DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This office action is a non-final rejection in response to the filing of the applicant’s response to the notice of non-compliant amendment filed on 07/13/2026 and also to the response to election / restriction requirement filed on 04/17/2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species E (FIGS. 13, Claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 07/13/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
“In response, Applicant provisionally elects Specie E (Fig. 13, which corresponds to the claims 1-10) with traverse. Additionally, rejoinder of other species upon the finding of allowable subject matter with respect to the Specie E is respectfully requested.
The election is made with traverse for at least the following reasons.
At least the Species D (Fig. 12), E (Fig. 13), F (Fig. 14), K (Fig. 19), and L (Fig. 20) are not mutually independent or mutually exclusive, and there are overlapping parts between the species.
Specie D (Fig. 12) and Specie E (Fig. 13) are both information transmission method flowcharts, and Specie E (Fig. 13) is a detailed definition of the Specie D (Fig. 12). For example, the step 1210A and step 1210B in figure 13 are detailed implementation of step 1210 in figure 12, and the step 1210 in figure 12 is followed by the step 1220 in figure 13. This is also shown by the paragraph 99 of the description as filed, which recites "Based on this, as illustrated in FIG. 13(a), the above operation 1210 may be implemented as an operation 1210A which......Alternatively, as illustrated in FIG. 13(b), the above operation 1210 may be implemented as an operation 1210B which..... Based on this, as illustrated in FIG. 13(c), the above operation 1210 is followed by an operation 1220.....". Therefore, Specie D (Fig. 12) and Specie E (Fig. 13) are not mutually independent or mutually exclusive, and there are overlapping parts between the species D and E.
Specie F (Fig. 14) is a schematic diagram of the first indication information, which is recited in Figs. 12 and 13. Therefore, figure 14 is a detailed definition of the first indication information recited in Figs. 12 and 13. Therefore, Specie F (Fig. 14) and Species D and E (Figs. 12 and 13) are not mutually independent or mutually exclusive, and there are overlapping parts between these species.
Specie K (Fig. 19) is a structural diagram of a network device, and Specie L (Fig. 20) is a structural diagram of a power supply device, which are devices corresponding to the methods of Species D (Fig. 12), E (Fig. 13) and F (Fig. 14). Therefore, Species K and L and Species D, E and F are not mutually independent or mutually exclusive, and there are overlapping parts between these species.
In addition, applicant respectfully submits that Species D (Fig. 12), E (Fig. 13), F (Fig. 14), K (Fig. 19), and L (Fig. 20) actually correspond to all of the claims.
Specifically, in the office action, it is asserted that Specie E (Fig. 13) may correspond to claim 1. Applicant respectfully submits that since the dependent claims 2-10 are further description of claim 1 and figure 13 can correspond to claim 1, the dependent claims 2-10 can also correspond to figure 13.
Therefore, applicant respectfully submits that Species D (Fig. 12) corresponds to claims 1 and 4, Species E (Fig. 13) corresponds to claims 1-10, Species F (Fig. 14) corresponds to claims 2-3 and 12-13, Species K (Fig. 19) corresponds to claims 11-19 and Species L (Fig. 20) corresponds to claim 20.
Based on the above, Species D (Fig. 12), E (Fig. 13), F (Fig. 14), K (Fig. 19), and L (Fig. 20) are interrelated, and are not mutually independent or mutually exclusive, and there are overlapping parts between these species.
Therefore, according to the above reasons, the Election/Restriction Requirements are believed moot, and rejoinder of at least the species D (Fig. 12), E (Fig. 13), F (Fig. 14), K (Fig. 19), and L (Fig. 20) is respectfully requested.
Accordingly, withdrawal of the restriction requirement is respectfully requested, and election of Species E (Figure 13, which corresponds to the claims 1-10) with traverse is confirmed.”;
Furthermore, in response to applicant’s allegation, the examiner respectfully disagrees since this is not found persuasive because it would be a serious burden for searching the non-elected species (Species A-D, F-L) as their variable configurations require different search queries/strategies since these are directed to different / diverse embodiments and distinct structure configurations and arrangements of the information transmission method and apparatus and device and storage medium,
for example, species A-D, F-L, directed to Figures 1-12,14-20, pertaining to claims 11-20, the above argument is not persuasive since the claimed inventions (species A: system architecture of a low-power communication system, species B: system architecture of a low-power communication system, species C: a different system architecture of a low-power communication system, and species D: a flowchart of an information transmission method, Species F: a diagram of first indication information, Species G: a block diagram of an information transmission apparatus, Species H: a block diagram of an information transmission apparatus, Species I: a different block diagram of an information transmission apparatus, Species J: a different block diagram of an information transmission apparatus, Species K: a structural diagram of a network device, Species L: a structural diagram of a power supply device) are directed to multiple species that are independent or distinct from one another, as each species is defined by materially different characteristics and does not share a common inventive concept. In addition, this is confirmed by the different inventions recited in the title of the invention. Furthermore, the recitation of the steps in Species D and E are not written as same steps, Species D “the power supply signal is configured to supply power to a zero-power terminal”, as in Species E “… and is configured to instruct the power supply device to transmit the power supply signal to the zero-power device”, therefore these are 2 different types of methods.
Applicant asserts that the claimed species are not patentably distinct. However, the species as claimed are not obvious variants of one another because each requires separate consideration of patentability, including separate searches and examination. The differences between the species are significant and are not merely minor variations that would be expected by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, the species are not linked by a disclosed or recognized generic invention that would make the restriction improper. In the absence of such a unifying concept, restriction between species is appropriate.
The burden on the office further justifies the requirement, as each species B-D would necessitate a separate prior art search and examination, consistent with the guidance set forth in MPEP 808.01(a).
Accordingly, the restriction requirement is maintained.
All claims that the examiner finds are not directed to the elected invention are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner in accordance with 37 CFR 1.142(b). See MPEP § 821.01 through § 821.04.
Therefore, claims 11-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Additionally, when two or more independent and distinct inventions are presented for examination, the examiner may make a restriction requirement if a serious burden exists. In the reply to the restriction requirement, applicant must elect one invention for examination, therefore is not permissible to elect a second invention for examination (see MPEP 818).
For applicants information, see MPEP 809.02(a), specifically, where restriction between species is appropriate (see MPEP § 808.01(a)) the examiner should send a letter including only a restriction requirement).
The particular reasons relied on by the examiner for holding that the inventions as claimed are either independent or distinct were concisely stated in the requirement for restriction/election sent on 02/18/2026.
Action as follows should be taken:
(A) Identify generic claims or indicate that no generic claims are present. See MPEP § 806.04(d) for definition of a generic claim.
(B) Clearly identify each (or in aggravated cases at least exemplary ones) of the disclosed species, to which claims are to be restricted. The species are preferably identified as the species of figures 1, 2, and 3 or the species of examples I, II, and III, respectively. In the absence of distinct figures or examples to identify the several species, the mechanical means, the particular material, or other distinguishing characteristic of the species should be stated for each species identified. If the species cannot be conveniently identified, the claims may be grouped in accordance with the species to which they are restricted. Provide reasons why the species are independent or distinct.
(C) Applicant should then be required to elect a single disclosed species under 35 U.S.C. 121, and advised as to the requisites of a complete reply and his or her rights under 37 CFR 1.141.
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 4, 7-10 are 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.
Regarding claims 4, 7 and 10 recites the limitations:
Claim 4: wherein the first indication information is carried in at least one of: Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling, Medium Access Control Control Element (MAC CE) or Downlink Control Information (DCI).
Claim 7: wherein in a case that the power supply device is in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) idle state or an RRC inactive state, the first trigger information is carried in any one of: Downlink Control Information (DCI) for scheduling a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) carrying a paging message, or the PDSCH carrying the paging message.
Claim 10: wherein in a case that the power supply device is in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection state, the first trigger information is carried in any one of: Downlink Control Information (DCI), RRC signaling, or Medium Access Control Control Element (MAC CE),
these claims refer to expressions which are only defined for mobile communication networks, although the type of technology used is not defined in
the claims, for example, claim 1 just required a method for information transmission, but does not introduces which type of information transmission and what technology is used. Therefore, this renders the interpretation of these expressions unclear.
Claim 7 recites the limitation:
“The method of claim 6, wherein in a case that the power supply device is in a
Radio Resource Control (RRC) idle state or an RRC inactive state, the first trigger information is
carried in any one of: Downlink Control Information (DCI) for scheduling a Physical Downlink
Shared Channel (PDSCH) carrying a paging message, or the PDSCH carrying the paging
message.”,
as per claim 7, the limitation “in a case that” is a conditional statement without corresponding "else" statements. If these limitations are not performed, then there is no defined process to be performed. The examiner understands that in these claims, the open conditional language causes these limitations to be omitted,
there is no limitation of what happens if the components does not passes the test. The claim does not recite what happens if the power supply is not in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) idle state or an RRC inactive state.
Processes can be considered as a series of steps to achieve a claimed task hence making the claim indefinite, because the claims are a conditional method step. When executing a process, each step is performed. However, upon reaching an "IF-THEN-ELSE" logical block, each TRUE/FALSE option is equally likely. A process step that includes only an "IF-THEN" logical question means that THEN result only occurs when the answer is TRUE. An answer equally likely is FALSE and therefore the THEN result will not occur. There is a question as to whether the step is even performed, especially if the condition is something that’s only going to be available to someone with the invention in hand as opposed to a description of the invention. It’s difficult/impossible to determine the scope of the claim because if the “if” is not true the claim adds nothing and is not further limiting.
The Examiner takes further guidance from the MPEP § 2106(11)C on how to handle these logical blocks. Specifically, "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation." It is the Examiner's position that when a claimed invention includes a logical block that suggests another choice (FALSE), then the resulting action is not limiting as it may never be performed.
For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret this claim as best understood, interpreting as the operation claimed never occurred, and the claim therefore optional and not required.
Claims 8-10 also carries the same 112 (b) rejection based on the dependency of these claims on claim 7.
Furthermore, regarding Claim 10, this claim recites the limitation:
“The method of claim 6, wherein in a case that the power supply device is in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection state, the first trigger information is carried in any one of: Downlink Control Information (DCI), RRC signaling, or Medium Access Control Control Element (MAC CE).”,
as per claim 10, the limitation “in a case that” is a conditional statement without corresponding "else" statements. If these limitations are not performed, then there is no defined process to be performed. The examiner understands that in these claims, the open conditional language causes these limitations to be omitted,
there is no limitation of what happens is the components does not passes the test. The claim does not recite what happens if the power supply is not in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection state.
Processes can be considered as a series of steps to achieve a claimed task hence making the claim indefinite, because the claims are a conditional method step. When executing a process, each step is performed. However, upon reaching an "IF-THEN-ELSE" logical block, each TRUE/FALSE option is equally likely. A process step that includes only an "IF-THEN" logical question means that THEN result only occurs when the answer is TRUE. An answer equally likely is FALSE and therefore the THEN result will not occur. There is a question as to whether the step is even performed, especially if the condition is something that’s only going to be available to someone with the invention in hand as opposed to a description of the invention. It’s difficult/impossible to determine the scope of the claim because if the “if” is not true the claim adds nothing and is not further limiting.
The Examiner takes further guidance from the MPEP § 2106(11)C on how to handle these logical blocks. Specifically, "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation." It is the Examiner's position that when a claimed invention includes a logical block that suggests another choice (FALSE), then the resulting action is not limiting as it may never be performed.
For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret this claim as best understood, interpreting as the operation claimed never occurred, and the claim therefore optional and not required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinese document CN112399542 A (Huawei [CN]) (This document is part of the IDS submitted by the applicant, already with English translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Chinese document CN112399542 A (Huawei [CN]) discloses a method for information transmission (see Fig 8 and par. [0101]-[0118], the method disclosed in Fig 8 and detailed in par. [0101]-[0118] pertains to backscattering communication method) performed by a power supply device, comprising:
receiving first indication information, wherein the first indication information is configured to indicate configuration related to a power supply signal, and the power supply signal is configured to supply power to a zero-power terminal (see Fig 8 and par. [0101]-[0118], particularly par. [0103]-[0107], the second device communications to the first device information relating to a power transfer from the first device to a tag).
Regarding Claim 2, Chinese document CN112399542 A (Huawei [CN]) discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first indication information comprises at least one of:
time indication information, configured to indicate transmission time configuration of the power supply signal (par.[139]);
frequency indication information, configured to indicate transmission frequency configuration of the power supply signal (par. [0106],[0170]);
beam indication information, configured to indicate transmission beam configuration of the power supply signal;
power indication information, configured to indicate transmission power configuration of the power supply signal (see Fig 8 and par. [0103]-[0106]);
waveform indication information, configured to indicate waveform configuration of the power supply signal;
mode indication information, configured to indicate implementation mode configuration of the power supply signal (par. [0043]);
synchronization indication information, configured to indicate transmission configuration of a synchronization signal corresponding to the power supply signal; or
identification indication information, configured to indicate a power supply device corresponding to the configuration related to the power supply signal (RFID, par. [0086}).
Regarding Claim 3, Chinese document CN112399542 A (Huawei [CN]) discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the time indication information comprises at least one of:
a starting transmission time, an ending transmission time, a transmission duration, a transmission cycle, a respective starting transmission time of each cycle, a respective ending transmission time of each cycle, or a respective transmission duration of each cycle (see par. [0139]).
Regarding Claim 4, Chinese document CN112399542 A (Huawei [CN]) discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first indication information is carried in at least one of: Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling, Medium Access Control Control Element (MAC CE) or Downlink Control Information (DCI) (see RRC in par. [0111]).
Regarding Claim 5, Chinese document CN112399542 A (Huawei [CN]) discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first indication information is further configured to instruct the power supply device to transmit the power supply signal to the zero-power device (see Fig 8 and par. [0101]-[0118] disclosing the power transmission is triggered by the power offset communicated from the second to the first device).
Regarding Claim 6, Chinese document CN112399542 A (Huawei [CN]) discloses the method of claim 1, wherein after receiving the first indication information, the method further comprises: receiving first trigger information, wherein the first trigger information is configured to instruct the power supply device to transmit the power supply signal to the zero-power terminal (see Fig 8 and par. [0149]-[0153]).
Regarding Claim 7, Chinese document CN112399542 A (Huawei [CN]) discloses the method of claim 6, wherein in a case that the power supply device is in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) idle state or an RRC inactive state, the first trigger information is carried in any one of:
Downlink Control Information (DCI) for scheduling a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) carrying a paging message (see par. [0111], in addition using DCI or PDSCH in communication involving RRC idle resources is an option known to one persona having ordinary skill in the art, in addition CN112399542 A (Huawei [CN]) discloses DCI technology, Downlink Control Information (DCI) for scheduling a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) carrying a paging message is an intended use,
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).), or the PDSCH carrying the paging message,
Furthermore, this claim is rejected based on the 112 (b) rejection above in which indicated that this claim is optional and not required).
Regarding Claim 8, Chinese document CN112399542 A (Huawei [CN]) discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the PDSCH carrying the paging message carries a paging record list, and the paging record list comprises at least one device identifier of at least one device to be paged, and the first trigger information is further configured to indicate the power supply device, which transmits the power supply signal to the zero-power terminal, of the at least one device to be paged (since this claim depend on claim 7, therefore this claim is rejected based on the 112 (b) rejection above in which is indicated that this claim is optional and not required).
Regarding Claim 9, Chinese document CN112399542 A (Huawei [CN]) discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the first trigger information is further configured to indicate an index of the power supply signal (since this claim depend on claim 7, therefore this claim is rejected based on the 112 (b) rejection above in which is indicated that this claim is optional and not required).
Regarding Claim 10, Chinese document CN112399542 A (Huawei [CN]) discloses the method of claim 6, wherein in a case that the power supply device is in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection state (see par. [0111]), the first trigger information is carried in any one of: Downlink Control Information (DCI) (see DCI in par. [0111]), RRC signaling, or Medium Access Control Control Element (MAC CE), Furthermore, this claim is rejected based on the 112 (b) rejection above in which indicated that this claim is optional and not required).
Examiner Note
7. The examiner cites particular columns and lines numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the cited prior art in the PTO-892 form attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFONSO PEREZ BORROTO whose telephone number is (571) 270-1714. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9am-4pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taelor Kim can be reached on (571) 270-7166. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. /ALFONSO PEREZ BORROTO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights