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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 20 claims computer-readable medium, however, the specification does not positively limit the computer readable medium to be statutory subject matter (see paragraphs 24 and 100 of the specification). Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because a claim that covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when read in light of the specification and in view of one skilled in the art) embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See the OG Notice titled "Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media".
An amendment to these claims adding --non-transitory-- before “computer-readable medium” would overcome this rejection.
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.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cui et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2025/0071855) in view of Mazloum et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2026/0089638).
Regarding claim 1, Cui et al discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (see at least paragraphs 39 [UE]), comprising:
at least one memory (see at least paragraph 39 [memory]); and
at least one processor (see at least paragraph 39 [processor]) coupled to the at least one memory, and based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor (see at least paragraph 39), individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the UE to:
receive synchronization signal (SS) (see at least paragraphs 7 and 110 UE receive configuration information); and
perform a first measurement to validate a timing advance (TA) associated with a configured grant small data transmission (CG-SDT) occasion based on the SS (see at least paragraphs 73 and 110 UE performs TA validation); and at least one of:
based on a successful validation of the TA, during the CG-SDT occasion to transmit a CG-SDT transmission; or wake up, based on an unsuccessful validation of the TA, the MR to start a random access small data transmission (RA-SDT) procedure (see at least paragraphs 116 and 121 determines TA is valid, transmits CG-SDT).
Cui et al specifically does not disclose receive a low-power synchronization
signal (LP SS) via a wake-up radio (WUR), and
wake up main radio (MR).
However, Mazloum et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches the CSI report configuration comprises:
receive a low-power synchronization signal (LP SS) via a wake-up radio (WUR) (see at least paragraph 106 discloses radio node transmits LP WUS using WUR); wake up the MR to communicate using the MR (see at least paragraph 112 discloses activate the MR and monitor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Mazloum et al into the system of Cui et al for purpose of scheduling WUS transmission; provides opportunity to sub-group UEs to be configured to monitor a certain active WUR active time for their WUS.
Regarding claim 2, Cui et al discloses the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to:
receive the TA while in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state or an RRC release command with CG-SDT configuration via the MR (see at least paragraphs 110 discloses receives configuration information during RRC inactive state).
Cui et al specifically does not disclose enter a sleep mode on the MR after reception of the TA or the CG-SDT configuration.
However, Mazloum et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches enter a sleep mode on the MR after reception of the TA or the CG-SDT configuration (see at least paragraph 54 discloses monitors active time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Mazloum et al into the system of Cui et al for purpose of scheduling WUS transmission; provides opportunity to sub-group UEs to be configured to monitor a certain active WUR active time for their WUS.
Regarding claim 3, Cui et al discloses the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: perform a second measurement during a time window that includes the reception of the TA or the CG-SDT configuration via the MR or the WUR (see at least paragraphs 84).
Regarding claim 4, Cui et al discloses the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: compare the first measurement with the second measurement; and at least one of: determine, based on a difference between the first measurement and the second measurement being above a threshold, that the validation of the TA is unsuccessful, or determine, based on the difference between the first measurement and the second measurement being below the threshold, that the validation of the TA is successful (see at least paragraphs 84).
Regarding claim 5, Cui et al discloses to perform the second measurement, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to perform the second measurement via the MR, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: map the second measurement to the WUR (see at least paragraphs 73).
Regarding claim 6, Cui et al discloses to perform the second measurement, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to perform the second measurement via the WUR (see at least paragraphs 73).
Regarding claim 7, Cui et al discloses the first measurement and the second measurement are based on one of a reference signal received power (RSRP), a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), a signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR), or a reference signal received quality (RSRQ) (see at least paragraphs 73).
Regarding claim 8, Cui et al discloses the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: refrain from performing, based on the unsuccessful validation of the TA by the WUR and based on the first measurement being within the time window, a second validation of the TA via the MR (see at least paragraphs 77 invalid TA).
Regarding claim 9, Cui et al discloses the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: perform, based on the unsuccessful validation of the TA by the WUR and based on the first measurement being outside of the time window, a second validation of the TA via the MR (see at least paragraphs 77 invalid TA).
Regarding claim 10, Cui et al discloses to perform the first measurement, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to perform the first measurement while the MR is in the sleep mode (see at least paragraphs 110 discloses measurement period).
Regarding claim 11, Cui et al discloses the CG-SDT configuration is included in the RRC release command (see at least paragraphs 76).
Regarding claim 12, Mazloum et al discloses the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: output an indication of the wake up of the MR during the CG-SDT occasion or the wake up of the MR to start the RA-SDT procedure (see at least paragraphs 109 discloses indication of wake of MR). Same motivation claims 1.
Regarding claim 13, Mazloum et al discloses one or more transceivers or one or more antennas coupled to the at least one processor, wherein to output the indication the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: transmit, via the one or more transceivers or the one or more antennas, the indication of the wake up of the MR during the CG-SDT occasion or the wake up of the MR to start the RA-SDT procedure; or store the indication of the wake up of the MR during the CG-SDT occasion or the wake up of the MR to start the RA-SDT procedure (see at least paragraphs 109 discloses indication of wake of MR). Same motivation claims 1.
Regarding claim 14, Cui et al discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) (see at least paragraphs 39 [UE]), comprising:
receiving synchronization signal (SS) (see at least paragraphs 7 and 110 UE receive configuration information); and
performing a first measurement to validate a timing advance (TA) associated with a configured grant small data transmission (CG-SDT) occasion based on the SS (see at least paragraphs 73 and 110 UE performs TA validation); and at least one of:
based on a successful validation of the TA, during the CG-SDT occasion to transmit a CG-SDT transmission; or wake up, based on an unsuccessful validation of the TA, the MR to start a random access small data transmission (RA-SDT) procedure (see at least paragraphs 116 and 121 determines TA is valid, transmits CG-SDT).
Cui et al specifically does not disclose receiving a low-power synchronization signal (LP SS) via a wake-up radio (WUR), and
waking up main radio (MR).
However, Mazloum et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches the CSI report configuration comprises:
receiving a low-power synchronization signal (LP SS) via a wake-up radio (WUR) (see at least paragraph 106 discloses radio node transmits LP WUS using WUR); waking up the MR to communicate using the MR (see at least paragraph 112 discloses activate the MR and monitor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Mazloum et al into the system of Cui et al for purpose of scheduling WUS transmission; provides opportunity to sub-group UEs to be configured to monitor a certain active WUR active time for their WUS.
Regarding claims 15-19, see above rejection claims 2-5 and 8.
Regarding claim 20, Cui et al discloses a computer-readable medium storing computer executable code at a user equipment (UE) (see at least paragraph 39 [UE]), the code when executed by at least one processor causes the at least one processor to:
receive synchronization signal (SS) (see at least paragraphs 7 and 110 UE receive configuration information); and
perform a first measurement to validate a timing advance (TA) associated with a configured grant small data transmission (CG-SDT) occasion based on the SS (see at least paragraphs 73 and 110 UE performs TA validation); and at least one of:
based on a successful validation of the TA, during the CG-SDT occasion to transmit a CG-SDT transmission; or wake up, based on an unsuccessful validation of the TA, the MR to start a random access small data transmission (RA-SDT) procedure (see at least paragraphs 116 and 121 determines TA is valid, transmits CG-SDT).
Cui et al specifically does not disclose receive a low-power synchronization signal (LP SS) via a wake-up radio (WUR), and
wake up main radio (MR).
However, Mazloum et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches the CSI report configuration comprises:
receive a low-power synchronization signal (LP SS) via a wake-up radio (WUR) (see at least paragraph 106 discloses radio node transmits LP WUS using WUR); wake up the MR to communicate using the MR (see at least paragraph 112 discloses activate the MR and monitor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Mazloum et al into the system of Cui et al for purpose of scheduling WUS transmission; provides opportunity to sub-group UEs to be configured to monitor a certain active WUR active time for their WUS.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art are cited to show a method, which is considered pertinent to the claimed invention:
Li et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2025/0220582) directed toward use of main receiver and a WUR; using a WUS to trigger the main radio.
Molavian Jazi et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2025/0247277) directed toward LP-SS sequence based synchronization signal; LP-WUS received and processed by LP-WUR .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LITON MIAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3124. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am -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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. 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.
/LITON MIAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights