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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I and species a, claims 3-5 [including generic 1-2, 6 and 20] in the reply filed on 1-28-2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner has not distinctly established a serious search or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because the groups are directed to different devices, performing different methods and each species requires a different type of node and or technique; thereby, a different search. Therefore, establishing a serious search and examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims contain a typographical error for the word “synchronisation”, for the office action the word has been modified to synchronization. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitations: “An apparatus, comprising:”, and later “an apparatus comprising a wake-up receiver and a main radio receiver”. It is unclear if the apparatus comprising a wake-up receiver and a main radio receiver refers to the initial apparatus, or if they are two different apparatus. The rest of the claims start with: “an apparatus”, since parent claim appear to recite more than one apparatus, it is unclear to which apparatus the claims refer. Please, clarify.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites a plurality of steps with the word “optionally” which makes unclear which limitations are required. Please, clarify.
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) 1-6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou 11849392.
As to claim 1, Lou discloses an apparatus [102], comprising:
at least one processor [118]; and at least one memory [130,132] including computer program code (see fig. 1B; col. 5, lines 36-45), the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform (see col. 32, lines 51-58):
determining that a wake-up signal receiver, or an apparatus comprising a wake- up receiver and a main radio receiver, is a candidate to implement “discontinuous reception” [inherent to use WUR] (see col. 14, lines 8-22);
assessing a signal received by the apparatus from a transmitting network node [1002] (see col. 14, lines 36-40; col. 29, lines 62-64); and
requesting, based upon the assessment of the signal received, transmission of a timing synchronization beacon [WUR beacons/synchronization signals] (see col. 15, lines 22-30) to support implementation of “discontinuous reception” by the wake-up signal receiver from at least one transmitting network node [1016] (see col. 16, lines 16-25; col. 23, lines 48-55; col. 30, lines 17-22). Although, Lou does not explicitly recite the words discontinuous reception, as seen in the abstract of Lou the STA turn off its radios for a negotiated period to enter in a low power mode and turn on to receive data or communicate, it will be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art that’s the definition of discontinuous reception. Therefore, it would have been obvious to of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that Lou describes and implement discontinuous reception for the simple purpose to minimize power consumption and maximize battery life.
As to claim 2, Lou discloses an apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the assessing comprises the at least one memory and the computer program code further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to assess whether a timing synchronization beacon to support implementation of discontinuous reception by the wake-up signal receiver is being transmitted from a transmitting network node [STA 808 may monitor for WUR beacons/synchronization signals over the primary WUR channel 801 to confirm connectivity and acquire timing information] (see col. 23, lines 32-67). Although, Lou does not explicitly recite the words discontinuous reception, as seen in the abstract the STA turn off its radios for a negotiated period to enter in a low power mode and turn on to receive data or communicate, it will be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art that’s the definition of discontinuous reception. Therefore, it would have been obvious to of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that Lou describes and implement discontinuous reception for the simple purpose to minimize power consumption and maximize battery life.
As to claim 3, Lou discloses an apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the assessing comprises the at least one memory and the computer program code further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to assess whether a strength of signal received from a transmitting network node is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold [the STA 908 detects a signal on the WUR channel 901 with an energy level below a threshold energy level that the STA 908 cannot decode] (see col. 27, lines 60-63).
As to claim 4, Lou discloses an apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the predetermined threshold [claim deficiency: instead of further defining the apparatus, the claim define the threshold used by the apparatus] comprises a signal strength at which a signal from a transmitting node is received at the apparatus indicative that a timing signal beacon transmitted by the transmitting network node [possibility] could be received by the wake-up signal receiver [the STA 908 detects a signal on the WUR channel 901 with an energy level below a threshold energy level that the STA 908 cannot decode] (see col. 23, lines 32-67; col. 27, lines 60-63).
As to claim 5, Lou discloses an apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the predetermined threshold [claim deficiency: instead of further defining the apparatus, the claim define the threshold used by the apparatus] depends upon: wake-up signal receiver [the STA 908 detects a signal on the WUR channel 901 with an energy level below a threshold energy level that the STA 908 cannot decode] (see col. 23, lines 32-67; col. 27, lines 60-63), and optionally wherein the predetermined threshold depends upon: transmitting network node type; and optionally wherein the transmitting network node type comprises at least one of: a network access node; a synchronization reference network node of a sidelink group of which the apparatus is a member; and a transmitting network node which is a member of a sidelink group of which the apparatus is also member. Although, Lou does not explicitly recite wake-up signal receiver sensitivity, it should be inherent that the sensitivity of any receiver will affect the reception of the signal and since Lou disclose an energy level below a threshold energy level that the STA cannot decode, it is obvious that the predetermined threshold depends on the sensitivity of the receiver been able to decode the signal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that the predetermined threshold depends on the sensitivity of the receiver for the simple purpose of decoding the signal and been able to receive the data correctly.
As to claim 6, Lou discloses an apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform: selecting a transmitting network node to send a request, based upon the assessment of the signal received [1016] (see col. 14, lines 36-40; col. 29, lines 62-64; col. 16, lines 16-25; col. 23, lines 48-55; col. 30, lines 17-22). Although, Lou does not explicitly recite selecting a transmitting network node to send a request, it should be inherent that to send a request, a determination or selection of where to send the request is required in order to send the message, since Lou discloses based upon the assessment of the signal received sending a request, selecting a transmitting network node to send a request is implied. Therefore, it would have been obvious to of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention selecting a transmitting network node to send a request for the simple purpose of transmitting the request to enable sync with node to maintain the communication.
Regarding claim 20, is the corresponding method claim of apparatus claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as shown above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights