DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on 26 July 2024 and Information Disclosure Statement filed on 7 November 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7 November 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
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 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ly et al. (US 2024/0267844, hereinafter Ly).
Regarding Claim 1, Ly discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
transmitting, to a base station, a first synchronization signal block (SSB) request (Figs. 3A, 4, and ¶¶ 3, 54, 93, 97, 106, 112, and 122 disclose a UE requesting an SSB from a network entity, such as in a Cell Wake-Up Signal (C-WUS); and ¶ 62 discloses that the term “network entity” encompasses base stations);
receiving, from the base station, an SSB (Figs. 3A, 4 and ¶¶ 97 and 123 disclose that in response to receiving the C-WUS from the UE, a the network entity transmits the requested SSB at an SSB occasion following the C-WUS occasion, and the UE receives (e.g., detects) the SSB); and
in case that the SSB is not detected within a first time interval after transmitting the first SSB request, transmitting, to the base station, a second SSB request (Contingent Limitations, such as this one, do not define the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claim – see MPEP § 2111.04(II); however, in the spirit of compact prosecution, Figs. 3A, 4, and ¶¶ 112 and 125 disclose that when the UE fails to receive the requested SSB within a duration, then the UE transmits a second WUS, such as by retransmitting the C-WUS).
Regarding Claims 6, 11, and 16, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 6, 11, and 16 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 1, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 2, 7, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ly as applied to claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 above, and further in view of Shi et al. (US 2025/0212261, hereinafter Shi).
Regarding Claim 2, Ly discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first time interval is preset (¶ 112 discloses that the duration is defined by the UE or indicated to the UE via signaling, such as from the network entity).
Ly may not explicitly disclose wherein the first time interval is preset through a protocol.
However, in analogous art, Shi discloses wherein the first time interval is preset through a protocol (Figs. 6, 11, and ¶¶ 22, 36-37, 264, 275-276, and 278 disclose a UE being preconfigured with a validity duration of a Random Access Occasion (RO) for an SSB period).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Shi to modify Ly in order to predefine the duration that a UE waits to receive a requested/target SSB before requesting an SSB again according to a protocol. One would have been motivated to do this, because such predefinition may help endure proper performance, thereby improving the performance (Shi ¶¶ 36 and 284).
Regarding Claims 7, 12, and 17, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 7, 12, and 17 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 2, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 3-4, 8-9, 13-14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ly as applied to claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (US 2021/0315026, hereinafter Jung).
Regarding Claim 3, Ly discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first time interval is determined based on a period (¶ 112 discloses that the duration is defined by the UE or indicated to the UE via signaling, such as from the network entity), and
wherein the period is preset (¶ 112 discloses that the duration is defined by the UE or indicated to the UE via signaling, such as from the network entity).
Ly may not explicitly disclose wherein the first time interval is determined based on a period over which the base station transmits an SSB burst and a number of times the base station periodically transmits the SSB burst, and
wherein the period and the number of times are preset.
However, in analogous art, Jung discloses wherein the first time interval is determined based on a period over which the base station transmits an SSB burst and a number of times the base station periodically transmits the SSB burst (Fig. 1GA and ¶¶ 66-68 disclose a base station setting a window duration to a terminal as a multiple of SSB burst lengths during which repeated SSB bursts are transmitted to the UE), and
wherein the period and the number of times are preset (Id.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Jung to modify Ly in order to preset a window duration during which a UE may expect to receive a requested SSB defined by SSB burst periodicity and number of repetitions. One would have been motivated to do this, because such a presetting may help enable a terminal to perform an initial cell selection method, thereby enabling wireless communication (Jung ¶¶ 8 and 11) due to a high likelihood of success in combining Jung and Ly.
Regarding Claim 4, Ly discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first time interval includes a second time interval after transmitting the first SSB request and a third time interval after the second time interval (Fig. 3A and ¶¶ 110 and 112 disclose the duration as representing an expiration of a timer illustrated as including a time between the end of the C-WUS uplink transmission followed by an SSB occasion and SIB occasion),
wherein the second time interval [and the third time interval] are preset (¶¶ 109 and 122 disclose that the UE determines/derives occasions using information obtained in first signaling from the base station prior to transmitting the C-WUS).
Ly may not explicitly disclose wherein the first time interval includes a second time interval after transmitting the first SSB request and a third time interval after the second time interval,
wherein the third time interval is determined based on a period over which the base station transmits an SSB burst and a number of times the base station periodically transmits the SSB burst, and
wherein the second time interval, the period, and the number of times are preset.
However, in analogous art, Jung discloses wherein the first time interval includes a second time interval after transmitting the first SSB request and a third time interval after the second time interval,
wherein the third time interval is determined based on a period over which the base station transmits an SSB burst and a number of times the base station periodically transmits the SSB burst(Fig. 1GA and ¶¶ 66-68 disclose a base station setting a window duration to a terminal as a multiple of SSB burst lengths during which repeated SSB bursts are transmitted to the UE), and
wherein the second time interval, the period, and the number of times are preset (Id.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Jung to modify Ly in order to preset a window duration during which a UE may expect to receive a requested SSB defined by SSB burst periodicity and number of repetitions. One would have been motivated to do this, because such a presetting may help enable a terminal to perform an initial cell selection method, thereby enabling wireless communication (Jung ¶¶ 8 and 11) due to a high likelihood of success in combining Jung and Ly.
Regarding Claims 8-9, 13-14, and 18-19, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 8-9, 13-14, and 18-19 are substantially similar or identical to those of claims 2-3, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ly as applied to claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 above, and further in view of Myung et al. (EP 4572422, hereinafter Myung).
Regarding Claim 5, Ly discloses the method of claim 1.
Ly may not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the first SSB request or the second SSB request is transmitted via at least one of an uplink reference signal, uplink control information, or a random access channel.
However, in analogous art, Myung discloses wherein at least one of the first SSB request or the second SSB request is transmitted via at least one of an uplink reference signal, uplink control information, or a random access channel (¶¶ 145 and 148 disclose that a specific UL signal and channel may be use for a wake-up signal (WUS), such as a predefined sounding reference signal (SRS), physical uplink (UL) control channel (PUCCH), or random access channel (RACH)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Myung to modify Ly in order to use a predefined or preconfigure uplink resource, such as SRS, PUCCH or RACH, for communicating a WUS to a base station. One would have been motivated to do this, because use a use of UL resources for a WUS may help enable UL transmission in a system where a base sta (Myung ¶¶ 145 and 148).
Regarding Claims 10, 15, and 20, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 10, 15, and 20 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 5, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al. (WO 2024/025287), at Fig. 4 and ¶ 274 and other associated description, discloses a wake-up signal carrier in a Physical Random Access Channel PRACH;
Nader et al. (US 2024/0357475), at Figs. 9-10 and associated description, discloses a UE that starts a prohibit timer at a first time upon receiving the first request for an SSB provision scheme transition, where the prohibit timer is configured to prohibit additional transition requests while the prohibit timer is running, and transition from the second SSB provision scheme to another SSB provision scheme based on a second request for a SSB provision scheme transition being received at a second time, where the prohibit timer is expired at the second time; and
Liu (US 2021/0227467), at Fig. 4 and associated description, discloses that when a wake-up signal is to be transmitted in a period of a current SSB period, a base station configures a time-frequency position for the wake-up signal.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R CAIRNS whose telephone number is (571)270-0487. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM ET M-F.
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, MARCUS SMITH can be reached at (571) 270-1096. 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.
/Thomas R Cairns/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights