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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Haque fails to teach ‘receiving, during an energy detection state, a zero energy (ZE) frame’ that ‘indicates a presence of an energy harvesting (EH) window.’ … But ‘known by the receiver’ as a preconfigured transmission characteristic is not the same as the ZE frame indicating the presence of an EH window. Under a reasonable construction consistent with the specification, ‘indicates’ means the received ZE frame includes an indication/marker/field/sequence by which the STA can determine/detect the presence of the EH window” (see remarks pg. 5).
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the verb indicate comes from the noun indication, which in turn comes from the Latin word indicare, meaning “something that points out or shows”. The definition of “indicates” is to point out, be a sign, or suggest as a desirable or necessary course of action. Haque discloses the following in paragraphs [0106]-[0108]:
[0106] Examples of reference signal design using ZE waveforms are disclosed herein. In an example, a WTRU with a passive receiver may process an instance of a transmitted ZE reference signal suitable for the purpose of cell measurements based on a known ZE reference signal transmission format with known transmission characteristics.
[0107] For example, any one or more of the following transmission characteristics associated with a ZE reference signal waveform or one or more of its ZE waveform parts may be known by a passive receiver while processing a ZE reference signal: transmission duration(s) such as absolute time duration or relative time duration compared to a reference value; transmission format such as modulation scheme and its parameterization, modulation order, number and/or placement of tones, sequence and make-up of the ZE waveform part comprised as part of a transmission; power profile such as peak power, average power, a value representative of first or Nth order power distribution profile statistics such as PAPR including the possibility of adjustment factors when calculating these; energy profile or signature, such as the number, distribution and/or separation of energy accumulation, thresholding events, energy accumulation window, or POW; and/or transmission settings in use by the transmitter of the ZE reference signal such as frequency location, transmission patterns or sequences if one or more transmission parameters are changed to randomize interference contributions and/or to improve robustness of transmissions.
[0108] In an example, transmission characteristics associated with a ZE signal waveform to be used for the purpose of cell measurements by the passive receiver may be pre-configured and/or known in the WTRU. In another example, these transmission characteristics may be signaled and configurable in the WTRU. For example, network nodes, such as MME or eNB, may use control signaling in the form of NAS, radio resource control (RRC), medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) or layer 1 (L1) signaling to configure and/or indicate transmission formats for the purpose of cell measurements using a passive receiver by a WTRU.
In other words, when the WTRU receives a ZE waveform, it uses an associated and preconfigured energy accumulation window. Accordingly, the ZE waveform itself indicates to use the preconfigured energy accumulation window, which would read on the argued limitation of “receiving, during an energy detection state, a zero energy (ZE) frame from an access point (AP) that indicates a presence of an energy harvesting (EH) window”.
Secondly, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., ‘indicates’ means the received ZE frame includes a field/sequence by which the STA can determine/detect the presence of the EH window) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In view of the discussion above, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that “First, Haque's signal-strength discussions are used for cell measurement and cell selection/reselection decisions, such as determining when neighbor measurements should begin or selecting/camping on a cell, and the cited thresholds are applied in that mobility/cell selection context, not as a control criterion for whether the STA should receive and/or decode the data portion of the ZE frame. In contrast, claim 1 does not merely require measuring signal strength for cell selection, but instead provides that the reception of the ZE frame's data portion is performed "based on" a comparison showing the signal strength of the received ZE frame exceeds a "second threshold," (i.e., an affirmative, conditional decision that controls whether the STA proceeds to receive the data portion)” (see remarks pg. 6).
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim does not require a step of performing a comparison, the claim only requires a signal strength to be above a second threshold, mainly it requires a STA to receive a data potion of the ZE frame based on a signal strength of the received ZE frame being above a second threshold. The examiner interprets the WTRU of Haque successfully receiving a data potion of the ZE frame must be based on a signal strength of the received ZE frame being above a threshold (i.e., second threshold), otherwise, if the signal strength of the frame is too weak/low it would not be properly received/decoded by the WTRU. Furthermore, the WTRU would not be able to “[proceed] to receive the data portion” if the signal strength is too weak/low or below a certain threshold, accordingly a signal strength of the frame is vital in the proper decoding/reception of the frame by the STA. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues “Second, the ‘must be above a threshold to be received/determined’ interpretation is, at best, an observation about generic receiver feasibility (i.e., signals below sensitivity are difficult to detect), but it is not a teaching that the STA performs the claimed decision logic of comparing signal strength to a defined threshold and using that comparison as the basis for deciding whether to receive the data portion of the ZE frame. As recited, the "second threshold" is a gating threshold used to decide whether to receive a data portion of the ZE frame, not merely an inherent physical limitation” (see remarks pg. 6).
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the STA performs the claimed decision logic of comparing signal strength to a defined threshold) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore the argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant further argues “Third, inherency cannot supply this missing claim element because Haque does not necessarily perform "receive the data portion" based on a signal-strength threshold. Even if some minimum signal level is needed for successful decoding, it does not mean Haque necessarily teaches (or inherently performs) a step of comparing signal strength to a defined threshold and using that comparison as the basis to decide whether to receive the data portion, particularly where Haque's cited signal-strength thresholds are tied to cell selection/reselection” (see remarks pg. 6).
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a step of comparing signal strength to a defined threshold and using that comparison as the basis to decide whether to receive the data portion) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore the argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant further argues “Elkotby's described transmissions are characterized as feedback transmissions within a configured cellular framework and are not an "uplink access attempt". An "uplink access attempt" is an attempt to obtain uplink access to an AP, whereas Elkotby's CQI feedback is transmitted using predefined resources/mappings in an already-established network context” (see remarks pg. 7).
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim only requires initiating (i.e., “initiating an uplink access attempt with the AP”) and not an actual transmission. Elkotby discloses in paragraph [0200] “An EH WTRU may use a configured group ID, CQI subgroup ID, and unique ID to determine/setup its feedback transmission characteristics. An EH WTRU may use the number of times a received known signal/sequence was above a specific threshold within a specific period of time to determine its CQI value. An EH WTRU may transmit its feedback message as part of a frame that may contain additional information, e.g., a frame format, a payload size, the end of message indication, a request for additional resources indication”. The examiner interprets the term setup as the claimed initiating and to “set up its feedback transmission” as the claimed “initiating an uplink access attempt”. This interpretations is reasonable as feedback transmission is transmission performed in the uplink direction, where uplink resources would be needed to attempt the feedback transmission. Accordingly, Elkotby discloses the argued broadly-recited claim limitation, therefore the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues “Moreover, Elkotby's group ID is described as being configured/determined for feedback setup. It is not disclosed as a detected identifier that, upon detection, triggers the STA to initiate an uplink access attempt to the AP. The cited portions of Elkotby describe how an EH WTRU may be configured to provide channel-quality feedback in a cellular resource structure, but do not teach conditionally initiating uplink access attempts in response to detecting a group ID” (see remarks pg. 8).
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., upon detection, triggers the STA to initiate an uplink access attempt to the AP) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues that “rationale does not explain why a skilled artisan would modify Haque to add a group-ID-conditioned uplink access attempt, because the asserted motivation concerns energy- transfer waveform optimization, not uplink access initiation logic triggered by group ID detection. Haque already addresses energy harvesting from ZE signaling and power-optimized waveforms, and thus, the cited motivation does not supply a reason to introduce the distinct and energy-costly behavior of initiating uplink access attempts upon group ID detection. Further, incorporating an "uplink access attempt" behavior into Haque's passive/energy-harvesting framework would require non-trivial changes (e.g., powering/activating uplink circuitry, MAC/PHY access procedures, and associated control logic) that are contrary to the central objective of maintaining low-power/passive operation until strictly necessary. The Office Action does not identify why a person of ordinary skill would make such a change, how it would be implemented in Haque without undermining Haque's operating premise, or why the result would have been predictable” (see remarks pg. 8).
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Elkotby discloses the following:
[0091] As such, new or improved forms (or designs) of reference signals are desirable to guarantee a meaningful level of energy transfer within a certain period of time, having optimized waveforms for the purpose of energy transfer.
[0092] Disclosed herein are various methods, apparatus, and systems whereby signaling between network infrastructure and one or more energy harvesting IoT or WTRU devices can help in the optimization of energy transfer by allowing the IoT or WTRU devices to tune their energy harvesting components to maximize energy harvesting and/or minimize power consumption (e.g., minimize attempting to harvest energy during silence periods).
In other words, Elkotby discloses methods, apparatus, systems that, among other features, include signaling, between network infrastructure and energy harvesting IoT/WTRU devices, that optimize energy transfer, maximize energy harvesting and minimize power consumption. Accordingly, Group ID and feedback transmission is included in one of Elkotby’s embodiments that would in turn further optimize energy transfer, maximize energy harvesting and minimize power consumption. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the signaling teachings of Elkotby into Haque’s system/method as it would further optimize energy transfer, maximize energy harvesting and minimize power consumption. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Accordingly, the argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant further argues that “Paragraph [0144] of Elkotby provides conveying ZE air-interface transmission configuration related to EH control signaling (e.g., schedule, duration, frame format, unique ID and/or group ID) and assigning unique/group IDs to enable unicast or multicast control signaling to served WTRUs. That is fundamentally different from claims 5 and 17, which recite that the STA receives a ZE frame that is intended for a different STA (i.e., not intended for the receiving STA) and nonetheless uses that received ZE frame in the claimed manner. Elkotby's teachings of unique IDs and group IDs relates to addressing/configuration so that signaling is intended for the WTRU or its group, not to opportunistically receiving a ZE frame intended for a different device and treating it as such. The Office Action's assertion therefore conflates "frames addressed to a group (that includes the receiver)" with the different concept of "a frame intended for another STA (i.e., not intended for the receiver)." Accordingly, Elkotby does not disclose this "intended for another STA" scenario, nor does it disclose the associated design implications that arise when a receiver processes frames not intended for it” (see remarks pg. 9).
In response to applicant’s argument the examiner respectfully disagrees because the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “intended for a different STA (i.e., not intended for the receiving STA)” and “opportunistically receiving a ZE frame intended for a different device and treating it as such”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, a WTRU receiving a frame intended for a group (where the WTRU is included in the group as well as another WTRU) would encompass the WTRU receiving a frame that is also intended for another WTRU. The claim does not recite that the frame is intended for only another STA and would not include other STAs, including the claimed STA in the preamble. Accordingly, the argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant further argues “the Office Action's stated rationale for combination does not supply a reason to modify Haque so that a station treats received ZE frames as being intended for other stations. Waveform optimization is not a motivation for altering addressing/recipient-intent semantics in the manner required by claims 5 and 17. Nor does the Office Action explain why a skilled artisan would have been led to make that specific modification to Haque with a reasonable expectation of success, particularly where the proposed change is not a mere substitution of known equivalents but rather implicates protocol-level behavior and receiver processing choices in a context (AP/STA) materially different from Elkotby's cellular signaling/configuration framework” (see remarks pgs. 9-10).
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Elkotby discloses the following:
[0091] As such, new or improved forms (or designs) of reference signals are desirable to guarantee a meaningful level of energy transfer within a certain period of time, having optimized waveforms for the purpose of energy transfer.
[0092] Disclosed herein are various methods, apparatus, and systems whereby signaling between network infrastructure and one or more energy harvesting IoT or WTRU devices can help in the optimization of energy transfer by allowing the IoT or WTRU devices to tune their energy harvesting components to maximize energy harvesting and/or minimize power consumption (e.g., minimize attempting to harvest energy during silence periods).
In other words, Elkotby discloses methods, apparatus, systems that, among other features, include signaling, between network infrastructure and energy harvesting IoT/WTRU devices, that optimize energy transfer, maximize energy harvesting and minimize power consumption. Accordingly, Group ID and grouping of WTRUs are included in one of Elkotby’s embodiments that would in turn further optimize energy transfer, maximize energy harvesting and minimize power consumption. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Group ID and grouping of WTRUs teachings of Elkotby into Haque’s system/method as it would further optimize energy transfer, maximize energy harvesting and minimize power consumption. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Accordingly, the argument is not found persuasive.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Haque et al. (US 2022/0070766 A1, hereinafter “Haque”).
As to claim 1:
Haque discloses a method performed by a station (STA) (WTRU; Figs. 8, 18-19), the method comprising:
receiving, during an energy detection state, a zero energy (ZE) frame from an access point (AP) (“WTRU that receives the ZE signal”; [0105] “the WTRU 801 is equipped with a cellular transceiver (TRX) 810 for communicating with the eNB 802 over the Uu interface, and passive receiver 804 for receiving ZE signals from the eNB 802 over the ZE air interface”; [0111]; [0118]) that indicates a presence of an energy harvesting (EH) window (“For example, any one or more of the following transmission characteristics associated with a ZE reference signal waveform or one or more of its ZE waveform parts may be known by a passive receiver while processing a ZE reference signal: … energy accumulation window”; [0107]see also fig. 4 where harvesting state = preamble);
harvesting energy for a determined time duration during the EH window (“the WTRU may measure the amount of energy harvested Eh, utilizing the received ZE reference signal(s), over a specified duration Tm”; see Abstract; Fig. 4; [0168]; [0166] see also fig. 4 where harvesting state = preamble); and
receiving a data portion of the ZE frame (see Fig. 4 Frame body and Training and Decoding state “the frame body may be used for power and information delivery and for which the ZE (WUR) receiver is in training and decoding state”; [0105]) based on a current stored energy of the STA being above a first threshold (“the WTRU accumulates energy from the received POW to meet the designated minimum threshold level of X nanojoules (nJ) allowing the WTRU to then decode the remaining signaling. If the threshold level is exceeded and the determined processing time duration to determine the decoding format is exceeded, the WTRU may configure its passive receiver to process the information-bearing signal part”; [0109]; [0115]) and a signal strength of the received ZE frame being above a second threshold (“A WTRU determining an Rx level of a ZE reference signal may account for multiple antenna transmissions when a ZE reference signal is transmitted and/or received. A WTRU processing a received ZE reference signal may determine a sample value representative of the Rx level of the ZE waveform using observed time to accumulate energy up to a threshold value X1 of the POW portion of the ZE reference signal. The WTRU may then repeat this processing, deriving each time a single filtered exponentially weighted average value using the last derived sample as new input. The WTRU implementing a passive receiver may then compute a cell (re-)selection criteria using the derived weighted average value (representative the RX level of the ZE waveform) in combination with an offset value to determine a signal level at which measurements of neighboring cells should to be started”; [0126]; [0145]; [0154] the examiner interprets the RX level/signal strength of the ZE signal must be above a threshold level in order for it to be able to be received/determined).
As to claim 2:
Haque further discloses wherein the EH window is indicated by a ZE preamble (see fig. 4 where harvesting state = preamble of ZE signal).
As to claim 4:
Haque further discloses wherein a duration of the EH window is indicated by a signature (“signature, such as the number, distribution and/or separation of energy accumulation, thresholding events, energy accumulation window”; [0107]).
As to claim 6:
Haque further discloses wherein the harvested energy is used to determine whether the STA has sufficient stored energy to receive the data portion of the ZE frame (“the WTRU accumulates energy from the received POW to meet the designated minimum threshold level of X nanojoules (nJ) allowing the WTRU to then decode the remaining signaling. If the threshold level is exceeded and the determined processing time duration to determine the decoding format is exceeded, the WTRU may configure its passive receiver to process the information-bearing signal part”; [0109]; [0115]).
As to claim 7:
Haque further discloses wherein the current stored energy is stored in a capacitor (“capacitor that requires RF energy to charge”; [0165] “Advances in RF component design over the last years have made it possible to use a type of RF circuitry such as a passive receiver (ZE receiver) that can process received RF waveforms which are collected through the antenna front-end by the receiving device in absence of an active power supply. For example, a equipped with a passive receiver may harvest energy from the received RF waveform to run the necessary circuitry to process signals. These passive receivers may use RF components such as cascading capacitors, zero-bias Schottky diodes, microelectromechanical system (MEMS), to implement the functionality required for voltage multipliers or rectifiers, charge pumps and signal detectors”; [0089]; [0002]).
As to claim 8:
Haque discloses a station (STA) (WTRU; Figs. 1B, 8, 18-19) comprising:
a receiver (“a transceiver 120”; [0048]);
a transmitter (“a transceiver 120”; [0048]); and
a processor (“processor 118”; [0048]),
wherein the receiver (“a transceiver 120”; [0048]) is configured to receive, during an energy detection state, a zero energy (ZE) frame from an access point (AP) (“WTRU that receives the ZE signal”; [0105] “the WTRU 801 is equipped with a cellular transceiver (TRX) 810 for communicating with the eNB 802 over the Uu interface, and passive receiver 804 for receiving ZE signals from the eNB 802 over the ZE air interface”; [0111]; [0118]) that indicates a presence of an energy harvesting (EH) window (“For example, any one or more of the following transmission characteristics associated with a ZE reference signal waveform or one or more of its ZE waveform parts may be known by a passive receiver while processing a ZE reference signal: … energy accumulation window”; [0107]see also fig. 4 where harvesting state = preamble);
wherein the processor (“processor 118”; [0048]) is configured to harvest energy for a determined time duration during the EH window (“the WTRU may measure the amount of energy harvested Eh, utilizing the received ZE reference signal(s), over a specified duration Tm”; see Abstract; Fig. 4; [0168]; [0166] see also fig. 4 where harvesting state = preamble);
wherein the receiver (“a transceiver 120”; [0048]) is further configured to receive a data portion of the ZE frame (see Fig. 4 Frame body and Training and Decoding state “the frame body may be used for power and information delivery and for which the ZE (WUR) receiver is in training and decoding state”; [0105]) based on a current stored energy of the STA being above a first threshold (“the WTRU accumulates energy from the received POW to meet the designated minimum threshold level of X nanojoules (nJ) allowing the WTRU to then decode the remaining signaling. If the threshold level is exceeded and the determined processing time duration to determine the decoding format is exceeded, the WTRU may configure its passive receiver to process the information-bearing signal part”; [0109]; [0115]) and a signal strength of the received ZE frame being above a second threshold (“A WTRU determining an Rx level of a ZE reference signal may account for multiple antenna transmissions when a ZE reference signal is transmitted and/or received. A WTRU processing a received ZE reference signal may determine a sample value representative of the Rx level of the ZE waveform using observed time to accumulate energy up to a threshold value X1 of the POW portion of the ZE reference signal. The WTRU may then repeat this processing, deriving each time a single filtered exponentially weighted average value using the last derived sample as new input. The WTRU implementing a passive receiver may then compute a cell (re-)selection criteria using the derived weighted average value (representative the RX level of the ZE waveform) in combination with an offset value to determine a signal level at which measurements of neighboring cells should to be started”; [0126]; [0145]; [0154] the examiner interprets the RX level/signal strength of the ZE signal must be above a threshold level in order for it to be able to be received/determined).
As to claim 9:
Haque further discloses wherein the EH window is indicated by a ZE preamble (see fig. 4 where harvesting state = preamble of ZE signal).
As to claim 11:
Haque further discloses wherein a duration of the EH window is indicated by a signature (“signature, such as the number, distribution and/or separation of energy accumulation, thresholding events, energy accumulation window”; [0107]).
As to claim 13:
Haque further discloses wherein the harvested energy is used to determine whether the STA has sufficient stored energy to receive the data portion of the ZE frame (“the WTRU accumulates energy from the received POW to meet the designated minimum threshold level of X nanojoules (nJ) allowing the WTRU to then decode the remaining signaling. If the threshold level is exceeded and the determined processing time duration to determine the decoding format is exceeded, the WTRU may configure its passive receiver to process the information-bearing signal part”; [0109]; [0115]).
As to claim 14:
Haque further discloses wherein the current stored energy is stored in a capacitor (“capacitor that requires RF energy to charge”; [0165] “Advances in RF component design over the last years have made it possible to use a type of RF circuitry such as a passive receiver (ZE receiver) that can process received RF waveforms which are collected through the antenna front-end by the receiving device in absence of an active power supply. For example, a equipped with a passive receiver may harvest energy from the received RF waveform to run the necessary circuitry to process signals. These passive receivers may use RF components such as cascading capacitors, zero-bias Schottky diodes, microelectromechanical system (MEMS), to implement the functionality required for voltage multipliers or rectifiers, charge pumps and signal detectors”; [0089]; [0002]).
As to claim 15:
Haque discloses a method performed by a station (STA) (WTRU; Figs. 8, 18-19), the method comprising:
receiving, during an energy detection state, a zero energy (ZE) frame from an access point (AP) (“WTRU that receives the ZE signal”; [0105] “the WTRU 801 is equipped with a cellular transceiver (TRX) 810 for communicating with the eNB 802 over the Uu interface, and passive receiver 804 for receiving ZE signals from the eNB 802 over the ZE air interface”; see Figs. 2 and 4; [0111]; [0118]) that indicates a delivery of a power optimized waveform (“ZE (wakeup) signal structure and corresponding energy-harvesting profile at the WTRU that receives the ZE signal. The preamble part may be optimized for power delivery and for which the ZE (WUR) receiver is in an energy harvesting state, and the frame body may be used for power and information delivery and for which the ZE (WUR) receiver is in training and decoding state. A passive receiver may harvest or accumulate energy from the received power-optimized waveform and/or signaling parts, such as the ZE signal structure and energy-harvesting profile shown in FIG. 4. POW and/or signaling parts may be associated with a measured or observed energy signature or sequence”; see Figs. 2 and 4; [0105] “any one or more of the following transmission characteristics associated with a ZE reference signal waveform or one or more of its ZE waveform parts may be known by a passive receiver while processing a ZE reference signal”; [0107]);
harvesting energy for a determined time duration during the delivery of the power optimized waveform (“ZE (wakeup) signal structure and corresponding energy-harvesting profile at the WTRU that receives the ZE signal. The preamble part may be optimized for power delivery and for which the ZE (WUR) receiver is in an energy harvesting state, and the frame body may be used for power and information delivery and for which the ZE (WUR) receiver is in training and decoding state. A passive receiver may harvest or accumulate energy from the received power-optimized waveform and/or signaling parts, such as the ZE signal structure and energy-harvesting profile shown in FIG. 4. POW and/or signaling parts may be associated with a measured or observed energy signature or sequence”; see Figs. 2 and 4; [0105] “any one or more of the following transmission characteristics associated with a ZE reference signal waveform or one or more of its ZE waveform parts may be known by a passive receiver while processing a ZE reference signal”; [0107]); and
receiving a data portion of the ZE frame (see Fig. 4 Frame body and Training and Decoding state “the frame body may be used for power and information delivery and for which the ZE (WUR) receiver is in training and decoding state”; [0105]) based on a current stored energy of the STA being above a first threshold (“the WTRU accumulates energy from the received POW to meet the designated minimum threshold level of X nanojoules (nJ) allowing the WTRU to then decode the remaining signaling. If the threshold level is exceeded and the determined processing time duration to determine the decoding format is exceeded, the WTRU may configure its passive receiver to process the information-bearing signal part”; [0109]; [0115]) and a signal strength of the received ZE frame being above a second threshold (“A WTRU determining an Rx level of a ZE reference signal may account for multiple antenna transmissions when a ZE reference signal is transmitted and/or received. A WTRU processing a received ZE reference signal may determine a sample value representative of the Rx level of the ZE waveform using observed time to accumulate energy up to a threshold value X1 of the POW portion of the ZE reference signal. The WTRU may then repeat this processing, deriving each time a single filtered exponentially weighted average value using the last derived sample as new input. The WTRU implementing a passive receiver may then compute a cell (re-)selection criteria using the derived weighted average value (representative the RX level of the ZE waveform) in combination with an offset value to determine a signal level at which measurements of neighboring cells should to be started”; [0126]; [0145]; [0154] the examiner interprets the RX level/signal strength of the ZE signal must be above a threshold level in order for it to be able to be received/determined).
As to claim 18:
Haque further discloses wherein the harvested energy is used to determine whether the STA has sufficient stored energy to receive the data portion of the ZE frame (“the WTRU accumulates energy from the received POW to meet the designated minimum threshold level of X nanojoules (nJ) allowing the WTRU to then decode the remaining signaling. If the threshold level is exceeded and the determined processing time duration to determine the decoding format is exceeded, the WTRU may configure its passive receiver to process the information-bearing signal part”; [0109]; [0115]).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 3, 5, 10, 12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haque (US 2022/0070766 A1) in view of Elkotby et al. (US 2022/0225402 A1, hereinafter “Elkotby”).
As to claim 3:
Haque discloses the invention set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose on a condition that the STA detects a group ID, initiating an uplink access attempt with the AP.
However, Elkotby discloses on a condition that the STA detects a group ID, initiating an uplink access attempt with the AP (“an EH WTRU may receive a known sequence over ZE air interface to determine its channel quality and feedbacks a CQI value over a resource element within the resource grid defined using a known mapping at the UE and serving BS. An EH WTRU may determines a group ID and CQI subgroup ID based on thresholding values received from the serving BS and configured/known mapping functions. An EH WTRU may use a configured group ID, CQI subgroup ID, and unique ID to determine/setup its feedback transmission characteristics. An EH WTRU may use the number of times a received known signal/sequence was above a specific threshold within a specific period of time to determine its CQI value. An EH WTRU may transmit its feedback message as part of a frame that may contain additional information, e.g., a frame format, a payload size, the end of message indication, a request for additional resources indication”; [0200).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Elkotby into Haque’s system/method as it would allow on a condition that the STA detects a group ID, initiating an uplink access attempt with the AP. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art, where a motivation would have been to guarantee a meaningful level of energy transfer within a certain period of time and having optimized waveforms for the purpose of energy transfer (Elkotby; [0091]).
As to claim 5:
Haque discloses the invention set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the received ZE frame is a frame intended for another STA.
However, Elkotby discloses the received ZE frame is a frame intended for another STA (“a WTRU may receive the ZE air interface transmission configuration related to EH control signaling, e.g., transmission schedule, transmission duration and frame format, a unique ID and/or a group ID, while in CONNECTED mode over the Uu air interface in a first step”; [0144] “A group ID assigned to a set of WTRUs served by one or more eNBs and that can be based on geographical location of the WTRUs”; [0146]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Elkotby into Haque’s system/method as it would allow the received ZE frame to be a frame intended for another STA. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art, where a motivation would have been to guarantee a meaningful level of energy transfer within a certain period of time and having optimized waveforms for the purpose of energy transfer (Elkotby; [0091]).
As to claim 10:
Haque discloses the invention set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein on a condition that the STA detects a group ID, the processor is configured to initiate an uplink access attempt with the AP.
However, Elkotby discloses wherein on a condition that the STA detects a group ID, the processor (processor 118; [0043]) is configured to initiate an uplink access attempt with the AP (“an EH WTRU may receive a known sequence over ZE air interface to determine its channel quality and feedbacks a CQI value over a resource element within the resource grid defined using a known mapping at the UE and serving BS. An EH WTRU may determines a group ID and CQI subgroup ID based on thresholding values received from the serving BS and configured/known mapping functions. An EH WTRU may use a configured group ID, CQI subgroup ID, and unique ID to determine/setup its feedback transmission characteristics. An EH WTRU may use the number of times a received known signal/sequence was above a specific threshold within a specific period of time to determine its CQI value. An EH WTRU may transmit its feedback message as part of a frame that may contain additional information, e.g., a frame format, a payload size, the end of message indication, a request for additional resources indication”; [0200).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Elkotby into Haque’s system/method as it would allow on a condition that the STA detects a group ID, the processor is configured to initiate an uplink access attempt with the AP. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art, where a motivation would have been to guarantee a meaningful level of energy transfer within a certain period of time and having optimized waveforms for the purpose of energy transfer (Elkotby; [0091]).
As to claim 12:
Haque discloses the invention set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the received ZE frame is a frame intended for another STA.
However, Elkotby discloses the received ZE frame is a frame intended for another STA (“a WTRU may receive the ZE air interface transmission configuration related to EH control signaling, e.g., transmission schedule, transmission duration and frame format, a unique ID and/or a group ID, while in CONNECTED mode over the Uu air interface in a first step”; [0144] “A group ID assigned to a set of WTRUs served by one or more eNBs and that can be based on geographical location of the WTRUs”; [0146]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Elkotby into Haque’s system/method as it would allow the received ZE frame to be a frame intended for another STA. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art, where a motivation would have been to guarantee a meaningful level of energy transfer within a certain period of time and having optimized waveforms for the purpose of energy transfer (Elkotby; [0091]).
As to claim 16:
Haque discloses the invention set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose on a condition that the STA detects a group ID, initiating an uplink access attempt with the AP.
However, Elkotby discloses on a condition that the STA detects a group ID, initiating an uplink access attempt with the AP (“an EH WTRU may receive a known sequence over ZE air interface to determine its channel quality and feedbacks a CQI value over a resource element within the resource grid defined using a known mapping at the UE and serving BS. An EH WTRU may determines a group ID and CQI subgroup ID based on thresholding values received from the serving BS and configured/known mapping functions. An EH WTRU may use a configured group ID, CQI subgroup ID, and unique ID to determine/setup its feedback transmission characteristics. An EH WTRU may use the number of times a received known signal/sequence was above a specific threshold within a specific period of time to determine its CQI value. An EH WTRU may transmit its feedback message as part of a frame that may contain additional information, e.g., a frame format, a payload size, the end of message indication, a request for additional resources indication”; [0200).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Elkotby into Haque’s system/method as it would allow on a condition that the STA detects a group ID, initiating an uplink access attempt with the AP. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art, where a motivation would have been to guarantee a meaningful level of energy transfer within a certain period of time and having optimized waveforms for the purpose of energy transfer (Elkotby; [0091]).
As to claim 17:
Haque discloses the invention set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the received ZE frame is a frame intended for another STA.
However, Elkotby discloses the received ZE frame is a frame intended for another STA (“a WTRU may receive the ZE air interface transmission configuration related to EH control signaling, e.g., transmission schedule, transmission duration and frame format, a unique ID and/or a group ID, while in CONNECTED mode over the Uu air interface in a first step”; [0144] “A group ID assigned to a set of WTRUs served by one or more eNBs and that can be based on geographical location of the WTRUs”; [0146]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Elkotby into Haque’s system/method as it would allow the received ZE frame to be a frame intended for another STA. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art, where a motivation would have been to guarantee a meaningful level of energy transfer within a certain period of time and having optimized waveforms for the purpose of energy transfer (Elkotby; [0091]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARIELA VIDAL CARPIO whose telephone number is (571)272-1250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM to 5:00PM.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/MARIELA VIDAL CARPIO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476