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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Myung et al. (WO 2024035018) (hereinafter Myung).
Referring to claim 1, Myung teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving an uplink wakeup signal (UL-WUS) configuration and a random access channel (RACH) configuration (pp 24-25: information regarding RACH timings associated with SSBs may be provided through system information) for a network energy savings (NES) cell (p. 30: In this specification, the BS operating in NES (network energy saving) mode to save energy means), wherein the NES cell is associated with an on-demand system information block 1 (SIB1) (p. 30: The BS can notify that it is operating on-demand SIB1 while transmitting a specific SSB through a specific bit of the PBCH); and
transmitting, to the NES cell, an UL-WUS in an UL-WUS occasion associated with the UL-WUS configuration, wherein the UL-WUS includes one or more of a request for the on-demand SIB1 or a request to start a RACH procedure (P. 30: when the UE transmits a specific signal (e.g., wake up signal (WUS)) to access the corresponding carrier, SSB, SIB1, etc. can be transmitted to enable access).
Regarding Claim 2, Myung discloses transmitting, to the NES cell based on the UL-WUS including the request to start the RACH procedure, a message to initiate the RACH procedure in a RACH occasion associated with the RACH configuration (p. 33: When the BS operates in NES mode, only UL WUS detection (which may be a signal with significantly low reception power, such as low power WUS) is performed on sparse RO (RACH occasion) resources and other reception).
Regarding claim 4, Myung discloses receiving, from the NES cell, the on-demand SIB1 based on the UL-WUS including the request for the on-demand SIB1 (e.g. abstract: transmitting a SIB1 request).
Regarding claim 5, Myung discloses wherein the UL-WUS has a format or an identifier to indicate that the UL-WUS includes the request for the on-demand SIB1 and the request to start the RACH procedure (p. 33: When the carrier/cell operating in NES mode detects the UE's UL WUS, it can begin SSB transmission and full-scale RACH reception based on SI).
Regarding claim 7, Myung discloses the UL-WUS is transmitted with power ramping over multiple repetitions, and wherein the message to initiate the RACH procedure is transmitted using one or more of a transmit power associated with a last repetition, of the multiple repetitions of the UL-WUS, or with a maximum number of repetitions that is based on a number of the multiple repetitions of the UL-WUS (p. 38: If WUS is transmitted to a specific cell based on the received RS power and no response is received, the UL WUS signal may be power ramped up and retransmitted).
Regarding claim 8, Myung discloses adjusting a power ramping step associated with retransmissions of the message to initiate the RACH procedure to not exceed a maximum accumulated power ramp after the maximum number of repetitions (p. 38: the power of the WUS is gradually ramped up by a pre-arranged step size and transmitted. If the UE's maximum power is reached or no response is heard, the number of repeated WUS transmissions (pre-defined or MIB-signaled or RRC signaled) is reduced).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Myung discloses wherein the maximum number of repetitions is based on a power ramping step, a maximum accumulated power ramp, and the transmit power associated with the last repetition, of the multiple repetitions of the UL-WUS (p. 38: the power of the WUS is gradually ramped up by a pre-arranged step size and transmitted. If the UE's maximum power is reached or no response is heard, the number of repeated WUS transmissions (pre-defined or MIB-signaled or RRC signaled) is reduced). If the maximum number of attempts is reached it will not increase the power above this level.
Claims 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 is rejected for similar reasons as stated above. Myung further discloses the UE comprises at least one processor to implement the method described above (p. 3, para 5).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myung in view of Jiang et al. (WO 2025/130768) (priority taken from Chinese application 202311764436.0 filed 12/19/2023) (hereinafter Jiang).
Regarding claim 3. Myung teaches the invention as described above. Myung does not explicitly disclose wherein the UL-WUS has a format or an identifier to indicate that the UL-WUS includes only the request to start the RACH procedure based on acquiring SIB1 associated with the NES cell prior to transmitting the UL-WUS. In analogous art, Jiang discloses another Network energy savings system (P. 46: support for a network energy saving (NES) function; is interpreted as a NES cell as the term is used in a similar manner in the instant specification). Jiang further teaches the UL-WUS has a format or an identifier to indicate that the UL-WUS includes only the request to start the RACH procedure based on acquiring SIB1 associated with the NES cell prior to transmitting the UL-WUS (p. 40: SIB1 is sent in response to a first WUS, and a second WUS triggers RACH monitoring; the system would understand that the second WUS would trigger the RACH monitoring and inherently would understand there must be some distinction between the first system to prevent the RACH from triggering after the first WUS ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of Jiang of utilizing separate wakeup signals into the system of Myung in order to maximize the capacity of network side while saving energy (Jiang: P. 2).
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim(s) 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myung in view of Myung et al. (WO 2024/096713) (hereinafter Myung2).
Regarding claim 13. Myung discloses the invention as described above. Myung does disclose the BS transmitting SSB/SIB information on an anchor cell about the non-anchor component carrier (P. 30: in the case of a UE that has both an anchor CC (component carrier) where SSB/SIB is transmitted periodically and a non-anchor CC where SSB/SIB is transmitted at very long intervals or only a discovery signal is transmitted, The anchor CC can transmit system information (SI) of the non-anchor CC instead, and if the UE needs to access the non-anchor CC based on the help information, it can do so in an on-demand manner through signals such as WUS. SI can be received. At this time, the BS can save energy by not always transmitting SSB/SIB from the non-anchor CC), however does not explicitly disclose acquiring, from an anchor cell prior to transmitting the UL-WUS, information for selecting or reselecting the NES cell, wherein the on-demand SIB1 includes remaining minimum information to initiate the RACH procedure in the NES cell.
In analogous art, Myung2 discloses acquiring, from an anchor cell prior to transmitting the UL-WUS, information for selecting or reselecting the NES cell, wherein the on-demand SIB1 includes remaining minimum information to initiate the RACH procedure in the NES cell (p. 44: In one implementation, in a multi-carrier scenario, the first access object may be an anchor carrier, and the second access object may be a non-anchor carrier. On the anchor carrier, the UE can obtain system information of the anchor carrier and necessary system information of other non-anchor carriers. And the UE can perform at least one of random access (RACH), data transmission, and data reception on the anchor carrier and the non-anchor carrier). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the features of Myung2’s anchor carrier carrying SIB information for non-anchor cells in order to provide an efficient method of saving energy across the network (Myung2: p. 2).
Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myung in view of Cheng et al. (WO 2024/065499) (hereinafter Cheng).
Regarding claim 6, Myung discloses the invention as described above. While Myung discloses power ramping for UL-WUS transmission it is not explicit that the message to initiate the RACH procedure is transmitted using a transmit power or a number of repetitions that is independent from a transmit power or a number of repetitions used to transmit the UL-WUS. In analogous art, Cheng discloses another system for configuration of an uplink wakup signal resource (e.g. abstract) which the message to initiate the RACH procedure is transmitted using a transmit power or a number of repetitions that is independent from a transmit power or a number of repetitions used to transmit the UL-WUS (para 50: separate parameters for the UL WUS transmission/retransmission procedure can be defined). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Cheng’s system of independent transmission parameter selection into Myung’s system to account for transmission variabilities, resulting in a more power efficient system.
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 Joseph E Avellino whose telephone number is (571)272-3905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:00pm.
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. 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.
JOSEPH E. AVELLINO
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478