DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is a response to the Application/Control Number: 18/855,196 filed on 10/08/2024.
Claims Status
2. This office action is based upon claims received on 10/08/2024, which replace all prior or other submitted versions of the claims.
-Claims 1-20 are pending.
-Claims 1-5, 7-19 are rejected.
-Claims 6, 20 are objected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
4. Acknowledgment is made of a 371 of PCT/CN2022/091971, filed 05/10/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/07/2025, 03/09/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-9, 11-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
A. Regarding Claim 1-7, 9, 15-20 (using claim 1 as an example representative of claims 9, 15 and dependent claim 2 as representative of dependent claims 3-7, 16-20) - Claim 1 recites terms “at least one network energy saving technique” a second time in a recitation of “implements at least one network energy saving technique” after a preceding recitation of “at least one network energy saving technique” a first time in a recitation of “implement at least one network energy saving technique” in Claim 1. The office action presents a lack of clarity as to where recitation of the terms “at least one network energy saving technique” the second time in Claim 1 finds antecedent basis, i.e. whether the recitation of “at least one network energy saving technique” the first time serves as the antecedent basis for the terms “at least one network energy saving technique” recited the second time, or whether the recitation the terms “at least one network energy saving technique” the second time refers to a separate instance of the terms “at least one network energy saving technique” different from the terms “at least one network energy saving technique” recited the first time.
Independent claim 9, and 15 are subject to the same issues identified for claim 1.
Regarding Dependent claim 2 - Claim 2 recites terms “at least one network energy saving technique” after preceding recitations of “at least one network energy saving technique” (i.e. noted above) in Claim 1 from which claim 2 ultimately depends. The office action presents a lack of clarity as to where recitation of the terms “at least one network energy saving technique” in Claim 2 finds antecedent basis, i.e. whether one of the preceding recitations of “at least one network energy saving technique” in claim 1 serves as the antecedent basis for the terms “at least one network energy saving technique” in claim 2, or whether the recitation of the terms “at least one network energy saving technique” in claim 2 refers to a separate instance of the terms “at least one network energy saving technique” different from the recitations of the terms “at least one network energy saving technique” in Claim 1.
Dependent claims 3-7 also depending from independent claim 1, and dependent claims 16-20 depending from independent claim 15, are subject to similar issues identified for claim 2.
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested and required to appropriately address and clarify as applicable to reflect applicant’s intent and objective for the claim language noted.
B. Regarding Claim 11-14 (using claim 11 as an example representative of claims 12-14) - Claim 11 recites terms “at least one energy saving technique” a second time after a preceding recitation of “at least one energy saving technique” a first time in independent Claim 10 (i.e. from which claim 11 depends). The office action presents a lack of clarity as to where recitation of the terms “at least one energy saving technique” the second time in Claim 11 finds antecedent basis, i.e. whether the recitation of “at least one energy saving technique” the first time in claim 10 serves as the antecedent basis for the terms “at least one energy saving technique” recited the second time in claim 11, or whether the recitation the terms “at least one energy saving technique” the second time in claim 11 refers to a separate instance of the terms “at least one energy saving technique” different from the terms “at least one energy saving technique” recited the first time in Claim 10.
Dependent claim 12-14 are subject to the same issues identified for claim 11.
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested and required to appropriately address and clarify as applicable to reflect applicant’s intent and objective for the claim language noted.
C. Regarding Claim 2, 16, 17 (using claim 2 as an example representative of claims 16, 17) - Claim 2 recites terms “cells” a second time in “cells that implement at least one network energy saving technique” after a preceding recitation of “cells” a first time in independent Claim 1 (i.e. from which claim 2 depends). The office action presents a lack of clarity as to where recitation of the terms “cells” the second time in Claim 2 finds antecedent basis, i.e. whether the recitation of “cells” the first time in claim 1 serves as the antecedent basis for the terms “cells” recited the second time in claim 2, or whether the recitation the terms “cells” the second time in claim 2 refers to a separate instance of the terms “cells” different from the terms “cells” recited the first time in Claim 1.
Dependent claim 16-17 with respect to claim 15 are subject to the same issues identified for claim 2.
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested and required to appropriately address and clarify as applicable to reflect applicant’s intent and objective for the claim language noted.
D. Regarding Claim 3, 6, 8, 20 (using claim 3 as an example representative of claims 6, 20) - Claim 3 recites terms “cell selection or re-selection” after a preceding recitation of “cell selection or re-selection” a first time in independent Claim 1 (i.e. from which claim 3 depends). The office action presents a lack of clarity as to where recitation of the terms “cell selection or re-selection” the second time in Claim 3 finds antecedent basis, i.e. whether the recitation of “cell selection or re-selection” the first time in claim 1 serves as the antecedent basis for the terms “cell selection or re-selection” recited the second time in claim 3, or whether the recitation the terms “cell selection or re-selection” the second time in claim 3 refers to a separate instance of the terms “cell selection or re-selection” different from the terms “cell selection or re-selection” recited the first time in Claim 1.
Dependent claims 6, 8 depending from Claim 1, and claim 20 depending from Claim 15 are subject to similar issues identified for claim 3.
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested and required to appropriately address and clarify as applicable to reflect applicant’s intent and objective for the claim language noted.
E. Regarding Claim 4, 6, 7, 8, 18, 20 (using claim 4 as an example representative of claims 6, 7, 8, 18, 20) - Claim 4 recites terms “a in “a that implements” after a preceding recitation of “a in “a that implements” a first time in independent Claim 1 (i.e. from which claim 4 depends). The office action presents a lack of clarity as to where recitation of the terms “a the second time in Claim 4 finds antecedent basis, i.e. whether the recitation of “a the first time in claim 1 serves as the antecedent basis for the terms “a recited the second time in claim 4, or whether the recitation the terms “a the second time in claim 4 refers to a separate instance of the terms “a different from the terms “a recited the first time in Claim 1.
Dependent claim 6, 7, 8 depending from Claim 1, and claims 18, 20 depending from Claim 15 are subject to similar issues identified for claim 4.
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested and required to appropriately address and clarify as applicable to reflect applicant’s intent and objective for the claim language noted.
F. Regarding Claim 6, 7, 13, 20 (using claim 6 as an example representative of claims 7, 13, 20) - Claim 6 recites terms “sleep state” and “non-sleep state” a second time after a preceding recitation of “sleep state” and “non-sleep state” in Claim 4 (i.e. from which claim 6 depends). The office action presents a lack of clarity as to where recitation of the terms “sleep state” and “non-sleep state” the second time in Claim 6 finds antecedent basis, i.e. whether the recitation of “sleep state” and “non-sleep state” in claim 4, respectively serve as the antecedent basis for the terms “sleep state” and “non-sleep state” recited the second time in claim 6, or whether the recitation the terms “sleep state” and “non-sleep state” the second time in claim 6 refers to a separate instance of the terms “sleep state” and “non-sleep state” different from the terms “sleep state” and “non-sleep state” recited in Claim 1.
Dependent claim 7 depending from Claim 4, dependent claim 13 depending from Claim 12, and dependent claim 20 depending from Claim 18, are subject to similar issues identified for claim 6.
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested and required to appropriately address and clarify as applicable to reflect applicant’s intent and objective for the claim language noted.
G. Regarding Claims 2-8, 16-20, which depend from respective independent claims 1, 15, these claims (i.e. Claims 2-8, 16-20) are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph at least via dependency to the respective independent claims.
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested and required to appropriately address and clarify as applicable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
9. Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LIU et. al (US 20240397421 A1) i.e. “LIU”.
Regarding Claim 1. (Currently Amended) LIU discloses: A user equipment (UE) (LIU FIG. 7 & ¶0083 […] method may be performed by a UE and includes the following steps S701 to S703;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per ¶0083 i.e. a UE reads on: A user equipment (UE)),
the UE comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to(LIU FIG.7 & FIG. 13 & ¶0140 […] device 1300 may be a network device, a UE, or a chip, a chip system or a processor, etc. that supports a network device to implement the above-described method, or the communication device 1300 may be a chip, a chip system or a processor, etc. that supports a terminal device to implement the above-described method; ¶0141 […] central processor may be configured to control the communication device (e.g., a base station, a baseband chip, a terminal device, a terminal device chip, a DU or a CU, etc.), execute a computer program […]; ¶0142 […] one or more memories 1302 may store a computer program 1304. The processor 1301 executes the computer program 1304 to cause the communication device 1300 to perform the method described in the above method embodiments;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per ¶0140 i.e. device 1300 may be i.e. a UE and i.e. per ¶0142 i.e. one or more memories 1302 reads on: the UE comprising: at least one memory, and per FIG. 13 processor is coupled to the memory and per ¶0142 i.e. may store a computer program 1304. The processor 1301 executes the computer program 1304 reads on: and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory to cause the communication device 1300 to perform the method reads on: and configured to cause the UE to):
identify implement at least one network energy saving (LIU FIG. 7 & ¶0084 […] step S701, energy saving mode information sent by a base station is received. Herein, the energy saving mode information is used for indicating energy saving mode configuration of a current serving cell of the UE and a neighbor cell of the current serving cell, and an energy consumption of the base station caused by a cell using the energy saving mode configuration is lower than […];¶0080 […] step S602, the energy saving mode configuration of the current serving cell and the neighbor cell of the current serving cell is determined based on the energy saving mode information; ¶0089 […] step S702, reference may be made to the description of step S602;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per ¶0089 i.e. step S702 reference made to S602 and per ¶0080 i.e. the energy saving mode configuration of i.e. the current serving cell and the neighbor cell of the current serving cell is determined reads on: identify cells per ¶0080 i.e. configuration of the current serving cell and the neighbor cell of the current serving cell is determined i.e. based on the energy saving mode information reads on: that implement at least one network energy saving techniques technique );
and select or re-select a that implements at least one network energy saving technique and that fulfills a predetermined criteriobased at least in part on cell selection or re-selection performed (LIU FIG. 7 & ¶0090 […]step S703, a new serving cell is determined based on the energy saving mode configuration of the current serving cell and the neighbor cell of the current serving cell; ¶0091 […] after the UE obtains the energy saving mode configuration of the current serving cell and the neighbor cell of the current serving cell, the UE may determine, during a cell selection/reselection process, the new serving cell based on an existing reselection strategy and consideration of the energy saving mode configuration of these cells. For example, the UE may consider the impact on its service or on the synchronization performance when a certain cell is in the energy saving mode configuration, if the impact is acceptable, the UE may consider using the cell as the new serving cell, and if the impact is not acceptable, the UE may not reselect to the cell; ¶0092 […] the method for determining the cell configuration […], the base station sends to the UE the energy saving mode information indicative of the energy saving mode configuration of the serving cell of the UE and the neighbor cell of the serving cell, the UE determines the energy saving mode configuration of the serving cell and the neighbor cell of the serving cell based on the energy saving mode information, and the UE determines the new serving cell based on the energy saving mode configuration of the serving cell and the neighbor cell of the serving cell. As a result, the UE is capable of selecting a suitable cell even though there are cells in the energy saving mode configuration
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per ¶0091 i.e. after the UE obtains the energy saving mode configuration of the current serving cell and the neighbor cell of the current serving cell, the UE may determine, i.e. during a cell selection/reselection process, the new serving cell reads on: and select or re-select a cell i.e. the new serving cell based on an existing reselection strategy i.e. and consideration of the energy saving mode configuration of these cells reads on: that implements at least one network energy saving technique . Furthermore per ¶0091 i.e. the UE may determine, during a cell selection/reselection process, the new serving cell based on an existing reselection strategy i.e. the UE may consider the impact on its service or on the synchronization performance when a certain cell is in the energy saving mode configuration, if the impact is acceptable reads on: and that fulfills a predetermined criterion , where furthermore per ¶0091 i.e. the UE may determine, during a cell selection/reselection process, i.e. the impact on its service or on the synchronization performance i.e. if the impact is acceptable, the UE may consider using the cell as the new serving cell reads on: based at least in part on cell selection or re-selection being performed i.e. based on an existing reselection strategy i.e. during a cell selection/reselection process. Likewise per criterion i.e. if the impact is not acceptable, the UE may not reselect to the cell).
Regarding Claim 2. (Currently Amended) LIU discloses: The UE of claim 1,
furthermore LIU discloses: wherein, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to receive that implement at least one network energy saving technique (LIU FIG. 7 & ¶0084 See claim 1; ¶0086 […] receiving the energy saving mode information sent by the base station includes receiving, through a system broadcast or an RRC signaling, the energy saving mode information sent by the base station;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per ¶0086 i.e. receiving, through a system broadcast or an RRC signaling reads on: wherein, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to receive system information broadcast or dedicated signaling and furthermore i.e. receiving the energy saving mode information sent by the base station, where per FIG. 7 & ¶0084 i.e. the energy saving mode information is used for indicating energy saving mode configuration of a current serving cell of the UE and a neighbor cell of the current serving cell reads on: to identify cells , i.e. configuration of a current serving cell of the UE and a neighbor cell of the current serving cell and an energy consumption of the base station caused by a cell using the energy saving mode configuration is lower reads on: that implement at least one network energy saving technique ).
Regarding Claim 9. (Currently Amended) LIU discloses: A method performed by a user equipment (UE) (LIU FIG. 7 & ¶0083 […] method may be performed by a UE and includes the following steps S701 to S703;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per ¶0083 i.e. method may be performed by a UE reads on: A method performed by a user equipment (UE)),
(See the rejection of Claim 1, Claim 9 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 1, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 1 applies similarly to Claim 9. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) comprising: identifying implement at least one network energy saving re-selecting a cell that implements at least one network energy saving technique and that fulfills a predetermined criteriobased at least in part on cell selection or re-selection is-being performed (See the rejection of Claim 1, Claim 9 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 1, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 1 applies similarly to Claim 9. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 10. (Currently Amended) LIU discloses: A base unit (LIU FIG. 7 & ¶0084 […] step S701, energy saving mode information sent by a base station is received; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per ¶0084 i.e. sent by a base station reads on: A base unit),
(See the rejection of Claim 1, Claim 10 pertains to a base unit associated with the UE of claim 1, and Claim 10 recites similar and parallel features reciprocally performed in association with the UE of Claim 1 (i.e. base unit indicates and reciprocally UE identifies based upon indication received), and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 1 applies similarly to Claim 10. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate)
comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the base unit to (LIU FIG.7 & FIG. 13 & ¶0140 See claim 1; ¶0142 See claim 1;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per ¶0140 i.e. device 1300 may be i.e. a network device and i.e. per ¶0142 i.e. one or more memories 1302 reads on: comprising: at least one memory, and per FIG. 13 processor is coupled to the memory and per ¶0142 i.e. may store a computer program 1304. The processor 1301 executes the computer program 1304 reads on: and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory to cause the communication device 1300 to perform the method reads on: and configured to cause the base unit to)
indicate whether the base unit implements at least one energy saving technique (LIU FIG. 7 & ¶0084 See claim 1;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per ¶0084 i.e. step S701, energy saving mode information sent by a base station is received reads on: indicate whether the base unit i.e. Herein, the energy saving mode information is used for indicating energy saving mode configuration i.e. of a current serving cell of the UE and a neighbor cell of i.e. the current serving cell reads on: implements at least one energy saving technique).
(See the rejection of Claim 1, Claim 10 pertains to a base unit associated with the UE of claim 1, and Claim 10 recites similar and parallel features reciprocally performed in association with the UE of Claim 1 (i.e. base unit indicates and reciprocally UE identifies based upon indication received), and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 1 applies similarly to Claim 10. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate)
Regarding Claim 11. (Currently Amended) LIU discloses: The base unit of claim 10,
furthermore LIU discloses: wherein, the at least one processor is configured to cause the base unit to indicate whether each of neighboring base units is a at least one network energy saving (LIU FIG. 7 & ¶0084 See claim 1; ¶0086 See claim 1; ¶0092 See claim 1;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per ¶0084 i.e. step S701, energy saving mode information sent by a base station is received combined with Per ¶0086 i.e. receiving, through a system broadcast or an RRC signaling reads on: wherein, the at least one processor is configured to cause the base unit to indicate per ¶0084 and per ¶0092 i.e. the base station sends to the UE the energy saving mode information indicative of the energy saving mode configuration of the serving cell of the UE and the neighbor cell of the serving cell, the UE determines the energy saving mode configuration of the serving cell and the neighbor cell of the serving cell based on the energy saving mode information i.e. the UE determines the energy saving mode configuration of the serving cell and the neighbor cell of the serving cell based on the energy saving mode information, and the UE determines the new serving cell based on the energy saving mode configuration of the serving cell and the neighbor cell of the serving cell. As a result, the UE is capable of selecting a suitable cell even though i.e. there are cells in the energy saving mode configuration reads on: whether each of neighboring base units is a base unit that implements at least one network energy saving technique).
Regarding Claim 14. (Currently Amended) LIU discloses: The base unit of claim 10,
(See the rejection of Claim 2, Claim 11 pertains to a base unit associated with the UE of Claim 2, and Claim 11 recites similar and parallel features reciprocally performed in association with the UE of Claim 2 (i.e. base unit indicates and reciprocally UE identifies based upon indication received), and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 2 applies similarly to Claim 11. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate)
furthermore LIU discloses: wherein, the at least one processor is configured to cause the base unit to transmit system information broadcast or dedicated signaling to indicate whether the base unit is the that supports at least one energy saving technique(LIU FIG. 7 & ¶0084 See claim 1; ¶0086 See claim 1;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per ¶0084 i.e. step S701, energy saving mode information sent by a base station is received combined with Per ¶0086 i.e. receiving, through a system broadcast or an RRC signaling reads on: wherein, the at least one processor is configured to cause the base unit to transmit system information broadcast or dedicated signaling per ¶0084 i.e. Herein, the energy saving mode information is used for indicating i.e. energy saving mode configuration of a current serving cell of the UE reads on: to indicate whether the base unit is the base unit that supports at least one energy saving technique and a neighbor cell of the current serving cell)
(See the rejection of Claim 2, Claim 11 pertains to a base unit associated with the UE of Claim 2, and Claim 11 recites similar and parallel features reciprocally performed in association with the UE of Claim 2 (i.e. base unit indicates and reciprocally UE identifies based upon indication received), and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 2 applies similarly to Claim 11. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 15. (New) LIU discloses: A processor for wireless communication, comprising: at least one controller coupled with at least one memory and configured to cause the processor to (LIU FIG.7 & FIG. 13 & ¶0083 […] method may be performed by a UE and includes the following steps S701 to S703; ¶0140 […] device 1300 may be a network device, a UE, or a chip, a chip system or a processor, etc. that supports a network device to implement the above-described method, or the communication device 1300 may be a chip, a chip system or a processor, etc. that supports a terminal device to implement the above-described method; ¶0141 […] central processor may be configured to control the communication device (e.g., a base station, a baseband chip, a terminal device, a terminal device chip, a DU or a CU, etc.), execute a computer program […]; ¶0142 […] one or more memories 1302 may store a computer program 1304. The processor 1301 executes the computer program 1304 to cause the communication device 1300 to perform the method described in the above method embodiments;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per ¶0140 i.e. device 1300 may be i.e. a UE and i.e. per ¶0142 i.e. one or more memories 1302I.E. The processor 1301 reads on: A processor for wireless communication, and per FIG. 13 processor is coupled to the memory and per ¶0142 i.e. may store a computer program 1304. The processor 1301 executes the computer program 1304 reads on: comprising: at least one controller coupled with at least one memory to cause the communication device 1300 to perform the method reads on: and configured to cause the processor to):
(See the rejection of Claim 1, Claim 15 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 1, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 1 applies similarly to Claim 15. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) identify cells that implement at least one network energy saving technique; and select or re-select a cell that implements at least one network energy saving technique and that fulfills a predetermined criterion based at least in part on cell selection or re-selection being performed (See the rejection of Claim 1, Claim 15 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 1, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 1 applies similarly to Claim 15. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 16. (New) LIU discloses: The processor of claim 15,
(See the rejection of Claim 2, Claim 16 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 2, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 2 applies similarly to Claim 16. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) wherein, the at least one controller is configured to cause the processor to receive system information broadcast or dedicated signaling to identify cells that implement at least one network energy saving technique(See the rejection of Claim 2, Claim 16 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 2, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 2 applies similarly to Claim 16. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
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.
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.
11. Claim 3, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU, in view of MYUNG et al. (US 20250266946 A1) i.e. “MYUNG”.
Regarding Claim 3. (Currently Amended) LIU discloses: The UE of claim 1,
LIU does not appear to explicitly disclose or strongly suggest (note i.e. see italicized portions of claim limitations): wherein, the that implements at least one network energy saving technique has precedence over a legacy cell that does not implement at least one network energy saving technique in cell selection or re-selection.
MYUNG teaches: wherein, the that implements at least one network energy saving technique has precedence over a legacy cell that does not implement at least one network energy saving technique in cell selection or re-selection (MYUNG ¶0238 […]For example, a specific multiplexing pattern between an SSB and a Type0-PDCCH or a specific FR1/FR2 subcarrier spacing (SCS) combination may be indicated. Alternatively, whether the BS is operating in the power saving mode and the possibility of operation in the power saving mode may be configured by information in SIB1 or a PBCH or paging DCI. In particular, the interpretation of a cell barring indication or the cell barring indication itself in SIB1 may be differentiated for the legacy UE and the advanced UE, and when a configuration indicating that the BS is operating in the power saving mode or may operate in the saving mode, the legacy UE may camp on another cell without camping on the BS by performing a cell barring operation, whereas the advanced UE supporting the power saving operation of the BS may access the BS.;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0238 i.e. the interpretation of a cell barring indication or the cell barring indication itself in SIB1 may be differentiated for the legacy UE and the advanced UE, and when a configuration indicating that i.e. the BS is operating in the power saving mode or may operate in the saving mode reads on: wherein, the cell that implements at least one network energy saving technique , per ¶0238 i.e. the legacy UE may camp on another cell without camping on the BS by performing a cell barring operation, i.e. whereas the advanced UE supporting the power saving operation of the BS may access the BS reads on: has precedence over i.e. advanced UE which operates with different priority as opposed to per ¶0238 i.e. the legacy UE which may camp on another cell without camping on the BS by performing a cell barring operation reads on: over a legacy cell that does not implement at least one network energy saving technique in cell selection or re-selection ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of LIU with teachings of MYUNG, since MYUNG enables enabling a UE supporting no NES operation to access an NES-mode BS is provided so that the legacy UE may also efficiently operate in the NES mode (MYUNG - ¶0030).
Regarding Claim 17. (New) LIU discloses: The processor of claim 15,
(See the rejection of Claim 3, Claim 17 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 3, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 3 applies similarly to Claim 17. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate)wherein, the cell that implements at least one network energy saving technique has precedence over a legacy cell that does not implement at least one network energy saving technique in cell selection or re-selection(See the rejection of Claim 3, Claim 17 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 3, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 3 applies similarly to Claim 17. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
12. Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU in view of MOCHIZUKI et al. (US 20200213941 A1) i.e. “MOCHIZUKI”.
Regarding Claim 4. (Currently Amended) LIU discloses: The UE of claim 1,
LIU does not appear to explicitly disclose or strongly suggest (note i.e. see italicized portions of claim limitations): identify whether a that implements at least one network energy saving technique is
MOCHIZUKI teaches: wherein, the at least one processor is cause the UE to identify whether a that implements at least one network energy saving technique is (note: limitations separated by a recitation “or” are interpreted as presented in the alternative and not required together i.e. for the purposes of patentable weight) or (note: limitations separated by a recitation “or” are interpreted as presented in the alternative and not required together i.e. for the purposes of patentable weight)
(note: limitations separated by a recitation “or” are interpreted as presented in the alternative and not required together i.e. for the purposes of patentable weight)
(MOCHIZUKI – FIG. 12 & FIG. 17 & ¶ 0374 In step ST1502, the UE performs DS measurement of the ES cell. The UE may perform DS measurement for detecting an ES cell. The serving cell notifies in advance the UE of the DS configuration of an ES cell that is to be subjected to DS measurement. This notification message is referred to as a measurement control message; ¶0375 The measurement control message may include the information indicating whether the ES cell is in the dormant state or the active state. This allows the UE to perform DS measurement of only the ES cell in the dormant state. Or, the measurement control message may include the information indicating whether DS measurement is for wake-up of the ES cell. This allows the UE to perform DS measurement only for wake-up.;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0374 i.e. The serving cell notifies in advance the UE of the DS configuration of an ES cell that is to be subjected to DS measurement. This notification message is referred to as a measurement control message reads on: wherein, the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to identify and per ¶0375 i.e. The measurement control message may include the information indicating i.e. whether the ES cell is in the dormant state reads on: whether a cell that implements at least one network energy saving technique is in sleep state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of LIU with teachings of MOCHIZUKI, since MOCHIZUKI enables procedures which prevents unnecessary switching of the energy saving cell between the normal operation state and the energy saving state (MOCHIZUKI - ¶0066).
Regarding Claim 5. (Currently Amended) LIU in view of MOCHIZUKI teaches: The UE of claim 4,
LIU does not appear to explicitly disclose or strongly suggest (note i.e. see italicized portions of claim limitations): receive of the
Furthermore MOCHIZUKI teaches: wherein, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to receive (note: limitations separated by a recitation “or” are interpreted as presented in the alternative and not required together i.e. for the purposes of patentable weight) or(note: limitations separated by a recitation “or” are interpreted as presented in the alternative and not required together i.e. for the purposes of patentable weight) dedicated signaling (note: limitations separated by a recitation “or” are interpreted as presented in the alternative and not required together i.e. for the purposes of patentable weight) to identify the state of the that implements at least one network energy saving technique.
(MOCHIZUKI – FIG. 12 & FIG. 17 & ¶ 0374 See claim 4; ¶0375 See claim 4;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0374 i.e. The serving cell notifies in advance the UE of the DS configuration of an ES cell that is to be subjected to DS measurement reads on: wherein, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to receive dedicated signaling This notification message is referred to as a measurement control message and per ¶0375 i.e. The measurement control message may include the information indicating i.e. whether the ES cell is in the dormant state reads on: to identify the state of the cell that implements at least one network energy saving technique).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of LIU with teachings of MOCHIZUKI, since MOCHIZUKI enables procedures which prevents unnecessary switching of the energy saving cell between the normal operation state and the energy saving state (MOCHIZUKI - ¶0066).
Regarding Claim 12. (Currently Amended) LIU discloses: The base unit of claim 10,
furthermore LIU discloses: wherein, the at least one processor is configured to cause the base unit to indicate whether the base unit is a that supports at least one energy saving technique (LIU FIG. 7 & ¶0084 See claim 1; ¶0086 See claim 1;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per ¶0084 i.e. step S701, energy saving mode information sent by a base station is received combined with Per ¶0086 i.e. receiving, through a system broadcast or an RRC signaling reads on: wherein, the at least one processor is configured to cause the base unit to indicate per ¶0084 and per ¶0092 i.e. the base station sends to the UE the energy saving mode information indicative of the energy saving mode configuration of the serving cell of the UE and the neighbor cell of the serving cell, the UE determines the energy saving mode configuration of the serving cell and the neighbor cell of the serving cell based on the energy saving mode information i.e. the UE determines the energy saving mode configuration of i.e. the serving cell and the neighbor cell of the serving cell based on the energy saving mode information, and the UE determines the new serving cell i.e. based on the energy saving mode configuration of the serving cell reads on: whether the base unit is a base unit that supports at least one energy saving technique);
LIU does not appear to explicitly disclose or strongly suggest (note i.e. see italicized portions of claim limitations): one energy saving technique in sleep state or a
MOCHIZUKI teaches: wherein, the at least one processor is configured to cause the base unit to indicate whether the base unit supports at least one energy saving technique in sleep state or aMOCHIZUKI – FIG. 7, FIG. 12 & FIG. 17 & ¶0127 […] the cell configuration in which macro eNBs and small eNBs coexist […] ; ¶0128 […] a plurality of eNBs coexist, the coverage of the cell configured by an eNB may be included in the coverage of the cell configured by another eNB; ¶0134 […] studied as the technique of semi-static cell on and cell off is a technique of judging whether a UE is located adjacent to an energy saving cell (abbreviated as an ES cell) ; ¶0374 See claim 4; ¶0375 See claim 4.;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0374 i.e. The serving cell notifies in advance message reads on: wherein, the processor is further configured at least one processor is configured to cause the base unit to indicate, i.e. The serving cell notifies in advance message the UE of the DS configuration of an ES cell that is to be subjected to DS measurement. This notification message is referred to as a measurement control and per ¶0375 i.e. The measurement control message may include the information indicating i.e. whether the ES cell is in the dormant state as applied to FIG. 7 comprising i.e. the cell configuration in which macro eNBs and small eNBs coexist and per ¶0134 i.e. a UE is located adjacent to an energy saving cell on a serving cell of FIG. 12. reads on: whether the base unit supports at least one energy saving technique per ¶0375 i.e. The measurement control message may include the information indicating i.e. whether the ES cell is in the dormant state reads on: in sleep state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of LIU with teachings of MOCHIZUKI, since MOCHIZUKI enables procedures which prevents unnecessary switching of the energy saving cell between the normal operation state and the energy saving state (MOCHIZUKI - ¶0066).
Regarding Claim 13. (Currently Amended) LIU in view of MOCHIZUKI teaches: The base unit of claim 12, wherein,
furthermore LIU teaches: wherein, the at least one processor is configured to cause the base unit to indicate whether each of neighboring base units is a that supports at least one energy saving technique (LIU FIG. 7 & ¶0084 See claim 1; ¶0092 See Claim 1;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per ¶0084 i.e. step S701, energy saving mode information sent by a base station is received reads on: wherein, the processor is further configured at least one processor is configured to cause the base unit to indicate i.e. per ¶0084 and per ¶0092 i.e. the base station sends to the UE the energy saving mode information indicative of the energy saving mode configuration of the serving cell of the UE and the neighbor cell of the serving cell, the UE determines the energy saving mode configuration of the serving cell and the neighbor cell of the serving cell based on the energy saving mode information i.e. the UE determines the energy saving mode configuration of the serving cell and the neighbor cell of the serving cell based on the energy saving mode information, and the UE determines the new serving cell based on the energy saving mode configuration of the serving cell and the neighbor cell of the serving cell. As a result, the UE is capable of selecting a suitable cell even though i.e. there are cells in the energy saving mode configuration reads on: whether each of neighboring base units is a base unit that supports at least one energy saving technique)
LIU does not appear to explicitly disclose or strongly suggest (note i.e. see italicized portions of claim limitations): at least one energy saving technique in sleep state or
MOCHIZUKI teaches: wherein, the at least one processor is configured to cause the base unit to indicate whether each of neighboring base units is a that supports at least one energy saving technique in sleep state(note: limitations separated by a recitation “or” are interpreted as presented in the alternative and not required together i.e. for the purposes of patentable weight) or(note: limitations separated by a recitation “or” are interpreted as presented in the alternative and not required together i.e. for the purposes of patentable weight) (note: limitations separated by a recitation “or” are interpreted as presented in the alternative and not required together i.e. for the purposes of patentable weight)
(MOCHIZUKI – FIG. 7, FIG. 12 & FIG. 17 & ¶0127 […] the cell configuration in which macro eNBs and small eNBs coexist […] ; ¶0128 […] a plurality of eNBs coexist, the coverage of the cell configured by an eNB may be included in the coverage of the cell configured by another eNB; ¶0134 […] studied as the technique of semi-static cell on and cell off is a technique of judging whether a UE is located adjacent to an energy saving cell (abbreviated as an ES cell) ; ¶0374 See claim 4; ¶0375 See claim 4.;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0374 i.e. The serving cell notifies in advance message reads on: wherein, the processor is further configured at least one processor is configured to cause the base unit to indicate, i.e. The serving cell notifies in advance message the UE of the DS configuration of an ES cell that is to be subjected to DS measurement. This notification message is referred to as a measurement control and per ¶0375 i.e. The measurement control message may include the information indicating i.e. whether the ES cell is in the dormant state as applied to FIG. 7 comprising i.e. the cell configuration in which macro eNBs and small eNBs coexist and per ¶0134 i.e. a UE is located adjacent to an energy saving cell on a serving cell of FIG. 12. reads on: whether each of neighboring base units is a base unit that supports at least one energy saving technique per ¶0375 i.e. The measurement control message may include the information indicating i.e. whether the ES cell is in the dormant state reads on: in sleep state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of LIU with teachings of MOCHIZUKI, since MOCHIZUKI enables procedures which prevents unnecessary switching of the energy saving cell between the normal operation state and the energy saving state (MOCHIZUKI - ¶0066).
Regarding Claim 18. (New) LIU discloses: The processor of claim 15,
(See the rejection of Claim 4, Claim 18 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 4, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 4 applies similarly to Claim 18. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate)wherein, the at least one controller is configured to cause the processor to identify whether a cell that implements at least one network energy saving technique is in sleep state or in non-sleep state(See the rejection of Claim 4, Claim 18 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 4, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 4 applies similarly to Claim 18. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 19. (New) LIU in view of MOCHIZUKI teaches: The processor of claim 18,
(See the rejection of Claim 5, Claim 19 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 5, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 5 applies similarly to Claim 19. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) wherein, the at least one controller is configured to cause the processor to receive system information broadcast or dedicated signaling to identify the state of the cell that implements at least one network energy saving technique (See the rejection of Claim 5, Claim 19 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 5, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 5 applies similarly to Claim 19. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
13. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU in view of MOCHIZUKI, further in view of CHENG et al. (US 20260129572 A1) i.e. “CHENG”.
Regarding Claim 7. (Currently Amended) LIU in view of MOCHIZUKI teaches: The UE of claim 4,
LIU in view of MOCHIZUKI does not appear to explicitly disclose or strongly suggest (note i.e. see italicized portions of claim limitations): wherein, a cell that implements at least one network energy saving technique in non-sleep state has precedence over a cell that implements at least one network energy saving technique in sleep state
CHENG teaches: wherein, a cell that implements at least one network energy saving technique in non-sleep state has precedence over a cell that implements at least one network energy saving technique in sleep state in cell selection or re-selection (CHENG ¶0046 In accordance with implementations of the present disclosure, the assistance information may be broadcasted in the system information blocks (SIBs) (e.g., SIB1, SIB2, or SIB4, may provide a sleeping cell indication (SCI)) when the network node will sleep and when the network node will wake up; ¶0047 The SCI may be a one-bit indicator. When the signal is present in a cell via system information (SI), the UE may assume that the cell is in sleep mode. Otherwise, the UE may assume that the cell is in the normal mode. The UE may not select a sleeping cell to camp on or not select a cell whose priority is lower a sleeping cell's priority to camp on using additional offset, e.g., Qrxlevminoffset, Qqualminoffset, or Qoffsettemp. The UE may start performing intra-frequency or inter-frequency measurements for cell reselection if the indication is present in the camped cell.
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0046 i.e. provide a sleeping cell indication (SCI)) when the network node will sleep and when the network node will wake up i.e. the network node reads on: wherein, the new cell a cell that implements at least one network energy saving technique and per ¶0047 i.e. When the signal is present in a cell via system information (SI), the UE may assume that the cell is in sleep mode. Otherwise, the UE may assume that the cell is in the normal mode. The UE may not select a sleeping cell to camp on reads on: in non-sleep state has precedence over a cell that implements at least one network energy saving technique in sleep state in cell selection or re-selection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of LIU in view of MOCHIZUKI with teachings of CHENG, since CHENG enables procedures that address a need to provide proper schemes for WUS transmission for UE (CHENG - ¶0009).
14. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU in view of XIAO et al. (US 20120276909 A1) i.e. “XIAO”.
Regarding Claim 8. (Currently Amended) LIU discloses: The UE of claim 1,
LIU does not appear to explicitly disclose or strongly suggest (note i.e. see italicized portions of claim limitations): wherein, in response a serving cell of the UE being not a that implements at least one network energy saving technique, cell re-selection is performed;
XIAO teaches: wherein, in response a serving cell of the UE being not a that implements at least one network energy saving technique, cell re-selection is performed (XIAO - ¶0058 […]The UE performs matching in the list of the low-power cell identities in the broadcast information of the macro cell according to the cell identities, and if a matched item exists in the list of the low-power cell identities, determines that the matched cell is the low-power cell in the coverage of the macro cell; and judges, by using the low-power cell selection parameter in the broadcast information of the macro cell, whether the matched cell satisfies the S rule. When the matched cell satisfies the S rule, the UE selects the matched cell as the serving cell and camps. If the cell does not match the list of the low-power cell identities or does not satisfy the S rule, the UE selects a cell whose signal strength is one level lower than the signal strength of the current cell to continue the foregoing process of synchronizing, receiving, and judging;
NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0058 i.e. The UE performs matching in the list of the low-power cell identities in the broadcast information of the macro cell according to the cell identities where i.e. If the cell does not match the list of the low-power cell identities reads on: wherein, in response a serving cell of the UE being not a cell that implements at least one network energy saving technique, i.e. the UE selects a cell whose signal strength is one level lower than the signal strength of the current cell to continue the foregoing process of synchronizing, receiving, and judging reads on: cell re-selection is performed where UE i.e. judges, by using the low-power cell selection parameter in the broadcast information of the macro cell, whether the matched cell satisfies the S rule).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of LIU with teachings of XIAO, since XIAO enables procedures where the UE preferentially selects the low-power cell to reduce interference in the low-power cell when the UE sends the uplink signals, thereby ensuring normal throughput of the UE and the cell (XIAO - ¶0018).
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claims 6, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable contingent upon or subject to all of the following conditions:
(1) that the claims are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as presented by applicant and referenced herein,
(2) that all independent claims were amended with similar, identical and parallel features and amendments in the independent claims representing identical features were submitted in a formal response,
(3) that the claim limitation(s) are not taken alone but in view of the entirety of the claim language including any preceding claim limitations, any proceeding claim limitations, and any intervening claim limitations,
(4) that all pending issues associated with the claims including:
(a) clarifying applicable issues related with claim objections under minor informalities and 112 (b) rejections,
(b) issues related with the entirety of the claim language including any preceding claim limitations, any proceeding claim limitations, and any intervening claim limitations, including the independent claims,
are all acceptably resolved, and do not result in a case where, given the scope of any applicant claimed amendments and/or arguments, examination would require further consideration and search.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 6. (Currently Amended) The UE of claim 4, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “wherein, a cell that implements at least one network energy saving technique in sleep state has precedence over a cell that implements at least one network energy saving technique in non-sleep state in cell selection or re-selection”.
Regarding Claim 20. (New) The processor of claim 18, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “wherein, a cell that implements at least one network energy saving technique in sleep state has precedence over a cell that implements at least one network energy saving technique in non-sleep state in cell selection or re-selection”.
Please note: The examiner notes the above limitation(s) are not taken alone but in view of the entirety of the claim language including any preceding claim limitation, any proceeding claim limitations, and any intervening claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALICK A SOHRAB whose telephone number is (571)272-4347. The examiner can normally be reached on Mo-Fri 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached on (571) 272-7884. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.A.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2414
09/06/2026
/EDAN ORGAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights