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 4-23-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits “However, the wake-up sequence of claim 1 defines a set of frequency resources configured for the UE (or a group of UEs) on which the wake-up signal is transmitted to trigger the UE (or group) to wake up the main receiver. For example, claim 1 recites "detecting… a wake-up signal in all of the plurality of frequency resources of the wake-up sequence." These features are not taught by Priyanto.”. The examiner respectfully disagree. In the instant case Priyanto as seen in fig. 10 discloses a UE receiving/detecting a set of frequency resources [see fig. 3; time-frequency resources] configured for the UE (or a group of UEs) on which the wake-up signal is transmitted to trigger the UE (or group) to wake up the main receiver [it may be possible that the control message 4001 is indicative of the sequence design configuration used for transmission of wake-up signals along different communication links 181, 182, e.g., along the direct link 181 vs. along the relaying link 182] [the control message 4001 may be indicative of a plurality of reoccurring resources allocated to the wake-up signal] [the resources 202 may correspond to resource blocks of the time-frequency resource grid, the blocks including multiple resource elements.]. Thereby, when the sequence includes more than one block of the plurality of frequency resources of the wake-up sequence; and/or more than one communication link, then it reads on the argued limitation.
In view of the argument: “Furthermore, Priyanto does not teach or suggest that such a wake-up sequence can "include a plurality of frequency resources that are non-uniformly spaced in a bandwidth, and the configuration information to indicate an individual resource, from each of a plurality of predefined frequency resource groups of the bandwidth, that is included in the plurality of frequency resources", as recited in claim 1.” In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Depending on the interpretation non-uniformly spaced [for example: Priyanto’s fig. 3 blocks 261 and 262 are non-uniformly spaced since they are 2 blocks of 262 while only one of 261] Priyanto may or may not disclose the limitation. However, the rejection of record relied on Shi to teach resources that are non-uniformly spaced in a bandwidth. Thereby, the combination Priyanto in view of Shi does disclose the argued limitation.
Regarding applicant’s argument: “However, Shi describes that one WUS can be mapped to one paging occasion (PO) as shown in FIGS. lA and 1B or mapped to multiple POs as shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B (see, par. [0035]). Thus, if the UE receives a WUS in a given WUS resource, it monitors either one or multiple POs. However, Shi does not teach or suggest a wake-up signal transmitted in a wake-up sequence of non-uniformly spaced frequency resources designated for a UE or a group of UEs, as recited in claim 1.”. The examiner’s position is that Shi clearly and explicitly disclose a wake-up signal transmitted in a wake-up sequence of non-uniformly spaced frequency resources since it uses different gaps as seen in fig. 1a and 1b; par. 0074 and 0079. If applicant’s interpretation of “non-uniformly spaced frequency resources” is different, the examiner invites the applicant to specify in the claims how is non-uniformly spaced.
As to the argument: “neither Priyanto or Shi teaches or suggests the features of amended claim 1 of "the configuration information to indicate an individual resource, from each of a plurality of predefined frequency resource groups of the bandwidth, that is included in the plurality of frequency resources."; the examiner’s position is that as disclosed in the initial paragraph above, Priyanto as seen in fig. 10 discloses a UE receiving/detecting a set of frequency resources [see fig. 3; time-frequency resources] each block can be considered an individual resource from each of a plurality of predefined frequency resource groups of the bandwidth.
Applicant argues “claim 4 recites that "the configuration information further indicates a code and the method further comprises: generating a modulated wake-up sequence based on the code and the wake-up sequence; and detecting the wake-up signal based on the modulated wake-up sequence." Neither Priyanto or Shi teach or suggest a modulated wake-up sequence based on the wake-up sequence of claim 1 (e.g., including the plurality of frequency resources that are non-uniformly spaced in the bandwidth and include an indicated individual resource from each of a plurality of predefined frequency resource groups of the bandwidth) and a code. Accordingly, claim 4 is also patentable for at least this additional reason. Claims 25 and 29 recite similar features to those of claim 4 and are therefore also patentable for at least similar reasons.”; the examiner’s position as indicated above is that the combination of Priyanto in view of Shi teach and suggest a modulated wake-up sequence based on the wake-up sequence of claim 1; in addition Priyanto also teaches in par. 0176: “For example, the signal configuration of the wake-up signal 4003 may be different from the signal configuration of the wake-up signal 4013 with respect to at least one element selected from the group including: identity code; preamble; sequence design configuration; spreading configuration; and scrambling configuration.”. Thereby, the combination of Priyanto in view of Shi teaching generating a modulated wake-up sequence based on the code and the wake-up sequence; and detecting the wake-up signal based on the modulated wake-up sequence.
The rest of the arguments they fall for the same reasons as shown above. The rejection of record stands.
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.
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) 1, 3-9 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priyanto 20200163017 in view of Shi 20220377666.
As to claim 1, Priyanto discloses a method comprising:
receiving, from a network, configuration information to indicate a wake-up sequence that is designated for a device or a group of devices; the wake-up sequence to include a plurality of frequency resources in a bandwidth [the control message 4001 may be indicative of a plurality of reoccurring resources allocated to the wake-up signal 4003] [3001-3002; 4001] (see par. 0110-0113); and the configuration information to indicate an individual resource, from each of a plurality of predefined frequency resource groups of the bandwidth, that is included in the plurality of frequency resources (see fig. 3, par. 0072, 0115);
detecting, via a wake-up receiver, a wake-up signal in all of the plurality of frequency resources of the wake-up sequence; and providing, based on detecting the wake-up signal in all of the plurality of frequency resources, a trigger to activate a primary receiver of the device [In response to receiving the wake-up signal 4003, the main receiver 1351 of the UE 103 is transitioned to the active state] (see par.0115-0118). Depending on interpretation, Priyanto may or may not disclose frequency resources that are non-uniformly spaced. In an analogous art, Shi discloses the wake-up sequence to include a plurality of frequency resources that are non-uniformly spaced in a bandwidth [WUS resource, per gap type (e.g., DRX gap, or eDRX gap; or DRX gap, eDRX short gap, or eDRX long gap), or per WUS source and per gap type] (see fig. 1A-2B; par. 0074, 0079). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to use non-uniformly spaced frequency resources for the simple purpose of adjusting the frequency resources according the needs of the communication systems; thereby, maximizing wireless spectrum.
As to claim 3, Priyanto discloses the method of claim4 2, wherein, the plurality of frequency resources is [are] selected from a set of frequency resources, and method further comprises: identifying an offset associated with a network device that transmits the wake-up signal; and determining the set of frequency resources based on the offset (see par. 0115-0016).
As to claim 4, Priyanto discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the configuration information further indicates a code [identity code, UE identity, group identity, etc.] and the method further comprises: generating a modulated wake-up sequence based on the code and the wake-up sequence (see par. 0088, 0100, 0176); and detecting the wake-up signal based on the modulated wake-up sequence (see par. 0115-0118).
As to claim 5, Priyanto discloses the method of claim 4, wherein generating the modulated wake-up sequence includes: modulating the wake-up sequence based on the code (see par. 0048, 0071, 0102). Priyanto does not specifically disclose modulating an amplitude; however, discloses OOK which is the simplest form of amplitude-shift keying (ASK) modulation that represents digital data as the presence or absence of a carrier wave. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that OOK include modulating the amplitude; thereby, allowing to transmit information with spectral efficiency.
As to claim 6, Priyanto discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the code is a binary code assigned to the device (see par. 0094) or group of devices or is a cell-specific signature (see par. 0121).
As to claim 7, Priyanto discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from a base station via the primary receiver, the configuration information [3001; 4001] (see par. 0110-0113).
As to claim 8, Priyanto discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: transitioning the primary receiver to a reduced-power mode; and activating the wake-up receiver based on transitioning the primary receiver to the reduced-power mode [3003] (see par. 0114).
As to claim 9, Priyanto discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the configuration information defines wake-up parameters for the device or group of devices throughout a tracking area (see par. 0121).
Regarding claims 23, 25-26, they are the corresponding apparatus claims of method claims 1, 4 and 9. Therefore, claims 23, 25-26 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
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 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