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 filed 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Wang does not teach using an energy-saving level to control which signal is to be received, and that the combination with Cox therefore fails to render the amended limitations obvious.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Cox already discloses a multi-condition signal-selection framework in which the network determines whether a UE receives the WUS (first signal) or legacy paging (second signal) based on two independent gating conditions: (1) whether the UE's coverage level, evaluated via RSRP against a predetermined threshold, is sufficient, and (2) whether the UE has the capability of receiving the WUS and has signaled that capability to the eNB. The signal-selection framework in Cox is thus already a threshold-based, multi-condition AND gate — it is not a single-factor decision. Wang is not relied upon to teach signal selection. Wang is relied upon solely for the proposition that an energy-saving level of a UE is a known condition that the UE signals to the network and that the network uses as the basis for a threshold-based behavioral decision.
Incorporating Wang's energy-saving threshold as a third gating condition into Cox's existing two-condition signal-selection framework is nothing more than the predictable extension of a known design pattern — adding a third known binary condition to an existing two-condition AND gate — yielding the predictable result of further reducing UE power consumption. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so precisely because both Cox and Wang are directed to the same technical objective of reducing UE power consumption in wireless paging systems.
Applicant's hindsight argument is unpersuasive. The motivation to combine is independently grounded in both references and requires no element of Applicant's disclosure to identify.
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 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,13,14,15,16,17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox et al. (US 20200029302, hereinafter Cox) in view of Wang et al. (CN 111418235, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Cox discloses a paging method is applied to a terminal device, wherein the method comprises:
sending first information to a first network device, wherein the first information comprises a signal coverage level of the terminal device (Par. 177: Lines 5-8; The coverage level is provided by the UE to the eNB) and whether the terminal device has a capability of receiving a first signal (Par. 176: Line 1; The use of the wake-up signal (WUS) is based on the capability of the UE; Par. 181: Lines 2-3; The UE signals to the eNB whether or not the UE uses WUS (first signal));
receiving second information from the first network device (Par. 176: Lines 2-5; The network tells the UE that WUS is supported and where to receive it), wherein the second information indicates the terminal device to receive the first signal or a second signal (Par. 179; If the UE was in good coverage before idle and WUS timer doesn’t expire, WUS (first signal) is used; otherwise legacy paging (second signal) is used), the first signal is used to page or wake up the terminal device, the second signal is used to page the terminal device or indicates whether the terminal device receives paging (Par. 179; If the UE was in good coverage before idle and WUS timer doesn’t expire, WUS (first signal) is used; otherwise legacy paging (second signal) is used; The first signal (WUS) is used to wake up the device, the second signal (legacy paging) is used to page the device; The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optional language “or”), formats of the first signal and the second signal are different (Par. 112: Lines 10-15; The WUS (first signal) may be less complicated than a PDCCH (second signal used for paging); Par. 226: Lines 10-11; The WUS uses a lower modulation scheme than the PDCCH), and the formats of the first signal and the second signal each comprise: coding, modulation, or multiple access (Par. 226: Lines 10-11; The WUS uses a lower modulation scheme than the PDCCH; The WUS and paging message (PDCCH) both use modulation schemes. The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optional language “or”);
and receiving, from the first network device, a signal indicated by the second information (Par. 272; The UE receives WUS configuration from the eNB. Depending on the coverage level wakes up at resource indicated by the WUS configuration and determines whether WUS has been received. If the WUS is determined received, the UE wakes up for reception of PDCCH; The gNB tells the UE when and where to listen, and the UE wakes up and receives the corresponding WUS or paging signal accordingly).
Cox further discloses using coverage/measurement thresholds (e.g., reference signal measurement or coverage levels) to decide whether to use the WUS (first signal) or legacy paging (second signal), and to set WUS repetitions based on coverage levels and determining of the device receives the first signal (WUS) (Par. 176: Lines 1-5; The WUS is based on UE capability, with the eNB configuring whether WU is supported for the UE; Par. 179; The WUS can be used if the UE is in good coverage, otherwise legacy paging is used; This is the decision of first vs second signal based on coverage; Par. 180; The UE coverage is evaluated using downlink RSRP, and, if the RSRP is lower than a predetermined threshold, the UE falls back to legacy paging; This is implying that when RSRP is above a threshold the WUS is used) and second information indicating that the terminal device is to receive the first signal when the terminal device has the capability of receiving the first signal (Par. 176: Line 1; The use of the wake-up signal (WUS) is based on the capability of the UE; Par. 181: Lines 2-3; The UE signals to the eNB whether or not the UE uses WUS (first signal); Par. 272; The UE receives WUS configuration from the eNB. Depending on the coverage level wakes up at resource indicated by the WUS configuration and determines whether WUS has been received. If the WUS is determined received, the UE wakes up for reception of PDCCH; The gNB tells the UE when and where to listen, and the UE wakes up and receives the corresponding WUS or paging signal accordingly).
Cox does not disclose wherein the first information further comprises an energy-saving level of the terminal device, and
wherein the second information indicates that the terminal device is to receive the first signal when the energy-saving level of the terminal device is greater than or equal to a second threshold.
Wang, however, discloses the first information comprising an energy-saving level of a device (Page 6: Par. 5: Lines 2-10; The UE determines is battery-based energy-saving state and signals to the network that it is in “energy-saving” mode once the battery level crosses a threshold; That’s an energy-saving condition/level of the UE included in information sent to the network) actions associated when the energy-saving level of the terminal is greater than or equal to a second threshold (Page 6: Par. 5: Lines 2-10; Behavior is changed (entering energy-saving mode) when the threshold condition of the UE power is met; Even though the example is “below a threshold”, it is still a threshold based energy state decision, which is an obvious design choice to invert “greater than” or “less than” of define the “energy-saving” level appropriately).
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 incorporated the energy-saving level indication of Wang into the paging configuration of Cox, so that the network's decision whether to use the low-complexity WUS (first signal) or the conventional legacy paging signal (second signal) further considers the UE's energy-saving level as an additional gating condition alongside Cox's existing coverage threshold and capability conditions. Both references are directed to reducing UE power consumption in wireless communication systems, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them to ensure the low-complexity WUS is selected when the UE's battery is most constrained, thereby further reducing power consumption while maintaining paging reliability. This is a predictable application of a known energy-saving technique to a known paging system.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1, Cox discloses wherein the determining, based on the first information, that the terminal receives the first signal or a second signal comprises:
when the signal coverage level of the terminal device is greater than or equal to a first threshold, the terminal device has the capability of receiving the first signal, determining that the terminal device receives the first signal (Par. 176: Lines 1-5; The WUS is based on UE capability, with the eNB configuring whether WUS is supported for the UE; Par. 179; The WUS can be used if the UE is in good coverage, otherwise legacy paging is used; This is the decision of first vs second signal based on coverage; Par. 180; The UE coverage is evaluated using downlink RSRP, and, if the RSRP is lower than a predetermined threshold, the UE falls back to legacy paging; This implies that when RSRP is above a threshold the WUS is used).
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1, Cox discloses wherein when the first signal is used to page the terminal device, the first signal indicates the terminal device to establish or resume a radio resource control connection (No patentable weight given due to the optional language “or”); or
when the first signal is used to wake up the terminal device, the first signal indicates the terminal device to receive paging via the second signal, wherein the paging indicates the terminal device to establish or resume a radio resource control connection (Par. 189: Lines 1-4; When the WUS (first signal) is detected by the UE, the UE determines in which PO to receive the paging message (second signal); Par. 125: Lines 1-4; The WUS can include IDs of UEs to wake up for monitoring the PDCCH (paging); In standard LTE, the meaning of paging information during a paging occasion is to trigger RRC connection establishment/resume).
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 4, Cox discloses wherein the second signal is used to page the terminal device, the second signal indicates whether the terminal device establishes or resumes the radio control connection (Par. 239: Lines 3-15; After the UE determines the WUS (first signal) is received, it then receives PDCCH/PDSCH in the paging occasion / cDRX as the second signal that carries paging or DL info; In LTE, the paging PDCCH/PDSCH is what instructs the UE whether to establish or resume RRC_Connected, so the second signal indicates whether the UE establishes or resumes the RRC connection); or
when the second signal indicates whether the terminal device receives paging, the second signal indicates whether the terminal device receives paging on at least one paging occasion, wherein the paging indicates whether the terminal device establishes or resumes the radio resource control connection (No patentable weight is given due to the optional language “or”).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 addresses the limitations presented in claim 7. Therefore, the limitations of claim 7 have been addressed.
An apparatus capable of performing the recited functions necessarily includes a processor and a transceiver.
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 7, the rejection of claim 2 addresses the limitations presented in claim 8. Therefore, the limitations of claim 8 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 7, the rejection of claim 3 addresses the limitations presented in claim 9. Therefore, the limitations of claim 9 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 7, the rejection of claim 4 addresses the limitations presented in claim 10. Therefore, the limitations of claim 10 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 10, the rejection of claim 5 addresses the limitations presented in claim 11. Therefore, the limitations of claim 11 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 addresses the limitations presented in claim 13. Therefore, the limitations of claim 13 have been addressed.
Performing the recited functions necessarily includes a non-transitory, computer readable storage medium storing information comprising instructions executed by a processor.
Regarding claim 14 as applied to claim 13, the rejection of claim 2 addresses the limitations presented in claim 14. Therefore, the limitations of claim 14 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 15 as applied to claim 13, the rejection of claim 3 addresses the limitations presented in claim 15. Therefore, the limitations of claim 15 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 16 as applied to claim 13, the rejection of claim 4 addresses the limitations presented in claim 16. Therefore, the limitations of claim 16 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 17 as applied to claim 13, the rejection of claim 5 addresses the limitations presented in claim 17. Therefore, the limitations of claim 17 have been addressed.
Claims 6,12,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox et al. (US 20200029302, hereinafter Cox) in view of Wang et al. (CN 111418235, hereinafter Wang) in further view of Marupaduga et al. (US 10659978, hereinafter Marupaduga).
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1, Cox in view of Wang does not disclose wherein the first information is sent when the terminal device is attached or when a tracking area is updated.
Marupaduga, however, discloses wherein the first information is sent when the terminal device is attached or when a tracking area is updated (Col. 2: Line 16-24; When the UE enters coverage and detects adequate strength, it performs RRC setup with the network and then carries out attach signaling to register for service).
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 Cox in view of Wang’s determination whether to use the wake-up signal or legacy paging based on coverage levels and thresholds and UE capability with Marupaduga’s UE attaching only after detecting threshold-strong coverage of an access node, given that Cox in view of Wang and Marupaduga base their behavior on coverage-related thresholds. Including Cox’s “first information” (coverage level and WUS capability) in the attach procedure of Marupaduga would allow the network to immediately configure paging/WUS behavior at the time of attach, reducing latency signaling and improving power management.
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 addresses the limitations presented in claim 12. Therefore, the limitations of claim 12 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 18 as applied to claim 13, the rejection of claim 6 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
Prosecution Insights