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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1,11,19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1,4,11,14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 20200245317, hereinafter Hwang) in view of ElArabawy et al. (US 20210185592, hereinafter ElArabawy).
Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses a communication method applicable to a terminal device, the method comprising:
obtaining time information for determining a first time period and a second time period (Par. 8: Lines 3-8; UE obtains time information (first and second offset information) that define relative times of the specific signal vs. the specific channel; Par. 9: Lines 5-14; The first and second time offset information is received by the UE. The UE monitors the specific signal at a time position based on the first and second offset information);
receiving a first signal from a first network device in the first time period, wherein the first signal is configured for paging or waking up the terminal device (Par. 288: Lines 14-24; WUS (wake up signal) is “signal-A” and the paging NPDCCH is “channel-B”; Par. 373: Lines 1-4; The UE monitors the transmission of signal-A (WUS) at a time position determined by the time offset);
and receiving a second signal from the first network device in the second time period, wherein the second signal is configured for paging the terminal device (Par. 375: Lines 1-4; After receiving the WUS at the first time position, the UE may monitor the specific channel-B (NPDCCH) at a subsequent time position based on time offset information), or the second signal indicates to the terminal device whether to receive paging (No patentable weight given due to the optional language “or”), wherein
a signal format of the first signal and a signal format of the second signal are different (Par. 285: Lines 3-9; The second signal (paging NPDCCH) has a control-channel style format: it carries DCI, has a CRC, and the CRC is scrambled with an RNTI; Par. 357; Signal-A (WUS) is defined as a Zadoff-Chu-based sequence; Par. 380; Signal-A (WUS) is a physical signal and channel-B (paging NPDCCH) is a physical control channel; physical signal and control channel are different types and have different structures).
The limitation “wherein a signal format of the first signal and a signal format of the second signal are different in terms of modulation and multiple access scheme” is interpreted under BRI as requiring that the formats of the two signals differ with respect to how modulation and multiple access are structured or applied, and does not require that the first signal use a completely different underlying modulation scheme or a completely different underlying multiple access scheme from the second signal. The claim recites differences in signal format in terms of modulation and multiple access, rather than expressly requiring different modulation schemes and different multiple access schemes.
Under this interpretation, Hwang discloses that signal-A (WUS) is a Zadoff-Chu sequence–based physical signal, whereas channel-B (paging NPDCCH) is a physical control channel carrying DCI, including CRC and RNTI scrambling. These signals are structurally different in how they are generated, encoded, and mapped for transmission. Accordingly, the signal format of the first signal and the signal format of the second signal are different in terms of modulation and multiple access structure, as one is a sequence-based physical signal and the other is a control channel format with coded control information, thereby satisfying the claimed limitation.
While signaling using multiple access (MA) schemes requires a modulation and coding scheme (MCS), signaling using a MCS is not explicitly taught by Hwang. ElArabawy, however, teaches sending data using a MA scheme according to an appropriate MCS (Par. 55: Lines 4-6; Data is transmitted using MU-OFDMA (MA scheme) according to the mandated MCS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the signaling of Hwang using a multiple access scheme according to an appropriate modulation and coding scheme as taught by ElArabawy, since it was well known that transmissions over multiple access systems are performed using a selected modulation and coding scheme compatible with the access technique. Applying a known MCS to the signaling framework of Hwang would have been a predictable implementation detail and would not have altered the structural differences between the first signal and the second signal, which already differ in format as discussed above.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1, Hwang discloses wherein the time information includes first time period information and second time period information (Par. 8: Lines 3-8; UE obtains time information (first and second offset information) that define relative times of the specific signal vs. the specific channel; Par. 9: Lines 5-14; The first and second time offset information is received by the UE. The UE monitors the specific signal at a time position based on the first and second offset information), the first time period information is for determining the first time period, and the second time period information is for determining the second time period (Par. 15; The first and second time offset information may indicate a time offset between reception ending time of the specific signal and a reception starting time of the specific channel; Par. 16; The first and second time offset information may indicate a time offset between a reception starting time of the specific signal and reception starting time of the specific channel; The first and second time offset information are used to determine the time position of the signal relative to the channel), wherein the first time period information includes at least one of: a first cycle, a first start position, a first offset (Par. 8: Lines 3-8; The first time information includes a time offset), or first duration, or the first time period information includes a first timer (The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optional language “or”); and the second time period information includes at least one of: a second cycle, a second start position, a second offset (Par. 8: Lines 3-8; The second time information includes a time offset), or second duration, or the second time period information includes a second timer (The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optional language “or”).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 addresses the limitations presented in claim 11. Therefore, the limitations of claim 11 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 4 addresses the limitations presented in claim 14. Therefore, the limitations of claim 14 have been addressed.
Claims 2,12,19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 20200245317, hereinafter Hwang) in view of ElArabawy et al. (US 20210185592, hereinafter ElArabawy) in further view of JI et al. (WO 2018170896, hereinafter JI).
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1, Hwang discloses a first signal (WUS) and a second signal (paging message) as described in the rejection of claim 1.
Hwang in view of ElArabawy, however, does not disclose wherein the first signal indicates the terminal device to receive the paging by using the format of the second signal.
JI, however, discloses an indication signal that explicitly indicates a signal format of the PDCCH signal (Page. 8: Lines 35-36; The indication information is used to indicate a signal format of the PDCCH; The network chooses and signals the format, which the UE uses to interpret the paging/system-message signaling).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Hwang in view of ElArabawy’s WUS with JI’s teaching of explicitly signaling the PDCCH paging format, so that Hwang in view of ElArabawy’s first signal (the WUS) would also indicate which paging format the UE should use when receiving the upcoming paging message. JI teaches that providing the paging format in an indication signal helps the UE correctly interpret paging while reducing power consumption, so applying that known benefit to Hwang in view of ElArabawy’s WUS would have been a predictable and straightforward design choice.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 2 addresses the limitations presented in claim 12. Therefore, the limitations of claim 12 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 1 and 2 addresses the limitations presented in claim 19. Therefore, the limitations of claim 19 have been addressed.
Claim 3,13,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 20200245317, hereinafter Hwang) in view of ElArabawy et al. (US 20210185592, hereinafter ElArabawy) in further view of Wang et al. (CN 110557810, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1, Hwang discloses a first time period (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1).
Hwang in view of ElArabawy, does not disclose wherein in the first time period, the terminal device satisfies at least one of:
a random access process not being performed,
service data not being received and/or sent, and
a receiving circuit of the terminal device including a passive circuit or a semi-active circuit.
Wang, however, discloses the terminal device consisting of a passive circuit (Par. 13: Line 50 and Par. 14: Lines 1-4; The UE may use a passive energy-detection receiver for detecting the WUS. The passive receiver is implemented as a passive receiving circuit) The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optional language “or”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the WUS-based wake-up and paging scheme of Hwang in view of ElArabawy with Wang’s teaching of using a passive WUS receiving circuit, so that during the first time period in which the WUS is received, the terminal uses a passive (or semi-active) receiving circuit instead of a full-power data RF chain, thereby reducing power consumption while idle and monitoring for paging as a predictable design choice in low-power WUS/paging operation.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 3 addresses the limitations presented in claim 13. Therefore, the limitations of claim 13 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 3 addresses the limitations presented in claim 20. Therefore, the limitations of claim 20 have been addressed.
Claims 5,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 20200245317, hereinafter Hwang) in view of ElArabawy et al. (US 20210185592, hereinafter ElArabawy) in further view of Geekie et al. (US 10390305, hereinafter Geekie).
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1, Hwang in view of ElArabawy does not disclose wherein the first time period includes a time other than a paging time window (PTW) in an extended discontinuous reception (eDRX) cycle, and the second time period includes a time corresponding to the PTW in the eDRX cycle; or
the first time period includes a time corresponding to a mobile initiated connection only (MICO) mode, and the second time period includes active time.
Geekie however discloses wherein the first time period includes a time other than a paging time window (PTW) in an extended discontinuous reception (eDRX) cycle (Col. 14: 25-27: The first clock may be used as a source for the timer during selected portions of an eDRX cycle (e.g., during a sleep state); Col. 15: Lines 39-40; The PTW is an awake state of the eDRX cycle; The eDRX cycle is being divided into a sleep state (outside the PTW) and the awake state (corresponding to PTW), so the first time period corresponds to a time other than the PTW within the eDRX cycle), and the second time period includes a time corresponding to the PTW in the eDRX cycle (Col. 14: 27-37: The second clock may be used as a source for the timer during selected portions of an eDRX cycle (e.g., during a paging time window); Col. 15: Lines 39-40; The PTW is an awake state of the eDRX cycle; The UE operates in an awake state during the PTW of the eDRX cycle, so the second time period corresponds to the time of the PTW within the eDRX cycle) The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optional language “or”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second time periods of Hwang in view of ElArabawy’s WUS/paging scheme to follow Geekie’s eDRX timing structure (using a first period outside the PTW and a second period within the PTW) in order to align WUS/paging reception with standardized eDRX sleep/awake behavior and reduce UE power consumption while maintaining reliable paging reception, which is a predictable use of a known timing arrangement in the art.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 5 addresses the limitations presented in claim 15. Therefore, the limitations of claim 15 have been addressed.
Claims 6,7,16,17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 20200245317, hereinafter Hwang) in view of ElArabawy et al. (US 20210185592, hereinafter ElArabawy) in further view of Xie et al. (US 11202269, hereinafter Xie).
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1, Hwang discloses a first and second signal (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1) and using a first indication (WUS/CWUS) to cause the UE to monitor the paging channel during a particular paging occasion in a paging time window (i.e., to receive the second signal at a specific time). Hwang in view ElArabawy does not disclose wherein obtaining the time information comprises:
receiving first indication information from a second network device, wherein the first indication information indicates the terminal device to receive the first signal or the second signal based on time information; and
determining the time information based on the first indication information.
Xie, however, discloses receiving first indication information from a second network device (Col. 2: Lines 30-33; The network device sends indication information to a terminal device), wherein the first indication information indicates the terminal device to receive the first signal or the second signal based on the time information (Col. 3: Lines 41-59; The indication information carries time information the UE uses to derive when to communicate), and
determining the time information based on the first indication information (Col. 15: Lines 27-49; The indication information explicitly carries a time deviation. The UE parses this from the indication and uses it to calculate its own timing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hwang in view of ElArabawy’s WUS-based indication so that the WUS (first indication information) further carries time information as taught by Xie, because both references address the same problem of aligning UE behavior with network transmission timing to avoid failed receptions and reduce wasted power. A POSITA would recognize that using an indication containing explicit time information (e.g., a time deviation or timing advance) in Hwang in view of ElArabawy’s WUS context is simply applying a known timing-signaling technique to the closely related problem of when the UE should monitor for paging. Doing so would predictably cause the WUS/indication in Hwang in view of ElArabawy to instruct the UE to receive the first signal (WUS) or the second signal (paging message) based on time information, as claimed, without requiring any change in the underlying paging/WUS principles.
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 6, Hwang in view of ElArabawy does not disclose wherein
the first indication information carries the time information;
the first indication information indicates the terminal device to determine the time information by using an extended discontinuous reception (eDRX) parameter;
or the first indication information indicates the terminal device to determine the time information by using a mobile initiated connection only (MICO) mode parameter.
Xie, however, discloses wherein the first indication information carries the time information (Col. 15: Lines 53-56; The indication information carries time deviation; Col. 16: Lines 9-14; The indication information carries a total time advance) The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optional language “or”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hwang in view of ElArabawy’s WUS-based indication to further carry time information as taught by Xie, because both references address the practical need for the UE to align its monitoring/transmission behavior with network timing to avoid missed paging and reduce unnecessary wake-ups. A POSITA would recognize that adding explicit timing information to an existing WUS/indication mechanism is simply using a known timing-signaling technique (Xie) to improve the reliability and efficiency of a closely related paging procedure (Hwang in view of ElArabawy), and would predictably allow the indication to carry the time information as recited.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 6 addresses the limitations presented in claim 16. Therefore, the limitations of claim 16 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 7 addresses the limitations presented in claim 17. Therefore, the limitations of claim 17 have been addressed.
Claim 8,9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 20200245317, hereinafter Hwang) in view of ElArabawy et al. (US 20210185592, hereinafter ElArabawy) in further view of Chandramouli (WO 2021063909, hereinafter Chandramouli).
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1, Hwang in view of ElArabawy does not disclose sending a request message to the second network device, wherein the request message requests the second network device to send the time information, or the request message indicates time information requested by the terminal device.
Chandramouli, however, discloses sending a request message to the second network device, wherein the request message requests the second network device to send the time information (No patentable weight given due to the optional language “or”), or the request message indicates time information requested by the terminal device (Page. 26: Lines 33-34 and Page. 27: Lines 5-8; The UE sends a request to the network including paging information indicating a first and second periodicity – i.e., the first and second time periods).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the UE’s registration (or request) message in Hwang in view of ElArabawy to additionally carry requested time information as taught by Chandramouli, because both references rely on the UE providing timing-related parameters to the network so the network can coordinate paging behavior. A POSITA would recognize that including first/second time-period information in an uplink request message is a predictable and routine way to inform the network of the UE’s desired paging timing, improving alignment and reducing paging delay.
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 8, Hwang in view of ElArabawy does not disclose wherein
the time information requested by the terminal device includes requested time information and/or capability information,
the requested time information includes first time period information and second time period information expected by the terminal device, and
the capability information indicates the terminal device supports a capability of receiving the paging based on the signal format of the first signal, or the capability information indicates signal format information used when the paging is received and is supported by the terminal device.
Chandramouli, however, discloses the requested time information includes first time period information and second time period information expected by the terminal device (Page. 26: Lines 33-34 and Page. 27: Lines 5-8; The UE sends a request to the network including paging information indicating a first periodicity for a first connection and second periodicity for a second connection – i.e., the first and second time periods).
Because claim 9 depends from claim 8 and I am relying on the branch of claim 8 directed to “the request message indicates time information requested by the terminal device,” only the portion of claim 9 that further limits the requested time information (i.e., first and second time period information expected by the terminal) needs to be addressed in this rejection; the alternative “capability information” language is not reached under this branch.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to treat the first and second periodicities carried in the UE’s request/registration message as requested time information including first and second time period information expected by the UE, as in claim 9. Once the UE is already sending paging-related timing parameters to the network (as in claim 8), a POSITA would recognize that specifying both a first and a second periodicity in that same message is a routine way to convey the UE’s expected paging timing for different connections, enabling the network to schedule paging accordingly and thereby reduce paging failures and latency.
Claim 10,18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 20200245317, hereinafter Hwang) in view of ElArabawy et al. (US 20210185592, hereinafter ElArabawy) in further view of Geekie et al. (US 10390305, hereinafter Geekie) in further view of Jian et al. (CN 110167107, hereinafter Jian).
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 1, Hwang in view of ElArabawy does not disclose further comprising at least one of:
if the first time period overlaps a time other than a paging time window (PTW) in an extended discontinuous reception (eDRX) cycle, determining to receive the paging based on the signal format of the first signal in the first time period;
if the first time period overlaps the time corresponding to the PTW in the eDRX cycle, determining to receive the paging based on the signal format of the second signal in the first time period;
if the second time period overlaps the time corresponding to the eDRX cycle, determining to receive the paging based on the signal format of the second signal in the second time period;
if the first time period overlaps the time corresponding to a mobile initiated connection only (MICO) mode, determining to receive the paging based on the signal format of the first signal in the first time period;
if the first time period overlaps an active time, determining to receive the paging based on the signal format of the second signal in the first time period; or
if the second time period overlaps the time corresponding to the MICO mode or a time corresponding to the active time, determining to receive the paging based on the signal format of the second signal in the second time period.
Geekie, however, discloses the first time period overlaps a time other than a paging time window (PTW) in an extended discontinuous reception (eDRX) cycle (Col. 14: 25-27: The first clock may be used as a source for the timer during selected portions of an eDRX cycle (e.g., during a sleep state); Col. 15: Lines 39-40; The PTW is an awake state of the eDRX cycle; The eDRX cycle is being divided into a sleep state (outside the PTW) and the awake state (corresponding to PTW), so the first time period corresponds to a time other than the PTW within the eDRX cycle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply Geekie’s eDRX timing structure (sleep state outside the PTW vs. awake PTW) to Hwang in view of ElArabawy’s DRX/WUS operation so that the first time period corresponds to a time other than the PTW within the eDRX cycle. Both Hwang in view of ElArabawy and Geekie are directed to power-efficient paging and DRX behavior, and using Geekie’s standard eDRX partitioning to interpret Hwang in view of ElArabawy’s WUS timing is a routine design choice that predictably aligns Hwang in view of ElArabawy’s wake-up behavior with the standardized eDRX cycle.
Geekie does not disclose determining to receive the paging based on the signal format of the first signal in the first time period.
Jian, however, discloses determining to receive the paging based on the signal format of the first signal in the first time period (Par. 5: Lines 43-48; If the UE detects a WUS signal with a first sequence, the corresponding PDCCH (paging) needs to be detected in the next DRX period. If the UE detects a WUS signal with a second sequence, there is no need to detect a corresponding PDCCH in the next DRX period).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Hwang in view of ElArabawy as applied to Geekie so that, when the first time period overlaps a time other than the PTW, the UE determines whether to receive paging based on the format (sequence) of the first signal as taught by Jian. Hwang in view of ElArabawy and Geekie already use WUS/paging in DRX/eDRX for power saving, and Jian teaches a known technique of encoding “wake” vs. “sleep” behavior in the WUS sequence format to avoid unnecessary paging monitoring. Applying Jian’s sequence-based decision logic in Hwang in view of ElArabawy’s WUS framework during Geekie’s eDRX sleep portion would be a straightforward, predictable way to further reduce UE power consumption while maintaining reliable paging reception.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 10 addresses the limitations presented in claim 18. Therefore, the limitations of claim 18 have been addressed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FABIAN BOTELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-4439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/FABIAN BOTELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648