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 .
2. This communication is response to claims filed on 09/18/26.
3. Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13-18 & 20-24 are presented for examination.
4. Claims 1, 3,5, 9-10, 13-15, 18 & 20 are amended.
5. Claims 2, 4, 12 & 19 are canceled.
6. Claims 21-24 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant amendment filed on 09/18/26, with regards to specification objection (title) has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the specification objection to the claim is withdrawn.
8. Applicant amendment filed on 09/18/26, with regards to claim objection (Claims 28-36) has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the objection to the claim is withdrawn.
9. Applicant's arguments and amendment filed on 09/18/26, regarding to a 102 & 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are moot with the new ground of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
Claims Objections
10. Claims 14-17, 20 & 24 are objected to because of minor informalities:
11. Claim 14, in part, recites, “…a terminal device, comprising a processor:…in line 1. It’s suggested to change it to: “a terminal device, comprising: a processor [[:]]”
12. Claim 18 are also objected for the same reason as claim 14 above.
13. Claims 15-17, 20 & 24 are also objected since they are dependent upon objected independent claims set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
14. 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.
15. Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13-18 & 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
16. Claim 1 reads as follows: “a method of wireless communication, applied to a terminal device, comprising:
determining, according to an energy harvesting state of the terminal device, whether the terminal device is able to complete at least one processing process; and
when it is determined that the terminal device is unable to complete the at least one processing process, determining at least one target processing process according to a priority of the at least one processing process,
wherein the method further comprises:
determining at least one processing process which is to be completed within a target time interval; and
determining the energy harvesting state corresponding to the target time interval,
wherein the target time interval is associated with at least one of a capability of the terminal device or a signal measurement result.”
17. Based on an entire review of the applicant’s disclosure and the guidance in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (hereafter 2019 PEG), it appears that a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of at least claims 1, 2, 6-8, 10-16, 18 and 19 is warranted for being drawn to patent ineligible subject matter. Please consider the following:
Eligibility Step 1 of the 2019 PEG: Whether the Claim is to a Statutory Category
(YES): Claim 1 is drawn to a process applied to a terminal device. Thus, the subject matter of claim 1 appears to fall squarely within one of the four statutory categories of invention outlined in M.P.E.P. 2106.03.
Eligibility Step 2A- Prong 1 in the 2019 PEG: Whether the Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception
(YES): There are claim limitations that recite an "abstract idea" and the limitations that recite the “abstract idea” are highlighted below in bold-face:
determining, …, whether the terminal device is able to complete at least one processing process; and when it is determined that the terminal device is unable to complete the at least one processing process,
determining at least one target processing process according to a priority of the at least one processing process,
determining at least one processing process which is to be completed within a target time interval,
determining the energy harvesting state corresponding to the target time interval,
18. The above highlighted steps of claim 1 appear to represent the “abstract idea” of a Mental Processes, more specifically, “concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”.
The above recited steps of claim 1 do not appear to recite the use of any specific process for the two “…determining…”, “…determining….determining…determining….” steps. More precisely, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim 1’s recitation of the two “determining” steps represent Mental Processes of observing or evaluating and judging.
Eligibility Step 2A- Prong 2 in the 2019 PEG: Whether the Claim Recites Additional Elements that as a Whole Integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application of the Judicial Exception
(No): One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). In the instant case, para. [0003] and [0004] of applicants’ specification teaches the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
178
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is emphasized that a review of claim 1 itself does not appear to recite, with any specificity, a process that reflects the improvement of the functioning of a computer or improvement in another technology or technical field.
19. Independent claims 1 and 10 recite the additional element of a “terminal device” for which the process recited in claim 1 is applied to. The recitation of the “terminal device” for which the process of claim 1 is applied appears to represent a generic device on which the claimed method (e.g., determining limitations) and does not appear to integrate the judicial exception or provide significantly more. Claim 1 as a whole is directed to a Judicial Exception as set forth for in the explanation provided for claim 1 above.
20. Claims 14 and 18 recite the additional element of a “processor”, “memory” and a “computer program”, but the “processor”, the “memory” and the “computer program” appear to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claimed “processor”, “memory” and a “computer program” appear to be invoked as tools to implement the two determining steps. But it appears that simply implementing the abstract idea on a processor using computer program does not appear to represent an integration of a judicial exception into a practical application. Guidance in 2019 PEG indicates that for a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. As stated earlier, here, there does not appear to be any evidence that the “processor”, the “memory” and the “computer program” carry out the above recited “abstract idea” in a way that transforms the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible practical application of the judicial exception.
Consequently, it does not appear that the above-described additional elements recited in claims 1, 10, 14 and 18 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception as required by “Eligibility Step 2A- Prong 2 in the 2019 PEG.”
Eligibility Step 2B in the 2019 PEG: Whether the Claim Amounts to Significantly More by the Additional Elements being an Inventive Concept
(No): Under this step the identified additional elements are analyzed individually and combined with the judicial exception to determine whether the additional elements amount to an inventive concept M.P.E.P. 2106.05(I)(a).
But the additional element in claims 1 and 10 of “terminal device” do not appear to amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea as outlined in M.P.E.P. 2106.05(a) - (h). More precisely, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in claims 1 and 10 represent a process applying the exception using a device which applicants recite as a “terminal device.” The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., a process applied to a terminal device without any limitations specifying how to achieve the process does not appear to improve a technology or technical field. Stated differently, a claim whose entire scope represents a mental process cannot be said to improve computer technology or a technical field. Thus, claims 1 and 10 do not appear to provide any improvement to a technology or technical field.
Independent claims 1,14 and 18 recites a device including a “processor”, a “memory” and a “computer program” configured to essentially perform the method of claims 1 and 10. The recitation of the processor, the memory and the computer program to apply the judicial exception appears to contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., the two determining limitations) does not appear to integrate the judicial exception or provide significantly more. Claims 14 and 18 as a whole are directed to a Judicial Exception as set forth for claims 1 and 10 above.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of a “processor”, a “memory” and a “computer program” but the “processor”, the “memory” and the “computer program” appear to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception to a terminal device. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claimed “processor”, “memory” and “computer program” appear to be invoked as tools to implement the two determining steps. But it appears that simply implementing the abstract idea on a “processor”, a “memory” and a “computer program” do not appear to represent an integration of a judicial exception into a practical application. Guidance in 2019 PEG indicates that for a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Here, there does not appear to be any evidence that the “processor”, the “memory” and the “computer program” used to carry out the above recited “abstract idea” transforms the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible practical application of the judicial exception.
Consequently, it does not appear that the above-described additional elements recited in claims 14 and 18 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception as required by “Eligibility Step 2A- Prong 2 in the 2019 PEG.”
Dependent claims 3, 5-9, 11, 13, 15-17, 20 and 22-24 do not appear to transform the patent ineligible subject matter of claims 1, 10, 14 and 18 into patent eligible subject matter. More specifically, these claims do not appear to add concrete structural or technical limitations and do not appear to provide “significantly more” to the recited abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
21. 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
22. Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13-18 & 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ni Scanaill et al. (hereinafter referred as Ni Scanaill) U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2017/0170675 A1, in view of Song et al. (hereinafter referred as Song) US Patent Application publication No. 2012/0256492 A1.
Regarding claims 1 & 14: Ni Scanaill discloses a terminal device (See FIG. 1A & Para. 0029; IoT device 10)/method, comprising
a processor (See FIG. 1A & Para. 0029; IoT device 10 includes a controller module 24) and
a memory (See FIG. 7 & Para. 0044; main memory 201) configured to store a computer program, wherein the processor is configured to invoke and run the computer program stored in the memory to:
determine whether the terminal device is able to complete at least one processing process according to an energy harvesting state of the terminal device (See FIG. 5 & Para. 0034-0037; The voltage comparison 104 may include comparing the output voltage V.sub.cap of the supercapacitor 14 and the output voltage V.sub.batt of the secondary battery 20 to determine if the output voltage V.sub.cap exceeds the V.sub.batt. If the V.sub.cap does not exceed the V.sub.batt, energy demanding task is rescheduled to the queue to delay the energy demanding task until either the supercapacitor 14 is sufficient to perform the energy demanding task); and
when it is determined that the terminal device is unable to complete the at least one processing process, determine at least one target processing process according to a priority of the at least one processing process (See FIG. 5 & Para. 0034-0037; The total energy evaluation 106 may include evaluating the output voltage V.sub.cap of the supercapacitor 14 and the output voltage V.sub.batt of the secondary battery 20 to determine if sufficient power for performing the schedule energy demanding task may be provided from the supercapacitor 14, the secondary battery 20 and combination thereof. this configuration allows delaying high energy demand, low priority tasks to allow the supercapacitor 14 to be sufficiently charged to be the sole power provider for the scheduled task and avoid any discharge of the secondary battery).
Ni Scanaill does not explicitly disclose determine at least one processing process which is to be completed within a target time interval; and
determine the energy harvesting state corresponding to the target time interval,
wherein the target time interval is associated with at least one of a capability of the terminal device or a signal measurement result.
However, Song from the same field of endeavor discloses determine at least one processing process which is to be completed within a target time interval (See Para. 0062-0066; task execution period \(T_e\) and continuous operating period \(T_p\); \(T_e\) represents the period necessary to complete the node's tasks and \(T_p\) represents the interval for which available/harvested energy can sustain operation; and
determine the energy harvesting state corresponding to the target time interval (See Para. 0062-0066; stored/harvested-energy condition is determined from \(C,V_1,V'_1,P\) and related to \(T_p/T_e\)),
wherein the target time interval is associated with at least one of a capability of the terminal device or a signal measurement result (See Para. 0064-0066; \(T_p\) is determined using energy-storage capacity \(C\), measured voltage \(V_1\), rate \(V'_1\), power \(P\), and required execution period \(T_e\)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determine at least one processing process which is to be completed within a target time interval; and determine the energy harvesting state corresponding to the target time interval, wherein the target time interval is associated with at least one of a capability of the terminal device or a signal measurement result as taught by Ni Scanaill in the system of Song in order to harvest energy from radio frequency (RF) signals to power a sensor node and/or wireless radio (See Para. 0002; lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Ni Scanaill and Song discloses the method.
Furthermore, Song discloses the method, wherein a starting moment of the target time interval is predefined or configured by a network device; or a length of the target time interval is predefined or configured by a network device; or the target time interval is predefined or configured by a network device (See Para. 0120-0121; energy harvesting duration Tp).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a starting moment of the target time interval is predefined or configured by a network device; or a length of the target time interval is predefined or configured by a network device; or the target time interval is predefined or configured by a network device as taught by Ni Scanaill in the system of Song in order to harvest energy from radio frequency (RF) signals to power a sensor node and/or wireless radio (See Para. 0002; lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 5: The combination of Ni Scanaill and Song discloses the method.
Furthermore, Song discloses the method, wherein the capability of the terminal device comprises at least one of: an energy storage capacity of the terminal device; an energy harvesting duration of the terminal device; an energy harvesting efficiency of the terminal device; or an energy harvesting speed of the terminal device (See Para. 0120-0121; energy harvesting duration Tp), wherein the signal measurement result comprises: a strength of a power supplying signal received by the terminal device (See Para. 0063-0065; RF signals supplying harvested energy and recognizes variations in received RF signal strength causing variation in harvested energy).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an energy harvesting duration of the terminal device, wherein the signal measurement result comprises: a strength of a power supplying signal received by the terminal device as taught by Song in the system of de Wit in order to harvest energy from radio frequency (RF) signals to power a sensor node and/or wireless radio (See Para. 0002; lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 6: The combination of Ni Scanaill and Song discloses the method.
Furthermore, Ni Scanaill discloses the method, wherein the priority of the at least one processing process is determined according to a priority rule based on a type of the at least one processing process, and the priority rule is predefined or configured by the network device (See Para. 0036; high and low priority tasks).
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Ni Scanaill and Song discloses the method.
Furthermore, Ni Scanaill discloses the method, wherein the type of the at least one processing process comprises at least one of: a dynamic scheduling type, a scheduling-free type, a data processing type (See Para. 0036; scheduling task).
Regarding claim 8: The combination of Ni Scanaill and Song discloses the method.
Furthermore, Ni Scanaill discloses the method, wherein the priority rule comprises: a priority of a processing process of the dynamic scheduling type being higher than a priority of a processing process of the scheduling-free type; and the priority of the processing process of the scheduling-free type being higher than a priority of a processing process of the data processing type (See Para. 0036; determine if the output voltage V.sub.cap exceeds the V.sub.batt. If the V.sub.cap does not exceed the V.sub.batt, energy demanding task is rescheduled to the queue to delay the energy demanding task until either the supercapacitor 14 is sufficient to perform the energy demanding task. In an example, the energy demanding task can be designated as a high priority task. If designated at a high priority task, the controller may proceed to the total energy evaluation 106 and immediately supply power the available power to perform the energy demanding task even if the output voltage V.sub.cap does not exceed the V.sub.batt. As such, the secondary battery 20 can be discharged in the performance of high priority tasks if the output voltage V.sub.cap is insufficient).
Regarding claim 9: The combination of Ni Scanaill and Song discloses the method.
Furthermore, Ni Scanaill discloses the method, wherein the priority of the at least one processing process is predefined; or the priority of the at least one processing process is configured by the network device, and the priority of the at least one processing process is configured by the network device in a semi-static manner (See Para. 0034-0036; high and low priority tasks).
Regarding claims 10 & 18: de Ni Scanaill discloses a terminal device (See FIG. 1A & Para. 0029; IoT device 10)/method, comprising
a processor (See FIG. 1A & Para. 0029; IoT device 10 includes a controller module 24) and
a memory (See FIG. 7 & Para. 0044; main memory 201) configured to store a computer program, wherein the processor is configured to invoke and run the computer program stored in the memory to:
determine whether the terminal device is able to complete at least one processing process according to an energy harvesting state of the terminal device (See FIG. 5 & Para. 0034-0037; The voltage comparison 104 may include comparing the output voltage V.sub.cap of the supercapacitor 14 and the output voltage V.sub.batt of the secondary battery 20 to determine if the output voltage V.sub.cap exceeds the V.sub.batt. If the V.sub.cap does not exceed the V.sub.batt, energy demanding task is rescheduled to the queue to delay the energy demanding task until either the supercapacitor 14 is sufficient to perform the energy demanding task); and
when it is determined that the terminal device is unable to complete the at least one processing process, determine at least one target processing process according to a priority of the at least one processing process (See FIG. 5 & Para. 0034-0037; The total energy evaluation 106 may include evaluating the output voltage V.sub.cap of the supercapacitor 14 and the output voltage V.sub.batt of the secondary battery 20 to determine if sufficient power for performing the schedule energy demanding task may be provided from the supercapacitor 14, the secondary battery 20 and combination thereof. this configuration allows delaying high energy demand, low priority tasks to allow the supercapacitor 14 to be sufficiently charged to be the sole power provider for the scheduled task and avoid any discharge of the secondary battery).
Ni Scanaill does not explicitly disclose determine at least one processing process which is to be completed within a target time interval; and
determine the energy harvesting state corresponding to the target time interval,
wherein the target time interval is associated with at least one of a capability of the terminal device or a signal measurement result,
wherein the processor is configured to invoke and run the computer program stored in the memory to:
determine whether there is a second processing process having a priority higher than a preset priority within a target time interval (See Para. 0012 & 0087-0090; assigns respective priorities to predetermined processing tasks. A first task may have a higher priority than a second, and the circuitry selects the higher-priority task); and
determine whether the terminal device is able to complete the first processing process according to the energy harvesting state (See Para. 0013, 0062-0066 & 0085-0090; (See Para. 0008, 0013, 0049-0051, 0085-0087; energy needed to execute/complete tasks is known; available harvested/stored energy is determined; system determines whether energy is adequate to execute pending task(s)).
Ni Scanaill does not explicitly disclose when there is no the second processing process within the target time interval.
However, Song from the same field of endeavor discloses when there is no the second processing process within the target time interval (See Para. 0062-0066; supplies task/operation periods).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include when there is no the second processing process within the target time interval as taught by Song in the system of Ni Scanaill in order to harvest energy from radio frequency (RF) signals to power a sensor node and/or wireless radio (See Para. 0002; lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 11: The combination of Ni Scanaill and Song discloses the method.
Furthermore, Ni Scanaill discloses the method, further comprising:when it is determined that the terminal device is unable to complete the first processing procedure, no processing the first processing procedure, wherein the method further comprises: before determining whether the terminal device is able to complete the first processing process according to the energy harvesting state of the terminal device, determining the energy harvesting state of the terminal device (See Para. 0034-0037).
Regarding claim 13: The combination of Ni Scanaill and Song discloses the method.
Furthermore, Song discloses the method, further comprising:when there is the second processing process within the target time interval, processing the second processing process and not processing the first processing process, wherein a starting moment of the target time interval is predefined or configured by a network device, a length of the target time interval is predefined or configured by a network device, wherein the target time interval is predefined or configured by a network device (See Para. 0120-0121; energy harvesting duration Tp).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include when there is the second processing process within the target time interval, processing the second processing process and not processing the first processing process, wherein a starting moment of the target time interval is predefined or configured by a network device, a length of the target time interval is predefined or configured by a network device, wherein the target time interval is predefined or configured by a network device as taught by Ni Scanaill in the system of Song in order to harvest energy from radio frequency (RF) signals to power a sensor node and/or wireless radio (See Para. 0002; lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 15: The combination of Ni Scanaill and Song discloses the method.
Furthermore, Song discloses the method, wherein a starting moment of the target time interval is predefined or configured by a network device, and a length of the target time interval is predefined or configured by a network device (See Para. 0120-0121; energy harvesting duration Tp).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a starting moment of the target time interval is predefined or configured by a network device, and a length of the target time interval is predefined or configured by a network device as taught by Ni Scanaill in the system of Song in order to harvest energy from radio frequency (RF) signals to power a sensor node and/or wireless radio (See Para. 0002; lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 16: The combination of Ni Scanaill and Song discloses the terminal device.
Furthermore, Ni Scanaill discloses the terminal device, wherein the processor is configured to invoke and run the computer program stored in the memory to:process the at least one target processing process according to a priority sequence of the at least one target processing process, wherein the processor is configured to invoke and run the computer program stored in the memory to:process the at least one target processing process according to a time sequence of the at least one target processing process (See FIG. 5 & Para. 0034-0037).
Regarding claim 17: The combination of Ni Scanaill and Song discloses the terminal device.
Furthermore, Ni Scanaill discloses the terminal device, wherein the terminal device adopts at least one of following energy harvesting manners: a manner of harvesting a radio frequency signal; a manner of harvesting ambient light; a manner of harvesting vibration energy; or a manner of harvesting heat (See Abstract; energy harvesting module).
Regarding claim 20: The combination of Ni Scanaill and Song discloses the terminal device.
Furthermore, Ni Scanaill discloses the terminal device, wherein the target time interval is associated with at least one of a capability of the terminal device or a signal measurement result, wherein the capability of the terminal device comprises at least one of:an energy storage capacity of the terminal device;an energy harvesting duration of the terminal device;an energy harvesting efficiency of the terminal device; or an energy harvesting speed of the terminal device (See Abstract; energy harvesting module).
Regarding claim 21: The combination of Ni Scanaill and Song discloses the method.
Furthermore, Song discloses the method, wherein a moment when the energy harvesting state of the terminal device is determined is a starting moment of the target time interval (See Para. 0120-0121; energy harvesting duration Tp).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a moment when the energy harvesting state of the terminal device is determined is a starting moment of the target time interval as taught by Ni Scanaill in the system of Song in order to harvest energy from radio frequency (RF) signals to power a sensor node and/or wireless radio (See Para. 0002; lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 22: The combination of Ni Scanaill and Song discloses the method.
Furthermore, Song discloses the method, wherein a priority of a first processing process is carried in a scheduling indication sent by the network device, and the first processing process is any one of the at least one processing process that is scheduled in a dynamic scheduling manner or a semi-static scheduling manner (See Para. 0120-0121; energy harvesting duration Tp).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a priority of a first processing process is carried in a scheduling indication sent by the network device, and the first processing process is any one of the at least one processing process that is scheduled in a dynamic scheduling manner or a semi-static scheduling manner as taught by Ni Scanaill in the system of Song in order to harvest energy from radio frequency (RF) signals to power a sensor node and/or wireless radio (See Para. 0002; lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 23: The combination of Ni Scanaill and Song discloses the method.
Furthermore, Song discloses the method, wherein a starting moment of the target time interval is an arrival time of the first processing process (See Para. 0120-0121; energy harvesting duration Tp).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a starting moment of the target time interval is an arrival time of the first processing process as taught by Ni Scanaill in the system of Song in order to harvest energy from radio frequency (RF) signals to power a sensor node and/or wireless radio (See Para. 0002; lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 24: The combination of Ni Scanaill and Song discloses the method.
Furthermore, Song discloses the method, wherein the signal measurement result comprises: a strength of a power supplying signal received by the terminal device (See Para. 0005 & 0086-0089).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the signal measurement result comprises: a strength of a power supplying signal received by the terminal device as taught by Ni Scanaill in the system of Song in order to harvest energy from radio frequency (RF) signals to power a sensor node and/or wireless radio (See Para. 0002; lines 1-2).
Conclusion
23. The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
A. Elshafie et al. 2024/0389017 A1 (Title: Cell wake up signal formats and contents and synchronization signal) (See Abstract, Para. 0012 & 0037-0038).
B. Butt et al. 2024/0072572 A1 (Title: Energy harvesting information supported user…) (See abstract, Para. 0006 & 00813-0016).
C. Babaei et al. 2023/0389120 A1 (Title: Network energy saving ) (See FIG. 1, Para. 0046, 0050 & 0160).
24. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEWALE A AMBAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-1076. The examiner can normally be reached on M.F 6a.m.-2p.m..
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571)272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEWALE A AMBAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
