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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “state state” should be
--state--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4-5, 12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bala (US 2024/0323846).
Regarding claim 1, Bala discloses an apparatus (fig. 3; fig. 4, item 410) comprising at least one processing core (item 420) and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processing core (para. 74), cause the apparatus at least to: receive at least one configuration defining a monitoring occasion (fig. 5, steps S510-S520; fig. 1, item 106; para. 53; note: a configuration for skipping symbols or not as necessary for WUS reception), one or more of the at least one configuration further defining at least one symbol to be skipped during the respective monitoring occasion (fig. 2, item 230; para. 53), and determine whether a wake-up signal is received in the apparatus using a first configuration from among the at least one configuration by monitoring symbols of a monitoring occasion defined by the first configuration other than the at least one symbol defined as to be skipped (para. 49-50 and 53; step S530), wherein the at least one symbol defined as to be skipped within the monitoring occasion of the first configuration is not monitored in the determining whether the wake-up signal is received (paras. 49-50 and 53; para. 36, last two sentences).
Regarding claim 4, Bala discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the apparatus is configured to transition away from an energy saving state to a higher energy state
Regarding claim 5, Bala discloses the apparatus according to claim 4, wherein a wireless transceiver of the apparatus is switched on and used to monitor for downlink signals in the higher energy state and the wireless transceiver is switched off in the energy saving state (steps S530-S540; paras. 3 and 91; note: legacy receive procedures after waking - para. 48, first sentence and para. 49, last sentence).
Regarding claims 12 and 15-16, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 1 and 4-5, respectively.
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, 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.
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.
Claims 2-3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bala in view of Wu et al. (US 2021/0119742).
Regarding claim 2, Bala fails to disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each monitoring occasion defined by the at least one configuration repeats in time. However, Wu discloses repeating WUS occasions for monitoring (fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each monitoring occasion defined by the at least one configuration repeats in time in the invention of Bala. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing recurring WUSs as is known in the art (Wu, fig. 2 and para. 23; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 3, Bala discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein one or more of the at least one configuration defines a consecutive set of symbols to be skipped during the respective monitoring occasion (fig. 2, item 230; para. 53; note: skipping M/k symbols where M/k is greater than 2), but fails to disclose the consecutive set of symbols repeating once per time slot during the respective monitoring occasion duration. However, Wu discloses repeating WUS occasions for monitoring (fig. 2; paras. 23 and 29-31; note: WUS slot cycle and WUS search space). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the consecutive set of symbols repeating once per time slot during the respective monitoring occasion duration in the invention of Bala. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing recurring WUS slot occasions for recurring PDCCH signaling as is known in the art (Wu, fig. 2 and paras. 23 and 29-31; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claims 13-14, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 2-3, respectively.
Claims 6-8, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bala in view of Manolakos et al. (WO 2021/154420). For dependent claims herein, the motivation to combine is the same as the parent claim unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 6, Bala fails to disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each of the at least one configuration defines a monitoring occasion start time, a monitoring occasion duration and a monitoring occasion frequency. However, Manolakos discloses a WUS occasion (fig. 6; para. 80; note: WUS configuration by RRC, etc.) defined by a start time (para. 83, beginning of a WUS occasion), a duration (para. 83, time-domain resources for a WUS occasion) and a frequency (para. 83, frequency-domain resources; para. 86, especially the last sentence; note: resources allocated to the WUS occasion). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the at least one configuration define a monitoring occasion start time, a monitoring occasion duration and a monitoring occasion frequency in the invention of Bala. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing resources for a WUS occasion as is known in the art (Manolakos, fig. 6 and paras. 83 and 86); MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 7, Bala in view of Manolakos teaches and makes obvious the apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the apparatus is configured to obtain a part of the first configuration defining the at least one symbol to be skipped (Bala, para. 53 and fig. 1, item 106) in a separate message from a part of the first configuration defining the monitoring occasion start time (Manolakos, paras. 83 and 86; note: in Manolakos the RRC configuration defines a WUS occasion, and in Bala a WUS frame occurs within a WUS occasion, where the WUS frame itself contains control information that indicates symbols to skip, separate from RRC signaling - para. 38, last sentence).
Regarding claim 8, Bala discloses an apparatus (fig. 3; fig. 4, item 420) comprising at least one processing core (item 420) and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processing core, cause the apparatus at least to: provide to a user equipment at least one configuration defining a monitoring occasion (fig. 5, steps S510-S520; fig. 1, item 106; para. 53; note: a configuration for skipping symbols or not as necessary for WUS reception; para. 48), one or more of the at least one configuration further defining at least one symbol to be skipped during the respective monitoring occasion (fig. 2, item 230; para. 53), and transmit a wake-up signal to the user equipment using a first configuration from among the at least one configuration (para. 48), wherein symbols other than the at least one symbol defined to be skipped are used for transmitting the wake-up signal (para. 49-50 and 53; step S530) and symbols defined as to be skipped within the monitoring occasion of the first configuration are used by the apparatus for at least one purpose other than wake-up signalling (paras. 48-49; note: uplink or PDCCH symbols).
Bala fails to disclose each one of the at least one configuration defining a monitoring occasion start time, a monitoring occasion duration and a monitoring occasion frequency. However, Manolakos discloses a WUS occasion (fig. 6; para. 80; note: WUS configuration by RRC, etc.) defined by a start time (para. 83, beginning of a WUS occasion), a duration (para. 83, time-domain resources for a WUS occasion) and a frequency (para. 83, frequency-domain resources; para. 86, especially the last sentence; note: resources allocated to the WUS occasion). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the at least one configuration defining a monitoring occasion start time, a monitoring occasion duration and a monitoring occasion frequency in the invention of Bala. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing resources for a WUS occasion as is known in the art (Manolakos, fig. 6 and paras. 83 and 86); MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 11, Bala discloses the apparatus according to claim 8, wherein plural on-off keyed bits are transmitted in a single orthogonal frequency division multiplexing, OFDM, symbol (paras. 4, 39 and 46; note: several WUS symbols (bits) per OFDM symbol) but fails to disclose wherein the apparatus is configured to employ discrete Fourier transform-spread orthogonal frequency division multiplexing, DFT-s-OFDM, in transmitting the wake-up signal. However, Manolakos discloses transmitting using DFT-s-OFDM (para. 59). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the apparatus is configured to employ discrete Fourier transform-spread orthogonal frequency division multiplexing, DFT-s-OFDM, in transmitting the wake-up signal in the invention of Bala. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing modulation of data as is well-known in the art (Manolakos, para. 59; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 17, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 11.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bala in view of Manolakos as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Wu et al. (US 2021/0119742).
Regarding claim 9, Bala in view of Manolakos fails to teach and make obvious the apparatus according to claim 8, wherein each monitoring occasion defined by the at least one configuration repeats in time. However, Wu discloses repeating WUS occasions for monitoring (fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each monitoring occasion defined by the at least one configuration repeats in time in the invention of Bala in view of Manolakos. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing recurring WUSs as is known in the art (Wu, fig. 2 and para. 23; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 10, Bala in view of Manolakos teaches and makes obvious the apparatus according to claim 8, wherein one or more of the at least one configuration defines a consecutive set of symbols to be skipped during the respective monitoring occasion duration (Bala, fig. 2, item 230; para. 53; note: skipping M/k symbols where M/k is greater than 2), but fails to teach and makes obvious the consecutive set of symbols repeating once per time slot during the respective monitoring occasion duration. However, Wu discloses repeating WUS occasions for monitoring (fig. 2; paras. 23 and 29-31; note: WUS slot cycle and WUS search space). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the consecutive set of symbols repeating once per time slot during the respective monitoring occasion duration in the invention of Bala in view of Manolakos. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing recurring WUS slot occasions for recurring PDCCH signaling as is known in the art (Wu, fig. 2 and paras. 23 and 29-31; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462