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 § 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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 13-16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wong et al. (11,102,755).
For claims 1, 14, 20, Wong teaches an apparatus (abstract), comprising: at least one processor (col. 14, lines 5-20); and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (col. 22, line 45 – col. 23, line 25), cause the apparatus (background, summary and claims) at least to perform:
monitoring, in an inactive mode (col. 13, lines 30-45; col. 15, lines 30-55), low power wake-up signal, LP-WUS (col. 9, line 40 – col. 10, line 30; WUS + low power mode), occasions for detecting a transmission on a LP-WUS occasion (col. 7, lines 30-65),
the transmission comprising:
a first signature indicating presence of at least one LP-WUS message in the transmission and the at least one LP-WUS message (col. 11, line 50 – col. 12, line 20); or
a second signature indicating absence of a LP-WUS message in the transmission (col. 13, lines 1-20).
For claim 2, Wong teaches wherein the transmission comprises the first signature, the apparatus is caused to perform:
detecting the first signature; and based on detecting the first signature (col. 10, line 40 – col. 11, line 50),
monitoring the at least one LP-WUS message in a remaining portion of the LP-WUS occasion (col. 8, line 55 – col. 9, line 40).
For claims 3, 16, Wong teaches receiving the at least one LP-WUS message instructing to wake-up (col. 9, line 20 – col. 10, line 30); and switching to an active mode (col. 10, lines 40-65).
For claim 4, Wong teaches caused to perform: updating synchronization of the apparatus based on at least one of: the first signature or the at least one LP-WUS message (col. 11, line 20 – col. 12, line 30).
For claim 5, Wong teaches caused to perform: updating a metric for LP-WUS coverage estimation (col. 5, lines 10-35) based on at least one of: the first signature or the at least one LP-WUS message (col. 11, line 20 – col. 12, line 30).
For claim 6, Wong teaches caused to perform:
updating synchronization of the apparatus based on at least one of: the first signature or the at least one LP-WUS message (col. 11, line 20 – col. 12, line 30); and
updating a metric for LP-WUS coverage estimation (col. 5, lines 10-35) based on at least one of: the first signature or the at least one LP-WUS message (col. 11, line 20 – col. 12, line 30).
For claim 7, Wong teaches wherein the transmission comprises the second signature, the apparatus is caused to perform: detecting the second signature; and based on detecting the second signature, ignoring a remaining portion of the LP-WUS occasion (col. 16, line 25 – col. 17, line 50).
For claim 8, Wong teaches updating synchronization of the apparatus based on the second signature (col. 14, lines 20-50).
For claim 9, Wong teaches updating a metric for LP-WUS coverage estimation based on the second signature (col. 12, line 30-60).
For claim 10, Wong teaches caused to perform: updating synchronization of the apparatus based on the second signature (col. 14, lines 20-50); and updating a metric for LP-WUS coverage estimation based on the second signature (col. 12, line 30-60).
For claim 13, Wong teaches that an opportunity for detecting the first signature is provided for each LP-WUS occasion (col. 11, line 50 – col. 12, line 20); and an opportunity for detecting the second signature is provided for a pre-defined subset of the LP-WUS occasions (col. 16, line 25 – col. 17, line 50).
For claim 15, Wong teaches wherein the transmission comprises the first signature, which is transmitted over a different carrier frequency (col. 10, line 60 – col. 11, line 50) or bandwidth part than the at least one LP-WUS message (col. 9, line 40 – col. 10, line 30).
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Garcia et al. (2025/0,008,435).
For claim 11, Wong does not expressly disclose that after not detecting either of the first signature and the second signature, the apparatus is caused to perform: updating a metric for LP-WUS coverage estimation. Garcia teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes that after not detecting either of the first signature and the second signature (Paras 221-222), the apparatus is caused to perform: updating a metric for LP-WUS coverage estimation (Para 121). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Garcia to provide improvements to wireless handling (Para 2).
Claim(s) 12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong as applied to claims 1, 14 above, and further in view of Santhanam et al. (12,101,843).
For claim 12, Wong does not expressly disclose outside coverage. Santhanam teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes based on detecting, based on a metric for LP-WUS coverage estimation, that the apparatus is outside the LP-WUS coverage (col. 13, lines 35-50), the apparatus is caused to perform at least one of:
switching to active mode (col. 16, lines 40-67);
triggering a LP-WUS mobility event (col. 15, line 60 – col. 16, line 20); or
indicating to a network node that the apparatus has not received LP-WUS message(s) or either of the first signature and the second signature (col. 8, lines 40-65).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Santhanam in order to provide improvements to battery usage (col. 1, lines 35-55).
For claim 19, Santhanam teaches caused to perform:
receiving, from a user equipment, an indication that the user equipment is outside the LP-WUS coverage (col. 13, lines 35-50); and
based on the indication, transmitting to the user equipment at least one LP-WUS message comprising instruction to wake up (col. 16, lines 40-67); or providing the user equipment with LP-WUS configuration with wider coverage (col. 8, lines 40-65).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Azizi et al. (11,647,463).
For claim 17, Wong does not expressly disclose the elements. Azizi teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes transmitting a configuration (col. 5, lines 15-25) to at least one user equipment in connected mode (col. 5, lines 5-15), wherein the configuration comprises configuration of resources allocated for the at least one LP-WUS message as rate matching resources for the at least one user equipment in connected mode (col. 6, line 30 – col. 7, line 50).
For claim 18, Azizi teaches wherein the transmission comprises the second signature, and the apparatus is caused to perform: transmitting a configuration to at least one user equipment in connected mode (col. 12, line 60 – col. 13, line 20), wherein the configuration comprises configuration of resources allocated for the at least one LP-WUS message as rate matching resources for the at least one user equipment in connected mode (col. 4, lines 25-45); and indicating, to the at least one user equipment in connected mode, that the resources allocated for the at least one LP-WUS message are used for physical downlink shared channel, if resources allocated for the physical downlink shared channel overlap with the resources allocated for the at least one LP-WUS message (col. 13, line 20 – col. 14, line 50).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELVIN H POLLACK whose telephone number is (571)272-3887. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571)270-1684. 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.
/MELVIN H POLLACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445