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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/18/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/25/25 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, on page 6, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claim 6 has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Applicant argues that Patil in view of Beale does not disclose all the features of claim 6 because Beale does not disclose state switching control that traverses four distinct states of operation. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Beale discloses in paragraph 67 that a UE performs synchronization and then discloses in paragraph 68 that afterwards the UE performs communication. As shown in Fig. 6 of Beale these are two distinct blocks and thus may be reasonably interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art as corresponding to a first and second state as in the instant claim. Furthermore, paragraph 101 of Beale discloses that the blocks and logic described in the embodiments with Beale may be implemented through integrated circuits, which one of ordinary skill in the art may reasonably interpret as corresponding to the control circuit as in the instant claim. Beale further discloses in paragraph 55 that the UE may be asleep for a time that is less than a threshold or that is greater than a threshold. Furthermore, based on the description in paragraph 55, sleeping is clearly distinct from synchronization and communicating. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art may interpret sleeping less than a threshold as a third state and more than a threshold as a fourth state. While the teachings of paragraph 55 and the teachings of paragraph 67-68 are not directed towards the same embodiment, as paragraph 102 of Beale discloses these embodiments may be combined. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of paragraph 67-68 are directed towards standard communication techniques while paragraph 55 is directed towards a distinct sleeping technique which would not interfere with the teachings of paragraph 67-68, and would thus know that they may be combined. Thus, Patil in view of Beale do disclose all the features of claim 6.
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.
Claim 22 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 term “about 100 ms” in claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what duration of “longer period” falls within the scope of the claim.
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.
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) 6 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil (US 20150109981 A1) in view of Beale (US 20140044027 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Patil discloses:
“A communication device, comprising… a first communication control circuit that repeatedly receives in a first cycle a first signal continuously transmitted during a first signal section from the communication partner device with the communication partner device being in the fourth state; and” ([para 0095]: “The paging windows 410, 415, and 420, paging window intervals, and the transmission windows 411, 416, and 421 are synchronized based on the discovery window 405 of the NAN 100, each being offset a specific amount.” ; [para 0096]: “The discovery window 405 is separated by a fixed time interval 455, and repeats periodically based on fixed time interval 455.”)
“a second communication control circuit that transmits to the communication partner device a second signal synchronized with the first signal received by the first communication control circuit.” ([para 0131]: “The paging window interval is based on the first synchronization information and is transmitted non-concurrently and synchronized with the first synchronization information.”)
Patil does not explicitly disclose “a state switching control circuit that controls switching between a first state in which synchronization is established for communication with a communication partner device, a second state in which the communication is performed after the synchronization is established in the first state, a third state in which the communication is intermittently stopped without disestablishing the synchronization, and a fourth state in which the communication is stopped for a longer period than the third state and when the communication is resumed, synchronization is re-established with the communication partner device.”
However, Beale discloses the missing features:
“a state switching control circuit” ([para 0055]: “In one example, the UE 225 is a low bandwidth UE that enters and leaves a discontinuous receive (DRX) state, according to an example embodiment of this invention.” ; [para 0101]: “Those skilled in the art will recognize that the functional blocks and/or logic elements herein described may be implemented in an integrated circuit for incorporation into one or more of the communication units.”)
“that controls switching between a first state in which synchronization is established for communication with a communication partner device,” ([para 0067]: “In a conventional legacy camp-on procedure, the full or low bandwidth wireless subscriber unit, such as a full or low bandwidth UE, first synchronizes with the base station, such as an eNodeB, as shown in 605.”)
“a second state in which the communication is performed after the synchronization is established in the first state,” ([para 0068]: “The low bandwidth UE or legacy full bandwidth UE then decodes the PBCH in 610, which in one example is also carried on the generally central frequency region of the host carrier control region, e.g. the central region 510 of FIG. 5, where the PBCH includes in particular the Master Information Block (MIB).”)
“a third state in which the communication is intermittently stopped without disestablishing the synchronization,” ([para 0055]: “In contrast, if the UE only sleeps for a few frames, the UE's clocks will not have drifted enough for re-synchronization using the primary synchronization signal (PSS)/secondary synchronization signal (SSS) to be necessary, as the UE will probably already be sufficiently time synchronized to regain accurate synchronization using just the reference symbols within the sub-frame.”)
“and a fourth state in which the communication is stopped for a longer period than the third state and when the communication is resumed, synchronization is re-established with the communication partner device.” ([para 0055]: “When the UE sleeps for a sufficiently long time, it will need to re-synchronize to the network. For example, if the time period that it sleeps exceeds a threshold that is sufficiently large, the wireless communication unit re-synchronizes using synchronisation signals as well as reference symbols (where a reference symbol may consist of a single subcarrier in a single OFDM symbol with a known amplitude and phase.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Patil and Beale, to modify the technique as disclosed by Patil, such that sleeping for a long enough duration requires resynchronization as disclosed by Beale. The motivation for doing so is that by performing synchronization when necessary and only when necessary it improves reliability in an efficient manner. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Patil with Beale to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 22, Patil in view of Beale discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Patil does not explicitly disclose “wherein the longer period than the third state is about 100 ms.”
However, Beale discloses the missing feature “wherein the longer period than the third state is about 100 ms.” ([para 0055]: “When the UE sleeps for a sufficiently long time, it will need to re-synchronize to the network. For example, if the time period that it sleeps exceeds a threshold that is sufficiently large, the wireless communication unit re-synchronizes using synchronisation signals as well as reference symbols (where a reference symbol may consist of a single subcarrier in a single OFDM symbol with a known amplitude and phase.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Patil and Beale, to modify the technique as disclosed by Patil, such that sleeping for a long enough duration requires resynchronization as disclosed by Beale. The motivation for doing so is that by performing synchronization when necessary and only when necessary, it improves reliability in an efficient manner. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Patil with Beale to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 21 of the closest prior arts Patil (US 20150109981 A1) in view of Beale (US 20140044027 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Patil in view of Beale (does not disclose “wherein the third state is a light sleep state in which communication is suspended at a time interval which is in a range of a time division duplexing (TDD) switching time to a time that allows the synchronization between the communication device and the communication partner device to be maintained.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 21 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Regarding claim 23 of the closest prior arts Patil (US 20150109981 A1) in view of Beale (US 20140044027 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Patil (US 20150109981 A1) in view of Beale (US 20140044027 A1) does not disclose “wherein when TDD communication errors occur for a predetermined period in the second state or the third state, the communication device transitions to a fail state, and then transitions to a startup state that prompts a return to the first state.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 23 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Jiang can be reached on (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412