DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on: 06/04/2026.
Claims 1-8, 10-15, 17, 39-40, and 44-46 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1-8, 10-15, 17, and 39-40 have been amended.
Claims 9, 16, 18-38, and 41-43 have been cancelled to date.
New claims 44-46 have been added.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-17 were objected to in the previous Office Action based on various informalities. These objections are hereby withdrawn as Applicant has appropriately amended each of claims 2-17 to cure all noted deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 40 was rejected in the previous Office Action under §112(b). This rejection is hereby withdrawn as Applicant has amended claim 40 to cure the deficiency indicated in the Office Action.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 .
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on: 05/13/2026 is determined to be compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, this IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/04/2026 have been fully considered but have been determined not to be persuasive.
Initially, Applicant provides disclosure support for its amended independent claims to exist in context with para. [0124] (of PG Pub.), and support for new claims 44-46 to exist in context with paras. [0143] and [0146] (of PG Pub.), and Fig. 9 (as this disclosure relates to the plurality of repetitions of the PUSCH transmission(s) recited in the new claims ). Applicant’s Remarks at p. 8. For context, para. [0124] and immediately surrounding paras recite, as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
720
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Notably, Applicant’s indicated disclosure support paragraph [0124] (above), relates to “an example signaling exchange,” where a UE reports its dynamic charge level of its energy storage device (considering modem power usage along with EHD power generation/storage) to a network. Initially, the signaling exchange includes the UE receiving a DCI (i.e., in the DL) for scheduling future PDSCH transmissions/receptions. The UE is said to: “measure the charge in its energy storage device when the UE receives the DCI (or, more particularly, just before or just after the DCI is received,” at paras. [0124]-[0125]. This subject matter indicates the UE’s energy storage device measurement occurs either before DCI reception or immediately after DCI reception. Then at the end of PDSCH reception, the UE can measure its energy storage device charge again and transmit a PUCCH with both HARQ information and information on a charge state of the energy storage device, at paras. [0126]-[0127].
However, in either case, the transmission of the charge state occurs after the charge state measurement, which occurs immediately preceding/after DCI reception or after PDSCH reception. Thus, the signaling exchange includes both UE communication reception and transmission, and a power charge state of the energy storage device is disclosed to be determined by a UE prior to any transmission of a PUCCH.
The amended claim subject matter recites control circuitry [i.e., a processor] of a first wireless telecommunications apparatus that can “determine a characteristic associated with the energy stored in the energy storage device during a first portion of a data transmission…,” as well as “transmit information indication the determined characteristic to the second wireless telecommunications apparatus during a second portion of the data transmission….” However, Applicant’s above-provided disclosure support teaches a “signaling exchange” procedure with reception of DL DCI and data, determining an energy characteristic and then transmission of PUCCH with the indication of the energy characteristic. As such, the Examiner reasonably interprets the claimed “first portion of a data transmission by the communication circuitry” to correspond to a first portion of a “signaling exchange” by the UE communication circuitry, for at least the reason that Applicant has indicated the “signaling exchange,” at para. [0125], to support its amended independent claims.
Notably, dependent claim 17 even explicitly requires a signaling exchange between the claimed first and second wireless telecommunications apparatuses, and that the characteristic associated with the energy storage device be determined and reported after signaling exchange(s), which include both UL and DL communications, as opposed to only during an UL transmission. In this regard, the Examiner notes that dependent claim 17 would not make sense if the determining and transmitting steps of independent claim 1 were note interpreted in the context of a signaling exchange, as described in Applicant’s indicated supporting disclosure.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that dependent claim 5 requires that the characteristic associated with the energy storage device be determined when the communication circuitry is receiving data, and dependent claim 6 contrarily requires that the characteristic associated with the energy storage device be determined when the communication circuitry is transmitting data. This claim subject matter also supports the “signaling exchange” interpretation of Applicant’s independent claims, or claim 5 would not make sense and claim 6 would fail to further limit claim 1 outside of such interpretation.
With respect to claims 1, 39, and 40, Applicant specifically argues that “Elkotby …is silent as to determining a characteristic during one portion of a transmission by the communication circuitry and transmitting information about that characteristic during another portion of the same transmission.” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 9. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s claimed first and second portions of its data transmission may be interpreted in light of Applicant’s self-indicated, supporting disclosure, as previously described in terms of Applicant’s “signaling exchange” procedure. Based on this reasonable interpretation, Elkotby fairly reads on all of the above-contested claim subject matter associated with independent claims 1, 39, and 40.
For instance, Elkotby describes solutions associated with zero-energy WTRUs, including IoT devices, capable of providing power state feedback, i.e., energy harvesting efficiency and power levels, by employing various energy state reporting techniques, including backscattering transmission. In this regard, Elkotby describes a signaling exchange where its EH WTRU can harvest/store a minimum amount of power within a narrowband or wideband associated with either DL or UL communications according to a transmission power storage per time unit (paras. [0097], [0101]-[0104], and [0144]).
In one scenario, Elkotby’s WTRU can be requested during a scheduled transmission to provide its individual battery level metric or a statistical metric of those levels, and in response can independently determine whether to provide its current battery level feedback to the network based on a configured threshold, etc. Elkotby further considers transmitting such feedback via backscattering transmission (paras. [0144]-[0145] and [0160]-[0161]). As another example, Elkoty’s WTRU can be requested to report its energy efficiency within a last allocated energy transfer period: T. Subsequently, its WTRU can collect its corresponding RF-to-energy conversion efficiency information before the last period T, and then feedback the efficiency information during the last period T (paras. [0162]-[0163]).
Thus Elkotby fairly describes its WTRU: “determine[ing] a characteristic associated with the energy storage device [a determined battery level/energy efficiency] during a first portion of data transmission by the communication circuitry [during an initial portion of scheduled transmission, which is interpreted as being equivalent to the first part of a signaling exchange, as previously discussed],” as recited in claims 1, 39, and 40. Additionally, Elkotby also fairly describes its WTRU: “transmit[ting] information indicating the determined characteristic to the second wireless telecommunications apparatus [transmitting its battery level/energy efficiency to a BS] during a second portion of the data transmission by the communication circuitry [during a backscattering transmission, i.e., during the last period T].”
Applicant further asserts that Elkotby contrarily teaches: “transmission by a base station, not a ‘data transmission by the communication circuitry’ of the claimed first wireless telecommunication apparatus,” and that Elkotby contrarily describes: “measurement performed [that] is of received signal strength rather than of a characteristic associated with energy stored in an energy storage device…” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 10. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously described, Elkotby’s feedback transmission, i.e., via backscattering, of power level/energy efficiency is transmitted from the WTRU to a BS in the UL (paras. [0161]-[0163]).
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments presented for each of claims 1, 39, and 40 are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. Applicant’s Remarks at pp. 10-11. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise rendered moot, for the same reasons described above for the respective independent claims.
With respect to claim 7, Applicant additionally argues that Elkotby’s signal strength measurement of a quality of a feedback link, at paras [00172 and [0183]-[0184], is not he claimed characteristic associated with the energy stored in the energy storage device. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 11. However, the Examiner notes that claim 7 recites: “measur[ing] a property of a wireless signal received by the communication circuitry” and that “the characteristic is determined when the wireless signal is received, and the property of the wireless signal is measured.” In this regard, Elkotby describes both measuring a feedback channel and determining an energy storage efficiency of DL energy being stored in its energy storage device, i.e., the efficiency of energy harvesting/storage in terms of efficiency, as previously described.
For the above reasons, Applicants additional arguments provided for dependent claim 7 are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claim 8, Applicant also argues that Elkotby does not teach its WTRU monitoring for PDCCH or that its characteristic is determined when the PDCCH is monitored. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 11. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Elkotby’s WTRU can monitor PDCCH configuration information/messaging, i.e., DCI, which can include a threshold battery level and feedback scheduling information (paras. [0144]-[0145]), which is reasonably interpreted to be equivalent to a characteristic of the energy storage device/battery that is determined when the PDCCH is monitored.
For the above reasons, Applicant’s additional arguments provided for dependent claim 8 are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claim 17, Applicant argues that Elkotby does not teach the per-exchange determination and per-exchange reporting of claim 17. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 12. However, claim 17 merely requires determining the characteristic associated with the energy storage device after a single signaling exchange and the transmitted information indicating the determined characteristic corresponds to a single signaling exchange.
In this regard, Elkotby describes an energy harvesting/storage characteristic can be determined based on an amount of energy a WTRU harvests from dedicated BS signaling over a period of time associated with a BS-UE signaling exchange and that the determined characteristic (associated with a BS-UE signaling exchange) can be signaled to a BS as feedback via backscattering techniques, using energy harvested from the signaling exchange (paras. [0095]-[096] and [0160]-[0162]).
Moreover, in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., per-exchange determination and per-exchange reporting) are not explicitly recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
For the above reasons, Applicant’s additional arguments provided for dependent claim 17 are determined not to be persuasive.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) 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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 17 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable in view of US PG Pub. 2022/0225402 A1, Elkotby et al. (hereinafter “Elkotby”).
With respect to claim 1, Elkotby teaches:
A first wireless telecommunications apparatus (WTRU 102 of Fig. 1B) comprising:
communication circuitry (WTRU transceiver 120 of Fig. 1B) configured to[:]
receive wireless signals from or transmit wireless signals to a second wireless telecommunications apparatus, the communication circuitry using energy stored in an energy storage device to receive or transmit the wireless signals (paras. [0047]-[0049], and [0084]; and power source 134 of Fig. 1B —a WTRU can utilize its transceiver circuitry to harvest energy received from another wireless communication device, i.e., a BS/WTRU, and then store the received energy in its power storage device, i.e., in a capacitor/battery —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative for the reasons described above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section); and
control circuitry (WTRU processor 118 of Fig. 1B) configured to:
determine a characteristic associated with the energy stored in the energy storage device (paras. [0092], [0117], [0121], [0144], and [0161]-[0162] —a WTRU can be configured to determine various characteristics of its energy harvesting/storage devices, such as energy conversion efficiency, relating to an amount of energy harvested/stored from received signals, current battery/capacitor power levels, a duration until a battery power level reaches a threshold level, etc.) during a first portion of data transmission by the communication circuitry (paras. [0095], and [0184]-[0185] —in a first portion of a signaling/data sequence an energy level characteristic can initially be determined);
control the communication circuitry to transmit information indicating the determined characteristic to the second wireless telecommunications apparatus (paras. [0117], [0121], [0144], [0161]-[0162], and [0185] —a WTRU determining various characteristics associated with its energy harvesting efficiency and power storage capacity can then report corresponding feedback information to a serving BS, i.e., upon request or as pre-configured) during a second portion of the data transmission by the communication circuitry (paras. [0095], and [0184]-[0185] —in a second portion of the signaling/data sequence, a backscattered data signaling with feedback, i.e., a CSI, can be transmitted).
With Respect to Claim 2, Elkotby teaches:
the first wireless telecommunications apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the characteristic indicates a rate of use of energy by the first wireless telecommunications apparatus (para. [0202] —the Examiner notes that power is the use of energy over time, and can be measured in terms of joules/unit time or Watts —an energy-harvesting (EH) WTRU can transmit feedback in terms of is power level, which is equivalent to a characteristic indicating a rate of use of energy by the WTRU).
With respect to claim 4, Elkotby teaches:
A first wireless telecommunications apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the characteristic indicates an amount of energy stored in the energy storage device (paras. [0144], [0161], and [0202] —a WTRU can be configured to report its current battery level as well as other energy transfer/power information).
With respect to claim 7, Elkotby teaches:
A first wireless telecommunications apparatus according to claim 1 wherein:
the control circuitry is configured to measure a property of a wireless signal received by the communication circuitry (paras. [0172] and [0183]-[0184]; and Figs. 11-13 —a WTRU can be configured make a quality measurement(s) of a received wireless signal, i.e., a RS, corresponding a feedback link); and
the characteristic is determined when the wireless signal is received and the property of the wireless signal is measured (paras. [0172] and [0183]-[0184]; and Figs. 11-13 —a WTRU can be configured determine a CQI value from its quality measurement(s), and then report the CQI value via a corresponding feedback link).
With respect to claim 8, Elkotby teaches:
A first wireless telecommunications apparatus according to claim 1 wherein:
the control circuitry is configured to monitor for a physical downlink control channel, PDCCH, in a wireless signal received by the communication circuitry (paras. [0145] and [0160] —an EH WTRU can monitor the PDCCH and receive DCI control signaling therefrom —the received DCI signaling can include EH-related configuration parameters); and
the characteristic is determined when the PDCCH is monitored for (paras. [0145] and [0160] —an EH WTRU can monitor the PDCCH, when it determines its threshold battery level, i.e., a determined characteristic, is above a threshold value).
With respect to claim 10, Elkotby teaches:
A first wireless telecommunications apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the information indicating the determined characteristic is transmitted during radio resource control, RRC, connection setup with the second wireless telecommunications apparatus (paras. [0118]-[0119], [0130], [0143], and [0196]-[0197] —a WTRU can transmit feedback regarding an its EH characteristic to a BS during an RRC connection procedures).
With respect to claim 11, Elkotby teaches:
A first wireless telecommunications apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the information indicating the determined characteristic is transmitted in response to a request received from the second wireless telecommunications apparatus (paras. [0026], [0152]-[0153], [0161]-[0163], and [0172]; and Fig. 8 —a BS can request feedback from a WTRU and the WTRU can respond to the request with information regarding EH efficiency, battery status, CQI, etc.).
With respect to claim 13, Elkotby teaches:
A first wireless telecommunications apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the characteristic is determined at a plurality of times (paras. [0185] and [0204]-[0205] —a WTRU can be configured to transmit multiple, successive feedback transmissions including its EH characteristic —a WTRU can also receive multiple feedback transmissions from other transmitting WTRUs to determine a corresponding EH characteristic).
With respect to claim 17, Elkotby teaches:
A first wireless telecommunications apparatus according to claim 1 wherein:
the characteristic is determined after each of one or more wireless signaling exchanges between the first and second wireless telecommunications apparatuses (paras. [0095]-[096] and [0160]-[0162] —an energy harvesting/storage characteristic can be determined based on an amount of energy a WTRU harvests from dedicated BS signaling over a period of time associated with a BS-UE signaling exchange); and
the information indicating the determined characteristic comprises information indicating the characteristic determined after each of the one or more wireless signaling exchanges (paras. [0095]-[096] and [0160]-[0162] —the determined characteristic (associated with a BS-UE signaling exchange) can be signaled to a BS as feedback via backscattering techniques, using energy harvested from the signaling exchange —backscattering-based feedback can be communicated for each signaling exchange independently).
With respect to claim 39, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 39 is directed to a method-type claim. As such, claim 39 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Elkotby, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 40, Elkotby teaches:
A method of operating a first wireless telecommunications apparatus (BS/Gateway 102 of Fig. 1B and Figs. 5-7), the first wireless telecommunications apparatus comprising communication circuitry configured to receive wireless signals from or transmit wireless signals to a second wireless telecommunications apparatus (transceiver 120 of Fig. 1B —the transceiver can transmit/receive wireless signals to/from a BS/Gateway/WTRU, as depicted in Fig. 1A and 5-7 —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative for the reasons described above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section),
the second wireless telecommunications apparatus using energy stored in an energy storage device to transmit or receive the wireless signals (paras. [0047]-[0049], and [0084]; and power source 134 of Fig. 1B —a WTRU can utilize its transceiver circuitry to harvest energy received from another wireless communication device, i.e., a BS/Gateway, and then store the received energy in its power storage device, i.e., in a capacitor/battery —the harvested energy can then be used to facilitate the device’s wireless signal, i.e., feedback, transmissions —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative for the reasons described above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section), wherein the method comprises:
controlling the communication circuitry to receive, from the second wireless telecommunications apparatus, information indicating a determined characteristic associated with the energy stored in the energy storage device (paras. [0092], [0117], [0121], [0144], and [0161]-[0162] —a BS/Gateway can be configured to receive feedback information from another wireless communication device, i.e., a WTRU, to determine a characteristics of that device’s energy harvesting/storage, such as energy conversion efficiency, relating to an amount of energy harvested/stored from received signals, current battery/capacitor power levels, a duration until a battery power level reaches a threshold level, etc.) during a first portion of a data transmission by the second wireless telecommunications apparatus (paras. [0095], and [0184]-[0185] —in a first portion of a signaling/data sequence an energy level characteristic can initially be determined); and
controlling the communication circuitry to transmit one or more wireless signals to or receive one or more wireless signals from the second wireless telecommunications apparatus at a timing based on the determined characteristic (paras. [0117], [0121], [0144], [0161]-[0162], and [0184]-[0185] —a BS/Gateway that receives the EH characteristic information of the WTRU can decide when to transmit/schedule a wireless signal, i.e., a dedicated EH signal, to the WTRU based upon its characteristic, i.e., its EH efficiency or battery/capacitor storage level) during a second portion of the data transmission by the second wireless telecommunications apparatus (paras. [0095], and [0184]-[0185] —in a second portion of the signaling/data sequence, a backscattered data signaling with feedback, i.e., a CSI, can be transmitted).
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.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elkotby in view of US PG Pub 2023/0031981 A1, Yehezkely et al. (hereinafter “Yehezkely”).
With respect to claim 3, Elkotby teaches the first wireless telecommunications apparatus according to claim 1.
However, Elkotby does not explicitly teach:
wherein the characteristic indicates a rate of increase of energy stored in the energy storage device.
Yehezkely does teach:
wherein the characteristic indicates a rate of increase of energy stored in the energy storage device (paras. [0013]-[0014]; and S370 of Fig. 3 —a UE can determine a characteristic of an energy charging rate of power, i.e., potential energy, stored in a battery/capacitor).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elkotby’s energy/power feedback reporting with reporting an energy storage rate, as taught by Yehezkely.
The motivation for doing so would have been to report battery/capacitor storage increase when energy is harvested, as recognized by Yehezkely (paras. [0013]-[0014]; and S370 of Fig. 3).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elkotby in view of US PG Pub 2022/0346022 A1, Butt et al. (hereinafter “Butt”).
With respect to claim 5, Elkotby teaches the first wireless telecommunications apparatus according to claim 1.
However, Elkotby does not explicitly teach:
wherein the characteristic is determined when the communication circuitry is receiving data.
Butt does teach:
wherein a characteristic is determined when communication circuitry is receiving data (paras. [0056]-[0058] —when a UE receives data it can determine a characteristic of being in an EH state, and continue to receive data).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elkotby’s WTRU to determine its EH state facilitates receiving data, as taught by Butt.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve data throughput by receiving data when an EH device is actively receiving energy to do so, as recognized by Butt (paras. [0056]-[0058]).
With respect to claim 6, Elkotby teaches the first wireless telecommunications apparatus according to claim 1.
However, Elkotby does not explicitly teach:
wherein the characteristic is determined when the communication circuitry is transmitting data.
Butt does teach:
wherein a characteristic is determined when communication circuitry is transmitting data (paras. [0056]-[0058] —when a UE transmits data it can determine a characteristic of being in an EH state, and continue to transmit data).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elkotby’s WTRU to determine its EH state facilitates transmitting data, as taught by Butt.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve data throughput by transmitting data when an EH device is actively receiving energy to do so, as recognized by Butt (paras. [0056]-[0058]).
Claims 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elkotby in view of US PG Pub 2022/0312315 A1, Xu et al. (hereinafter “Xu”).
With respect to claim 12, Elkotby teaches a first wireless telecommunications apparatus according to claim 1.
However, Elkotby does not explicitly teach:
wherein the information indicating the determined characteristic is transmitted periodically.
Xu does teach:
wherein information indicating a determined characteristic is transmitted periodically (paras. [0113]-[0114], [0144]-[0145], and [0177] —the indication information associated with a characteristic of a UE can be sent periodically).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elkotby’s WTRU energy characteristic feedback with transmitting the feedback of the device characteristic periodically, as taught by Xu.
The motivation for doing so would have been to transmit feedback according to a routine scheduling to reduce repeated scheduling overhead, as recognized by Xu (paras. [0113]-[0114], [0144]-[0145], and [0177]).
With respect to claim 14, Elkotby teaches a first wireless telecommunications apparatus according to claim 1.
However, Elkotby does not explicitly teach:
wherein the information indicating the determined characteristic is transmitted in a physical uplink control channel, PUCCH.
Xu does teach:
wherein information indicating a determined characteristic is transmitted in a physical uplink control channel, PUCCH (paras. [0065] and [0072] —a UE power supply characteristic signal can be transmitted in the UL via the PUCCH).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elkotby’s WTRU energy characteristic feedback with transmitting a power supply signal via the PUCCH, as taught by Xu.
The motivation for doing so would have been to explicitly require feedback in the UL control channel, as recognized by Xu (paras. [0065] and [0072]).
With respect to claim 15, Elkotby teaches:
However, Elkotby does not explicitly teach:
wherein the information indicating the determined characteristic is transmitted in a physical uplink shared channel, PUSCH.
Xu does teach:
wherein the information indicating the determined characteristic is transmitted in a physical uplink shared channel, PUSCH (paras. [0065] and [0072] —a UE power supply characteristic signal can be transmitted in the UL via the PUSCH).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elkotby’s WTRU energy characteristic feedback with transmitting a power supply signal via the PUSCH, as taught by Xu.
The motivation for doing so would have been to explicitly require feedback in the UL shared channel, as recognized by Xu (paras. [0065] and [0072]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 44-46 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. Specifically, none of the identified prior art (alone or in reasonable combination) teaches/suggests all of the claimed features recited in either of dependent claims 44 and 45, when rewritten in the context of independent claim 1. Likewise, none of the identified prior art (alone or in reasonable combination) teaches/suggests the claimed features recited in dependent claim 46, when rewritten in the context of independent claim 39.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm EST.
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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights