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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 06/09/2026.
Claims 15, 23 and 25 have been amended.
Objection to claims is withdrawn since it has been amended accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive, and the scope of the invention has been broadened by removing limitations.
Applicant asserts that Stauffer, Chai, and Krogstad, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest “based on the first time period and the second time period not ending and one or more conditions being satisfied, transmitting a power recovery indication in an uplink (UL)transmission using the resource associated with the configured grant (CG), wherein the UL transmission includes an amount of UL data.” Applicant further asserts that Stauffer’s cancel message is only a signaling/control message and does not include UL data.
The Examiner does not rely on Stauffer for teaching that the resource used for the recited UL transmission is a CG resource. Rather, Stauffer teaches the
power-recovery indication/functionality: while the UE remains RRC connected in a low-power connected mode, the UE sends a cancel message indicating that it is exiting the low-power connected mode and resuming normal RRC-connected operation. Stauffer discloses that the UE may send this cancel message at a scheduled time or a triggered time, and that the cancel message permits UE-controlled exit from the low-power mode. Stauffer further teaches a dedicated physical-layer procedure, such as a PUCCH or RACH specific to the UE, rather than reestablishment of an RRC connection.
Chai, rather than Stauffer, teaches the claimed CG-associated resource and the UL transmission. In particular, Chai teaches that an access-network device configures a grant-free time-frequency resource for a terminal device, that the terminal starts a timer associated with the configured transmission, and that the terminal sends uplink information on the configured grant-free time-frequency resource during the timer’s valid duration. Chai also teaches that configuration information for the grant-free transmission includes both configuration information for the grant-free time-frequency resource and the validity duration.
Accordingly, the rejection does not equate Stauffer’s PUCCH or RACH with the claimed configured-grant resource. Stauffer establishes that a UE already in a low-power connected state sends an UL cancel/recovery indication before resuming normal operation, whereas Chai supplies the known, preconfigured grant-free UL resource and timer-validity mechanism on which UL information is transmitted. Stauffer’s disclosure of a UE-specific dedicated PUCCH/RACH also confirms the general, well-known use of pre-established uplink resources for prompt transmission of a low-power-mode cancellation message; the specific CG/grant-free implementation is supplied by Chai.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to implement Stauffer’s cancel/recovery indication using Chai’s configured grant-free time-frequency resource during Chai’s timer-validity period. Such a modification merely uses Chai’s known preconfigured UL transmission resource for Stauffer’s known UL notification that the UE is exiting low-power operation. The predictable result would be that the UE could notify the network of its return to normal operation and transmit available UL information without first waiting for a dynamically scheduled UL grant or undertaking a new RRC-connection establishment procedure. This implementation is consistent with Stauffer’s express objective of avoiding signaling delay, network overhead, and power consumption associated with reestablishing an RRC connection, and with Chai’s teaching of grant-free UL transmission for low-latency and high-reliability service.
Applicant’s argument that Chai does not expressly use the words “power recovery indication” is not persuasive. The rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references, not on an assertion that Chai independently discloses every claimed feature. Chai teaches transmitting UL information on its configured grant-free resource during the valid timer period, and Stauffer teaches the information/functionality to be conveyed—namely, a UE-originated cancel message indicating exit from low-power operation and resumption of normal operation. Combining the known message content of Stauffer with the known CG/grant-free UL transport of Chai would have been a predictable application of known communication techniques.
Applicant’s argument that the cancel message of Stauffer is merely a control/signaling message and therefore cannot satisfy the “amount of UL data” limitation is likewise not persuasive. As modified, the UL transmission on Chai’s configured grant-free time-frequency resource carries Stauffer’s cancel/recovery indication and available UL information/data. Chai expressly teaches sending “uplink information” on its configured grant-free resource during the timer-validity period. Nothing in Stauffer, Chai, or the claim language requires that the power recovery indication and the UL data be sent in separate transmissions, on separate physical resources, or in mutually exclusive signaling and data formats.
The combination would therefore transmit the recovery/cancel indication together with an amount of available UL data in the configured grant-free UL transmission. This would reduce signaling transactions and latency, particularly where the UE has UL information ready when it recovers sufficiently to exit the low-power state. The proposed modification is a use of prior-art elements according to their established functions and would have yielded predictable results.
Further, Stauffer teaches that the UE may exit its low-power connected mode at a time different from a base-station-recommended end time, including a triggered time, while Chai teaches UL transmission during the valid duration of its configured-grant timer. Thus, in the combined system, the Stauffer recovery/cancel indication is sent when the recovery-related condition is satisfied, while the low-power period and Chai timer-validity period have not yet ended.
Krogstad continues to teach the energy-harvesting aspect. Specifically, Krogstad teaches that a transponder can harvest energy from environmental sources, including transmitted RF signals, and can harvest energy while inactive; harvested energy may be stored in a battery, capacitor, or other charge-storage device. Incorporating that known energy-harvesting capability into Stauffer’s low-power interval would predictably provide energy while the device is conserving power, thereby supporting later recovery and UL communication.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of independent claims 15 and 23 is maintained. Applicant has not identified error in the applied combination or supplied persuasive evidence that the proposed modification would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art.
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.
Claim(s) 15, 19-20, 22-23, 27-28 and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stauffer et al. (US 2020/0351791, “Stauffer”) in view of Chai et al. (US 2021/0135730, “Chai”) and Krogstad et al. (US 2022/0179059, “Krogstad”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Stauffer unless otherwise mentioned.
Stauffer comprises the following features:
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 15, a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) associated with energy harvesting, comprising:
a processor ([0028] “The UE 110 also includes processor(s) 212 and computer-readable storage media 214 (CRM 214).”) configured to:
send a request, wherein the request indicates a requested off time ([0046] “At 304, the user equipment transmits, based on the thermal state or the battery state-of-charge, a request message to a base station for the user equipment to enter into a low-power connected mode.”);
receive a response, wherein the response comprises information ([0051] “At 306, the user equipment receives a configuration message from the base station to activate the a low-power connected mode.”) indicating an off length of time ([0057] “the configuration message includes a recommended end-time for the user equipment 110 to exit the low-power connected mode and resume normal operation of the RRC connected mode.”), a configured grant (CG), a resource associated with the CG, and a CG validity time (This will be discussed in view of Chai.);
start a first time period corresponding to the off length of time ([0052] “At 308, the user equipment activates the low-power connected mode.”);
start a second time period corresponding to the CG validity time (This will be discussed in view of Chai.);
receive an energy harvesting signal during the first time period (This will be discussed in view of Krogstad.); and
based on the first time period and the second time period not ending and one or more conditions being satisfied ([0057] “the configuration message includes a recommended end-time for the user equipment 110 to exit the low-power connected mode and resume normal operation of the RRC connected mode. The recommended end-time may or may not coincide with the time indicated in the request message. Rather, the base station 120 may recommend a different time or duration of time based on scheduling conflicts. The recommended time indicates to the user equipment 110 a time when the base station 120 can synchronize with the user equipment 110.”), transmit a power recovery indication ([0059] “At 408, the base station receives, via a PUCCH or RACH specific to the user equipment, a cancel message from the user equipment indicating that the user equipment is exiting the low-power connected mode and resuming normal operation of the RRC connected mode.”) in an uplink (UL) transmission using the resource associated with the CG, wherein the UL transmission includes an amount of UL data (This will be discussed in view of Chai.).
It is noted that while disclosing a low-power connected mode, Stauffer does not specifically teach about CG and its time, and an EH signal. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Chai and Krogstad as follows;
a configured grant (CG), a resource associated with the CG, and a CG validity time ([Chai, 0107] “The grant-free time-frequency resource is a time-frequency resource that is configured by the access network device for the terminal device and that can be used for uplink grant-free transmission.” See below [Chai, 0105] for “CG validity time” and a timer.);
start a second time period corresponding to the CG validity time ([Chai, 0105] “the terminal device starts the timer based on a received start indication of the timer. For example, the access network device sends the start indication of the timer and the at least one precoding configuration together to the terminal device, and the terminal device starts the timer based on the received start indication of the timer.”);
receive an energy harvesting signal during the first time period ([Krogstad, 0087] “a transponder may harvest energy from one or more transmitted RF signals and may harvest energy when the transponder is inactive.”);
in an uplink (UL) transmission using the resource associated with the CG ([Chai, 0106] “S204. The terminal device sends the uplink information to the access network device on a configured grant-free (Grant Free) time-frequency resource in the valid duration of the timer by using the at least one precoding configuration.”), wherein the UL transmission includes an amount of UL data ([Chai, 0109] “in the valid duration of the timer, when needing to transmit uplink data, the terminal device may send the uplink information such as the uplink data to the access network device on the grant-free time-frequency resource by using the at least one precoding configuration.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Stauffer by using the features of Chai and Krogstad in order to increase system performance such as low-latency and high reliability, and in order to effectively manage batter life such that “a precoding configuration used for transmitting the uplink information on the grant-free time-frequency resource is flexible and variable, so that inadaptation of a precoding configuration caused by a channel change is effectively avoided, thereby improving system performance” [Chai, 0010], and “The energy requirements of the transponder may be reduced by reducing the proportion of the time that the transponder is active, that may be termed the interrogation time duty cycle.” [Krogstad, 0084].
Regarding claim 23, it is a method claim corresponding to the method claim 15, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 15.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claims 19 and 27, the WTRU of claim 15 and the method of claim 23, respectively, wherein the one or more conditions are satisfied based on a power condition of the WTRU being above a threshold ([0049] “the user equipment is scheduled to exit the low-power connected mode and resume normal operation of the RRC connected mode. In aspects, the end-time can be represented by a set time, such as 3:03 pm, 10:00 am, or any other set time that provides a sufficient amount of time to cool down or to provide the user with time to locate and connect the user equipment 110 to an alternative power source.”).
Regarding claims 20 and 28, the WTRU of claim 19 and the method of claim 27, respectively, wherein the power condition of the WTRU being above the threshold is a battery level of the WTRU being above the threshold ([0045] “the user equipment 110 can compare the battery state-of-charge to a threshold value, such as a predefined value representing a charge level of the battery”. From this citation, ending the low-power mode is obvious to be in a reversal way.).
Regarding claims 22 and 30, the WTRU of claim 15 and the method of claim 23, respectively, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine that a battery level of the WTRU is below a threshold, wherein the request of the requested off time is sent based on the battery level of the WTRU being below the threshold ([0045] “the user equipment 110 can compare the battery state-of-charge to a threshold value, such as a predefined value representing a charge level of the battery, to determine whether to trigger a request to activate the low-power connected mode. Some example threshold values include 50%, 30%, 15%, 10%, 5%, 2%, and so on. Any suitable threshold value can be used to represent a charge level of the battery usable to trigger a request to activate the low-power connected mode.”).
Claim(s) 16 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stauffer et al. (US 2020/0351791, “Stauffer”) in view of Chai et al. (US 2021/0135730, “Chai”) and Krogstad et al. (US 2022/0179059, “Krogstad”) and further in view of Hong (US 2021/0127293).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Stauffer unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 16 and 24, it is noted that while disclosing a low-power connected mode, Stauffer does not specifically teach about a buffer threshold. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Hong as follows;
the WTRU of claim 15 and the method of claim 23, respectively, wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive an indication of a buffer threshold ([Hong, 0149] “the IAB node configuration information may include at least one of trigger condition information for triggering the transmission of downlink buffer status information or uplink buffer status information, information for indicating a trigger, and signaling information used to transmit buffer status information. For example, the trigger condition information may include buffer threshold value information”), wherein the one or more conditions are satisfied based on UL data available for transmission exceeding the buffer threshold ([Hong, 0152] “the IAB node monitors whether data buffered in the downlink buffer exceed a threshold value set for buffer status information transmission, whether the data buffered in the downlink buffer satisfy a trigger condition for the buffer status information transmission”, and [Hong, 0155] “when the result of the monitoring for the buffer status satisfies a buffer status information transmission trigger condition, the IAB node transmits buffer status information.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Stauffer by using the features of Hong in order to increase system performance such as low-latency and high reliability such that “monitoring an uplink buffer status or a downlink buffer status in the IAB node, and transmitting uplink buffer status information or downlink buffer status information to the donor base station or an associated parent IAB node based on the result of the monitoring for the uplink buffer status or the downlink buffer status.” [Hong, 0009].
Claim(s) 17 and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stauffer et al. (US 2020/0351791, “Stauffer”) in view of Chai et al. (US 2021/0135730, “Chai”) and Krogstad et al. (US 2022/0179059, “Krogstad”) and further in view of Shukair et al. (US 2019/0320491, “Shukair”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Stauffer unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 17 and 25, it is noted that while disclosing a low-power connected mode, Stauffer does not specifically teach about transmitting data amount exceeding a buffer threshold. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Shukair as follows;
the WTRU of claim 16 and the method of claim 24, respectively, wherein the amount of the UL data included in the UL transmission is an amount of the UL data available for transmission that exceeds the buffer threshold ([Shukair, 0071] “when the amount of UL traffic in the transmission buffer meets or exceeds a threshold, the scheduled entity may no longer continue to skip SPS UL transmission grants and may need to transmit the UL traffic accumulated in the transmission buffer during the next SPS UL transmission grant.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Stauffer by using the features of Shukair in order to provide transmission flexibility and enhance user experience such that “Various aspects relate to dynamic prioritization of uplink (UL) traffic at a scheduled entity (e.g., UE).” [Shukair, 0008].
Claim(s) 18 and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stauffer et al. (US 2020/0351791, “Stauffer”) in view of Chai et al. (US 2021/0135730, “Chai”), Krogstad et al. (US 2022/0179059, “Krogstad”) and Shukair et al. (US 2019/0320491, “Shukair”), and further in view of Chakravarthy et al. (US 2014/0254505, “Chakravarthy”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Stauffer unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 18 and 26, it is noted that while disclosing a low-power connected mode, Stauffer does not specifically teach about data transmission on a sufficient power. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Chakravarthy as follows;
the WTRU of claim 17 and the method of claim 25, respectively, wherein the one or more conditions are satisfied further based on the WTRU having sufficient energy to send the amount of the UL data available for transmission that exceeds the buffer threshold ([Chakravarthy, 0025] “be used by the UE to transmit the non-scheduled, time critical data using whatever (very small amount of) power headroom is still available at the UE.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Stauffer by using the features of Chakravarthy in order to improve time critical data transmissions in a power-limited state such that “a method for prioritizing time critical data for transmission by a user equipment (UE) is described.” [Chakravarthy, 0009].
Claim(s) 21 and 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stauffer et al. (US 2020/0351791, “Stauffer”) in view of Chai et al. (US 2021/0135730, “Chai”) and Krogstad et al. (US 2022/0179059, “Krogstad”), and further in view of Tseng (US 2016/0157256).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Stauffer unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 21 and 29, it is noted that while disclosing a low-power connected mode, Stauffer does not specifically teach about comparing lengths of two duration periods. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Tseng as follows;
the WTRU of claim 15 and the method of claim 23, respectively, wherein the first time period is longer than the second time period ([Tseng, 0160] “the length of the SR Prohibit Timer is longer than the periodicity of VoIP data arrival.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Stauffer by using the features of Tseng in order to effectively utilize resources such that “the method includes triggering a BSR (Buffer Status Report) due to a first UL data becoming available in the UE (User Equipment). The method also includes starting a timer associated with the BSR.” [Tseng, 0005].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 Harry H. Kim whose telephone number and email address are as follows; 571-272-5009, harry.kim2@uspto.gov.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from www.uspto.gov. For questions or assistance, 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.
/HARRY H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights