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 .
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) 1-5, 8-12, 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 or deactivate a low- power wake-up signal (LP-WUS) monitoring by the LP-WUR according to at least one pre-configured condition in the configuration (ELSHAFIE: Fig. 6, ¶109, ¶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).
ELSHAFIE remains silent regarding the method further comprising:
determining, by the processor, whether to activate or deactivate the LP-WUS monitoring by the LP-WUR according to a channel condition,
wherein the channel condition comprises that a coverage of the LP-WUS is sufficient or is insufficient, and wherein the coverage is determined based on the whether a serving cell measurement is above or below a configured threshold.
However, MARTIN et al (US 2024/0397422) discloses determining, by the processor, whether to activate or deactivate the LP-WUS monitoring by the LP-WUR according to a channel condition. (MARTIN: ¶115, ¶166, ¶171 when the WUS cannot be detected or is too weak (below threshold), the WTRU switched to normal mode (deactivate WUR)).
wherein the channel condition comprises that a coverage of the LP-WUS is sufficient or is insufficient, and wherein the coverage is determined based on the whether a serving cell measurement is above or below a configured 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); ¶203, ¶208-209, this quality assessment of the WUS signal is performed based on the coverage of the serving cell determined based on the quality of the WUS signal).
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 2, 9, ELSHAFIE modified by MARTIN discloses a method of Claim 1, further comprising: 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, RRM measurement operation is offloaded to the WUR when WUR is still active and monitoring signals).
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: ¶153, 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: ¶153, ¶159, 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 method further comprising:
determining, by the processor, whether to activate or deactivate the LP-WUS monitoring by the LP-WUR according to a channel condition,
wherein the channel condition comprises that a coverage of the LP-WUS is sufficient or is insufficient, and wherein the coverage is determined based on the whether a serving cell measurement is above or below a configured threshold.
However, MARTIN et al (US 2024/0397422) discloses determining, by the processor, whether to activate or deactivate the LP-WUS monitoring by the LP-WUR according to a channel condition. (MARTIN: ¶115, ¶166, ¶171 when the WUS cannot be detected or is too weak (below threshold), the WTRU switched to normal mode (deactivate WUR)).
wherein the channel condition comprises that a coverage of the LP-WUS is sufficient or is insufficient, and wherein the coverage is determined based on the whether a serving cell measurement is above or below a configured 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); ¶203, ¶208-209, this quality assessment of the WUS signal is performed based on the coverage of the serving cell determined based on the quality of the WUS signal).
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 17, ELSHAFIE modified by MARTIN method of Claim 15, wherein the at least one pre-configured condition comprises that a radio resource management (RRM) measurement for a main radio (MR) of the UE is relaxed (ELSHAFIE: ¶153, RRM Relaxation is enabled where one or more RRM occasions are skipped).
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 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue,
“
PNG
media_image1.png
696
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”
Examiner respectfully disagree with the above arguments. Applicants take a position that ELSHAFIE in view of MARTIN does not disclose that the “conditions for unreliability (or a WUS is low quality) may comprise that a coverage of the WUS is sufficient or insufficient.” And therefore, does not disclose the claimed feature of “…wherein the coverage is determined based on whether a serving cell measurement is above or below a configured threshold…”
Examiner submits that MARTIN expressly discloses these features.
MARTIN in cited ¶203, discloses:
[0203] In an example, the above aspects may enable a WTRU to determine estimation (e.g. crude estimation) of the serving cell quality based on a WUS, and therefore be used as a trigger to, for example, switch from a first DRX cycle to a second DRX cycle.
[0208] A WTRU may determine the coverage of a WUS based on reception quality of a signal which may be sent from the cell sending the WUS. The signal may be at least one of: WUS, SSB, CSI-RS, TRS, and/or a signal which may be used to determine coverage of WUS. The signal which may be used to determine coverage of WUS may be a periodic signal transmitted periodically in a frequency in which WUS may be monitored or received by the WTRU. The signal which may be used to determine coverage of WUS may be interchangeably used with WUS, WUS-coverage reference signal (WC-RS), WUS-RS, and WUR-RS. The reception quality of the signal may be at least one of: RSRP, RSSI, RSRQ, and/or SINR.
[0209] A WTRU may determine that the WTRU is in-coverage of a WUS if one or more of following conditions are met: reception quality of a WUS-RS is higher than a threshold, or successful reception of a WUS (e.g., WUS received in a previous cycle). A WTRU may determine that the WTRU is out-of-coverage of a WUS if one or more of following conditions are met: reception quality of a WUS-RS is lower than a threshold, or N contiguous WUS reception failures, wherein N may be a predetermined value, configured by a network, or determined based on one or more conditions.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the above as teaching of, “…wherein the coverage is determined based on whether a serving cell measurement is above or below a configured threshold…”
All/any remaining arguments are based on the argument addressed as above and, therefore are fully responded to as above.
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 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