that the UE capability report indicating that “the UE supports network energy saving techniques” can be used to infer the handover preferences of the UE. That is, “if a UE capability report indicates that the UE supports all of the states of the cell which implements energy saving techniques, it can be considered as the preference of handover of the UE is preference for a target new cell or preference for any state of a target new cell”. Thus, the capability report indicates that the UE supports a handover to an NES cell. To the extent that Kim does not explicitly disclose that an indication that the UE supports NES also indicates that the UE supports a handover to an NES cell, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In particular, it would have been obvious to utilize the UE capability report indicating support for NES to determine that the UE supports (and has certain preferences for) handing over to an NES cell. The rationale for doing so would have been to identify the most preferable target cell for a given UE when multiple target cells are available by at least considering the NES capability of the UE as suggested by Yue.
Regarding claim 20: Kim discloses a system comprising:
a base station (disclosed throughout; see the base station of [0256]-[0259], for example); and
a wireless device comprising (disclosed throughout; see the UE of [0256]-[0259], for example):
one or more processors (see processor 1630 of Figure 16, for example); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to (see memory 1620 of Figure 16 and [0280], for example):
transmit, to the base station, a message comprising one or more information elements indicating whether the wireless device supports a network energy saving (NES) cell, wherein an NES cell is associated with one or more processes resulting in energy saving compared to a non-NES cell (disclosed throughout; see step 1301 of Figure 13, for example, which discloses a UE transmitting a message indicating “base station energy saving mode support capability” to a base station; the energy saving mode is associated with one or more processes that result in energy saving compared to a non-NES cell (a cell in “normal mode”) as indicated in [0007] and [0162], for example, which indicates that these processes include at least control of downlink transmission, switching off of antennas or power amplifiers, adjusting downlink bandwidth and/or power spectral density); and
receive configuration parameters of an NES cell in response to transmitting the message and the one or more information elements indicating that the wireless device supports an NES cell (disclosed throughout; see step 1302 of Figure 13 and [0258], which discloses the UE receiving signaling including “at least one piece of configuration information related to base station energy saving mode”).
Kim does not explicitly disclose the limitation that the message indicates that the wireless device supports a handover to a network energy saving (NES) cell. However, Yue discloses a similar system that distinguishes between a UE that supports network energy savings and a UE that does not support network energy saving (see [0004], for example). Further, Yue discloses that the UE capability report indicating that “the UE supports network energy saving techniques” can be used to infer the handover preferences of the UE. That is, “if a UE capability report indicates that the UE supports all of the states of the cell which implements energy saving techniques, it can be considered as the preference of handover of the UE is preference for a target new cell or preference for any state of a target new cell”. Thus, the capability report indicates that the UE supports a handover to an NES cell. To the extent that Kim does not explicitly disclose that an indication that the UE supports NES also indicates that the UE supports a handover to an NES cell, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In particular, it would have been obvious to utilize the UE capability report indicating support for NES to determine that the UE supports (and has certain preferences for) handing over to an NES cell. The rationale for doing so would have been to identify the most preferable target cell for a given UE when multiple target cells are available by at least considering the NES capability of the UE as suggested by Yue.
Regarding claims 8 and 18: Kim discloses the limitations that the receiving the configuration parameters is via a radio resource control (RRC) configuration message (see [0169] and [0200], for example, which indicates that signaling regarding the energy saving mode of the base station may be received via RRC signaling).
Regarding claims 2 and 12: Kim discloses the limitations that a first periodicity associated with at least one of at least one signal and at least one channel, transmitted or received via an NES cell, is lower than a second periodicity associated with the at least one of the at least one signal and the least one channel transmitted or received via a non-NES cell (disclosed in at least [0157], for example, which indicates that a particular energy saving mode may be implemented by “adjusting transmission” of PSS, SSS, PBCH, and CSI-RS “to occur less frequently” than the periodicity they occur at during a normal mode (not energy saving)).
Regarding claims 3 and 13: Kim discloses the limitations that the at least one of the at least one signal and at least one channel comprises a synchronization signal block (SSB) (disclosed in at least [0157], for example, which indicates that the signals with the lower periodicity in the energy saving mode include PSS, SSS, and PBCH; as indicated in [0071], “SS/PBCH block (synchronization signal/PBCH block or SSB)…is made up of a combination of PSS, SSS, PBCH”).
Claims 4-7 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2025/0106756) in view of Yue et al (US 2025/0142428) in view of Zhou et al (US 2025/0081103).
Regarding claims 4 and 14: Kim discloses the limitations of parent claims 1 and 11 as indicated above. Kim does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 4 and 14 that at least one of at least one signal and at least one channel is transmitted or received via a non-NES cell and is not transmitted or received via an NES cell. However, Zhou discloses a similar system for network energy savings. Further, Zhou discloses that in the energy saving (ES) state (also referred to as a cell-off state), the base station “may stop downlink transmissions” including SIB1, SIB2, and SSBs. See also [0397], which indicates that “In the ES state, the base station may skip (or stop) transmitting the SSBs in the configured location and with the configured periodicity”. See also [0441], which discloses that “during the time duration in the ES state on the cell, the base station may skip transmission of at least one of: CSI-RS(s), PDSCH(s), PDCCH(s), SIB(s) and/or TRS(s)”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim such that at least one signal or channel (such as an SSB or SIB) is not transmitted/received via an NES (energy saving) cell, but is transmitted/received via a normal non-NES cell as disclosed by Zhou. The rationale for doing so would have been to reduce the energy consumed by the base station by minimizing the number of signals/channels it transmits in certain states as suggested by Zhou.
Regarding claims 5 and 15: Kim, modified, discloses the limitations that the at least one of the at least one signal and at least one channel comprises a synchronization signal block (SSB) (see the rejection of claims 4 and 14 above, which cite passages of Zhou that disclose the at least one signal that is not transmitted during an energy saving (ES) state can include an SSB).
Regarding claims 6 and 16: Kim, modified, discloses the limitations that the at least one of the at least one signal and at least one channel comprises a system information block (SIB) (see the rejection of claims 4 and 14 above, which cite passages of Zhou that disclose the at least one signal that is not transmitted during an energy saving (ES) state can include a SIB).
Regarding claims 7 and 17: Kim discloses the limitations of parent claims 1 and 11 as indicated above. Kim does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 7 and 17 that an NES cell is associated with at least one of a discontinuous transmission (DTX) state and a discontinuous reception (DRX) state in a first timing based on at least one of a DTX pattern and a DRX pattern configured for the NES cell. However, Zhou discloses a similar system for network energy savings. Further, Zhou discloses that DTX patterns are used as part of the energy saving state for base stations throughout. Consider [0348], for example, which discloses “network energy saving operation may comprise a BS DTX configuration” and “a base station operating in BS DTX mode for a given cell and with a given pattern, which is transmitted to wireless devices, implies that the wireless devices in the cell, apply the BS DTX pattern in the cell as their DRX pattern”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim to utilize a DTX pattern for base stations in an energy saving state as disclosed by Zhou. The rationale for doing so would have been to allow the base station to conserve energy without completely powering off all functionality by using a discontinuous pattern that the terminals can apply to know when the base station is next planning to transmit.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2025/0106756) in view of Yue et al (US 2025/0142428) in view of Choe (US 2025/0159603).
Regarding claims 9 and 19: Kim discloses the limitations of parent claims 1 and 11 as indicated above. Kim does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 9 and 19 that the receiving the configuration parameters is via a handover command. However, Choe discloses transmitting “configuration information” for an “NES operation” that is transmitted via a handover command such as an RRCReconfiguration (see [0131], for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim to transmit the configuration information related to network energy savings using a handover message such as an RRCReconfiguation message as suggested by Choe. The rationale for doing so would have been to provide flexibility in the message used by the network to configure the NES related functions as suggested by Choe which allows a number of different messages to be used for this configuration information.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2025/0106756) in view of Yue et al (US 2025/0142428) in view of Myung et al (US 2025/0031249).
Regarding claim 10: Kim discloses the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above. Kim does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 10 of initiating a random access process via the NES cell and based on the configuration parameters. However, Myung discloses a system including a base station that implements network energy savings (see Figure 1 and [0105], for example). Further, this base station implementing energy savings also performs a RACH process with UEs on non-anchor carriers as disclosed in [0109]-[0111], for example. As indicated in [0131]-[0132], the RACH process is performed based on a network energy saving configuration including a list of the non-anchor carriers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kim to enable the network energy saving cell to perform RACH processes on some carriers as suggested by Myung. The rationale for doing so would have been to reduce power consumption while maintaining much of the base station functionality as suggested in Myung.
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 Robert C Scheibel whose telephone number is (571)272-3169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Hassan A Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
Robert C. Scheibel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 March 10, 2026