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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/22/2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
A proposed examiner’s amendment was extended to Applicants’ Representative, ANDY HAN, on 8/4/2026 in order to place the application in condition of allowance. The Applicants did not accept and provided a counter proposal which is not allowable. An office action on merits is provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 3-5, 8, 10-12, 15-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims recites, “…wherein the coverage is determined based on whether a serving cell measurement performed by the MR is above a configured threshold…” This limitation is not present or supported by the originally filed disclosure. The closest feature taught in the original filed disclosure is:
“[0063] In some implementations, the MR may stop skipping or relaxing the serving cell measurement if the required conditions are not satisfied.” See PreGrant Publication US 2024/0155491
The above section, however does not describe the claimed featured.
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, 3-5, 8, 10-12, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ELSHAFIE et al (US 2024/0129854) in view of MARTIN et al (US 2024/0397422)
Regarding claim 1, 8, ELSHAFIE et al (US 2024/0129854) method, comprising:
receiving, by a processor of a user equipment (UE), a configuration from a network node, wherein the UE comprises a main radio (MR) and a lower- power wake-up radio (LP-WUR) (ELSHAFIE: Fig. 7, ¶102-103, ¶140, a configuration message is received at the UE from the network node (704) and in Fig. 6, the UE is shown that it comprises WUR and MR);
determining, by the processor, whether to activate a low- power wake-up signal (LP-WUS) monitoring by the LP-WUR according to a condition in the configuration (ELSHAFIE: Fig. 6, ¶109-110, ¶113, ¶140, using the LP-WUS monitoring duty cycle configured by the LP WUS monitoring configuration, the UE determines whether to activate monitoring according to the schedule/duty cycle); and
receiving, by the processor, an LP-WUS from the network node via the LP-WUR in an event that the LP-WUS monitoring is activated (ELSHAFIE: ¶113, the LP-WUR is activated during the LP-WUS monitoring occasion and LP-WUS is received from the network node);
offloading, by the processor, a radio resource management (RRM) measurement from the MR to the LP-WUR in an event that the LP-WUS monitoring is activated (ELSHAFIE: ¶119, ¶124, ¶152, RRM measurement operation is offloaded to the WUR when WUR is still active and monitoring signals).
ELSHAFIE remains silent regarding the condition in the configuration being a channel condition in the configuration; wherein the coverage is determined based on whether a serving cell measurement performed by the MR is above a configured threshold, such that the LP-WUS monitoring is activated when the serving cell measurement performed by the MR is above the configured threshold.
However, MARTIN et al (US 2024/0397422) discloses the condition being a channel condition (MARTIN: ¶135, condition is WUS coverage which is based on a channel strength/quality (equivalent to a condition));
wherein the channel condition comprises that a coverage of the LP-WUS is sufficient, and wherein the coverage is determined based on whether a serving cell measurement performed by the MR is above a configured threshold, such that the LP-WUS monitoring is activated when the serving cell measurement performed by the MR is above the configured threshold (MARTIN: ¶153, the WUR is activated for monitoring WUS, when the WUS strength as measured by the WTRU’s main receiver (MR) is above a threshold (see, ¶171 and ¶180, ¶176) the WUS may be determined to be in coverage; ¶182-183, when the WTRU is in coverage again (WUR (WUS monitoring) activated), gNB and UE negotiate/renegotiate the WUS operation and WTRU enables the WUS monitoring operation);
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of ELSHAFIE would have been motivated to use the teachings of MARTIN as it provides a way to keep the WUR mode only when a detection of the WUSs is more probable and avoid measurements that are not meaningful. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify invention of ELSHAFIE with teachings of MARTIN in order to improve meaningful measurement cycles.
Regarding claim 3, 10, ELSHAFIE modified by MARTIN discloses method of Claim 2, wherein the at least one pre-configured condition comprises that the LP-WUS is a periodic reference signal used for a low-power radio (LR) measurement (ELSHAFIE: ¶105, ¶113, periodic LP-WUS signal used for measurement).
Regarding claim 4, 11, ELSHAFIE modified by MARTIN discloses method of Claim 1, further comprising: deactivating, by the processor, the LP-WUS monitoring on the LP-WUR in an event that the RRM measurement in the MR is relaxed (ELSHAFIE: ¶142, RRM Relaxation is enabled where one or more RRM occasions are skipped) ; and performing, by the processor, a measurement with a relaxed periodicity via the MR (ELSHAFIE: ¶42, RRM Relaxation is enabled where one or more RRM occasions are skipped i.e. longer periods between RRM measurements).
Regarding claim 5, 12, ELSHAFIE modified by MARTIN discloses method of Claim 1, comprising: deactivating, by the processor, the LP-WUS monitoring on the LP-WUR in an event that a result of LP-WUS based measurement on the LP-WUR is below a threshold; and performing, by the processor, a measurement via the MR (MARTIN: ¶115, ¶166, ¶171 when the WUS cannot be detected or is too weak (below threshold), the WTRU switched to normal mode (deactivate WUR and measure via MR)).
Regarding claim 15, ELSHAFIE discloses method, comprising: determining, by a processor of a network node, a configuration, wherein the configuration comprises at least one pre-configured condition for activating or deactivating a low-power wake-up signal (LP-WUS) monitoring (ELSHAFIE: Fig. 5, Fig. 7, ¶102-103, ¶105, ¶140, a configuration is determined for the UE at the network node (704) and in Fig. 6, the UE is shown that it comprises WUR and MR; the configuration information includes a condition (timing schedule or periodicity));
transmitting, by the processor, the configuration to a user equipment (UE) (ELSHAFIE: Fig. 7, a configuration message 710 is transmitted); and transmitting, by the processor, an LP-WUS to the UE in an event that the LP-WUS monitoring is activated (ELSHAFIE: Fig. 5, Fig. 7, ¶102, ¶105, ¶140, a configuration message is transmitted at the UE from the network node (704) and in Fig. 6, the UE is shown that it comprises WUR and MR; Fig. 8A, ¶121, ¶127, ¶143, the transmitter of the base stations sends LP-WUS signals to the UE in at least during a period when the WUR is monitoring for the WUSs),
ELSHAFIE remains silent regarding the condition in the configuration being a channel condition in the configuration; wherein the coverage is determined based on whether a serving cell measurement performed by the MR is above a configured threshold, such that the LP-WUS monitoring is activated when the serving cell measurement performed by the MR is above the configured threshold.
However, MARTIN et al (US 2024/0397422) discloses the condition being a channel condition (MARTIN: ¶135, condition is WUS coverage which is based on a channel strength/quality (equivalent to a condition));
wherein the channel condition comprises that a coverage of the LP-WUS is sufficient, and wherein the coverage is determined based on whether a serving cell measurement performed by the MR is above a configured threshold, such that the LP-WUS monitoring is activated when the serving cell measurement performed by the MR is above the configured threshold (MARTIN: ¶153, the WUR is activated for monitoring WUS, when the WUS strength as measured by the WTRU’s main receiver (MR) is above a threshold (see, ¶171 and ¶180, ¶176) the WUS may be determined to be in coverage; ¶182-183, when the WTRU is in coverage again (WUR (WUS monitoring) activated), gNB and UE negotiate/renegotiate the WUS operation and WTRU enables the WUS monitoring operation);
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of ELSHAFIE would have been motivated to use the teachings of MARTIN as it provides a way to keep the WUR mode only when a detection of the WUSs is more probable and avoid measurements that are not meaningful. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify invention of ELSHAFIE with teachings of MARTIN in order to improve meaningful measurement cycles.
Regarding claim 16, ELSHAFIE modified by MARTIN method of Claim 15, wherein the at least one pre-configured condition comprises that the LP-WUS is a periodic reference signal for low- power radio (LR) measurements (ELSHAFIE: Fig. 5, Fig. 7, ¶102, ¶140, a configuration is determined for the UE at the network node (704) and in Fig. 6, the UE is shown that it comprises WUR and MR; ¶105, periodic transmission of LP-WUS in considered).
Regarding claim 18, ELSHAFIE modified by MARTIN discloses method of Claim 1, wherein the at least one pre-configured condition comprises that a result of LP-WUS based measurement on a lower- power wake-up radio (LP-WUR) of the UE is below a threshold. (MARTIN: ¶115, ¶166, ¶171 when the WUS cannot be detected or is too weak (below threshold), the WTRU switched to normal mode (deactivate WUR)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue,
“
PNG
media_image1.png
638
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image2.png
482
742
media_image2.png
Greyscale
”
Examiner respectfully disagree with the above arguments. Applicants take a position that ELSHAFIE in view of MARTIN does not disclose that the “…a coverage of the WUS is sufficient.” And “the MR determining that the serving cell measurement is above a threshold.”
Examiner respectfully submits that ELSHAFIE discloses that WUS monitoring occurs when the WUR is activated.
[0103] Additionally, by using a wake-up radio for wake up signaling monitoring, a UE can also perform more frequent wake up signal monitoring. For example, a network node can configure a UE with more frequent wake up signal occasions for monitoring using a low-power wake up radio without adversely impacting power resources than may be possible for monitoring using the main radio. In this case, a delay between data arriving at the network node and a wake up signal occasion occurring is reduced, thereby reducing a latency associated with communications relative to a UE with less frequent wake up signal occasions.
…
[0113] Further power efficiencies can be achieved by not keeping the WUR 606 always on for monitoring. For example, a WUR 606 duty cycle mode can be configured. In a WUR 606 duty cycle mode, the UE 602 can turn on the WUR 606 based on a given duty cycle and the network node 604 may only send an LP-WUS 610 within a WUR ON window that includes a set of LP-WUS monitoring occasions 618 for LP-WUS 610. The set of LP-WUS monitoring occasions 618 can be configured with an LP-WUS monitoring periodicity, as shown, that indicates a time difference between the start of one LP-WUS monitoring occasion and the start of the next (in time) LP-WUS monitoring occasion.
ELSHAFIE also discloses that at least one RRM measurement is offloaded to the WUR.
[0152] In some aspects, the RRM signaling may be applicable to the WUR, the MR, or both the WUR and the MR. For example, the RRM signaling may be associated with a measurement performed by at least one of the WUR or the MR. In some aspects, the RRM signaling may occur in the updating occasions, as described above, or in the wake up signal described above. In some aspects, the RRM signaling may be an indication to offload one or more RRM measurements from the MR to the WUR or to switch from offloading to have the one or more RRM measurements be performed by the MR. In RRM offloading, one or more RRM measurements of one or more signals (e.g., in one or more RRM occasions) may be processed by the WUR rather than by the MR, which had been configured to perform the processing, for a particular interval of time (e.g., a specified amount of time or for an amount of time that the second radio component is off or in a reduced power mode). In some aspects, the UE may be configured with a set of RRM configurations. For example, the UE may have a first RRM configuration without RRM relaxation or RRM offloading and a second RRM configuration with RRM relaxation or RRM offloading. In this case, the UE may periodically switch between the RRM configurations, such as based at least in part on a received signal, a configured periodicity, and/or a state of the second radio component (e.g., when the second radio component is off, the UE may choose the RRM configuration with RRM relaxation or offloading), among other examples. In some aspects, RRM relaxation and/or RRM offloading may be based on an SSB, a CSI-RS, a corresponding LP-RS, and/or a corresponding LP-SS.
ELSHAFIE remains silent regarding the condition in the configuration being a channel condition in the configuration; wherein the coverage is determined based on whether a serving cell measurement performed by the MR is above a configured threshold, such that the LP-WUS monitoring is activated when the serving cell measurement performed by the MR is above the configured threshold.
However, MARTIN et al (US 2024/0397422) discloses the condition being a channel condition (MARTIN: ¶135, condition is WUS coverage which is based on a channel strength/quality (equivalent to a condition));
wherein the channel condition comprises that a coverage of the LP-WUS is sufficient, and wherein the coverage is determined based on whether a serving cell measurement performed by the MR is above a configured threshold, such that the LP-WUS monitoring is activated when the serving cell measurement performed by the MR is above the configured threshold (MARTIN: ¶153, the WUR is activated for monitoring WUS, when the WUS strength as measured by the WTRU’s main receiver (MR) is above a threshold (see, ¶171 and ¶180, ¶176) the WUS may be determined to be in coverage; ¶182-183, when the WTRU is in coverage again (WUR (WUS monitoring) activated), gNB and UE negotiate/renegotiate the WUS operation and WTRU enables the WUS monitoring operation);
[0153] A WTRU may determine that a signal is out of coverage when the signal is not detected or a measurement of the signal is below a threshold. A WTRU may determine that a signal is in coverage when the signal is detected or a measurement of the signal is above a threshold.
[0182] If a WTRU that was previously in a WUS coverage and re-enters the WUS coverage, after a certain amount of time that may be defined by a timer, for example an SI validity timer, it may have to read again the WUS related SI.
[0180] In an embodiment, the WUS coverage threshold may be a SSB RSRP based threshold.… The WUS coverage may be determined by comparing the measurements of the main cell signal, performed by the main receiver while active according to the second DRX cycle, to a threshold corresponding to the WUS coverage.
[0183] A WTRU may receive updated WUS related SI. If the WUS related cell enabled capabilities described in the SI changed and, for example, the newly enabled WUS cell capabilities are supported by the WTRU, the WTRU may send WTRU WUS/WUR information to the cell, for example to renegotiate the WUS operation with the gNB.
In the above, it is disclosed that WUS coverage is detected to be sufficient which activates the WUS monitoring again based on configured parameters.
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of ELSHAFIE would have been motivated to use the teachings of MARTIN as it provides a way to keep the WUR mode only when a detection of the WUSs is more probable and avoid measurements that are not meaningful. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify invention of ELSHAFIE with teachings of MARTIN in order to improve meaningful measurement cycles.
All/any remaining arguments are based on the argument addressed as above and, therefore are fully responded to as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMER S MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7524. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,W,Th: 10a-7p, Fri, 9a-12p.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
OMER S. MIAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2461
/OMER S MIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights