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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 01/02/2026, with respect to claims 1-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that “According to implementations of these features, monitoring processes are performed where a wake-up signal (WUS) is monitored first, and a paging occasion (PO)-where a P-RNTI is transmitted on a PDCCH-is monitored only based on detecting the WUS, where the start of the WUS is calculated using a network-signaled time offset relative to the PO. The cited references fail to disclose or suggest all of these features. For example, the cited references fail to disclose or suggest at least the features of "monitoring a wake-up signal (WUS)," and "monitoring a paging occasion (PO) where paging radio network temporary identifier (P-RNTI) is transmitted on a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) related to a paging message, based on detecting the WUS," as recited in amended claim 1 … However, Lu does not describe or suggest (i) monitoring a wake-up signal (WUS) and (ii) monitoring a paging occasion (PO) where paging radio network temporary identifier (P- RNTI) is transmitted on a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) related to a paging message, based on detecting the WUS, as described in amended claim 1 … While Lu mentions "wake-up message," this message is described as being the paging message itself, or a "paging flag" within the PO. See Lu at [0051] and [0055]. Thus, Lu describes, at best, that the monitoring of the paging occasion occurs "respecting its DRX cycle" regardless of a prior signal. Lu's wake-up element is the result of the paging process, not a separate precursor to it. In contrast, amend claim 1 recites that the monitoring of the PO is contingent upon the successful detection of a separate WUS. If no WUS is detected in the first stage, the UE does not proceed to the second stage (monitoring the P-RNTI on the PDCCH at the PO). Therefore, Lu does not describe or suggest (i) monitoring a wake-up signal (WUS) and (ii) monitoring a paging occasion (PO) where paging radio network temporary identifier (P- RNTI) is transmitted on a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) related to a paging message, based on detecting the WUS, as described in amended claim 1. Ang fails to remedy these deficiencies of Lu. For example, Ang describes that once a WUPI is received, "nominal data" is immediately received, which indicates that Ang's WUPI is not a precursor to a paging monitoring stage, but rather acts as the paging message or data indicator itself. See Ang at [0129]-[0132]. Thus, Ang merely discloses a process that is a single-stage transition from monitoring a WUPI window directly to receiving data. In contrast, amended claim 1 recites that the detection of the WUS triggers a transition to another monitoring state-searching for a P-RNTI on the PDCCH at a PO-before the paging message is received. Accordingly, Ang fails to disclose or suggest such conditional relationship where the WUS detection serves as the specific trigger to begin monitoring a PO for a P-RNTI. Moreover, Ang fails to disclose the claimed network-signaled timing offset. Ang merely discloses that a device receives an indication of which Transmission Time Intervals (TTIs) are designated as the WUPI window. See Ang at [0127]. This is a static designation of a window, not a dynamic calculation of a signal start-time based on a network-signaled offset relative to a Paging Occasion. Thus, Ang's WUPI is functionally a paging message/window rather than a separate signal positioned at a specific offset from a PO. Accordingly, Ang does not disclose or suggest the claimed network-signaled timing offset. Shellhammer fails to remedy the deficiencies of Lu and Ang discussed above. Accordingly, for at least these reasons, Applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of claims 1 and 6, and their dependent claims, and submits that these claims are in condition for allowance” in pages 5-8.
In response to the applicant’s argument, examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument above.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a paging occasion (PO)-where a P-RNTI is transmitted on a PDCCH-is monitored only based on detecting the WUS … the monitoring of the PO is contingent upon the successful detection of a separate WUS ... if no WUS is detected in the first stage, the UE does not proceed to the second stage (monitoring the P-RNTI on the PDCCH at the PO) … the detection of the WUS triggers a transition to another monitoring state-searching for a P-RNTI on the PDCCH at a PO-before the paging message is received … conditional relationship where the WUS detection serves as the specific trigger to begin monitoring a PO for a P-RNTI ... a dynamic calculation of a signal start-time based on a network-signaled offset relative to a Paging Occasion) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Lu clearly discloses (i) monitoring a wake-up signal (WUS) [see Fig. 8, para. 51-56; receiving a wake-up message] and (ii) monitoring a paging occasion (PO) where paging radio network temporary identifier (P-RNTI) is transmitted on a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) related to a paging message [see para. 39, 40, 55; monitor a paging occasion (PO) where P-RNTI is transmitted on a PDCCH related to a paging message], based on detecting the WUS [see para. 51-55; monitor the PO based on receiving the wake-up message].
Ang discloses a start of the WUS is calculated based on a subframe that is before a time offset from the PO [see Fig. 9, 12, para. 100-106, 127, 129-130; determining which TTIs in the data cycle are designated as the WUPI window], and the time offset is signalled from a network [see Fig. 10, 12, para. 111, 127; receiving, via a higher layer signal, information on the TTIs designated as WUPI window].
In view of the above response, the combined system of Lu and Ang discloses the features recited in the independent claims 1 and 9.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 01/02/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Patent No. 10904861 and Patent No. 12120639 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 3-7, 9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 2017/0325167 A1, hereinafter “Lu”) in view of Ang et al. (US 2016/0374022 A1, hereinafter “Ang”).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Lu discloses A user equipment (UE) [see Fig. 1, 5, abstract, para. 39, 104, 163; a wireless device for monitoring a paging signal] comprising:
a transceiver [see Fig. 1, 5, para. 104, 141; transceiver 22];
at least one processor [see Fig. 1, 5, para. 104, 141; controller 20]; and
at least one computer memory operably connectable to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, based on being executed by the at least one processor [see Fig. 1, 5, para. 91, 104, 141; a memory operably connectable to the controller and storing instructions that, based on being executed by the controller], perform operations comprising:
monitoring a wake-up signal (WUS) [see Fig. 8, para. 51-56; receiving a wake-up message];
monitoring a paging occasion (PO) where paging radio network temporary identifier (P-RNTI) is transmitted on a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) related to a paging message [see para. 39, 40, 55; monitor a paging occasion (PO) where P-RNTI is transmitted on a PDCCH related to a paging message], based on detecting the WUS [see para. 51-55; monitor the PO based on receiving the wake-up message]; and
receiving the paging message at the PO [see Fig. 7, para. 39, 55; receive the paging message at the PO].
Lu does not explicitly disclose wherein a start of the WUS is calculated based on a subframe that is before a time offset from the PO, and wherein the time offset is signalled from a network.
However, Ang teaches a start of the WUS is calculated based on a subframe that is before a time offset from the PO [see Fig. 9, 12, para. 100-106, 127, 129-130; determining which TTIs in the data cycle are designated as the WUPI window], and the time offset is signalled from a network [see Fig. 10, 12, para. 111, 127; receiving, via a higher layer signal, information on the TTIs designated as WUPI window].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “a start of the WUS is calculated based on a subframe that is before a time offset from the PO, and the offset is signalled from a network”, as taught by Ang, into the system of Lu so that it would avoid collision or puncturing of the control data by the wake up signal [see Ang, para. 63].
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Lu discloses wherein the WUS is received within a duration which includes one or more subframes [see Fig. 7, para. 39; the wake up signal is received within a duration which includes a plurality of subframes], and wherein the operations further comprise receiving information for the duration which includes the one or more subframes [see para. 37, 39, 51; receiving, via RRC signaling, information on the duration including the plurality of subframes].
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Lu does not explicitly disclose receiving information related to a repetition level over the one or more subframes, wherein the information related to the repetition level is received per carrier.
However, Ang teaches receiving information related to a repetition level over the one or more subframes [see Fig. 10, 12, para. 111, 127; receiving information on the TTIs designated as WUPI window], wherein the information related to the repetition level is received per carrier [see Fig. 4-6, para. 57, 59, 63, 65-67; the information on the TTIs is received per a carrier].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “receiving information related to a repetition level over the one or more subframes, wherein the information related to the repetition level is received per carrier”, as taught by Ang, into system of Lu so that it would avoid collision or puncturing of the control data by the wake up signal [see Ang, para. 63].
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Lu does not explicitly disclose wherein the WUS includes time information of the PO.
However, Ang teaches a WUS includes time information on the PO [see para. 136; the WUPI includes time information on the WUPI window (TTI)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “a WUS includes time information on the PO”, as taught by Ang, into the system of Lu so that it would avoid collision or puncturing of the control data by the wake up signal [see Ang, para. 63].
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Lu does not explicitly disclose wherein the WUS is generated based on the time information of the PO.
However, Ang teaches a WUS is generated based on time information on the PO [see Fig. 9, steps 910, para. 104, 106; the WUPI is generated based on time information on the WUPI window].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “a WUS is generated based on time information on the PO”, as taught by Ang, into the system of Lu so that it would avoid collision or puncturing of the control data by the wake up signal [see Ang, para. 63].
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Lu discloses The UE of claim 9, wherein the WUS comprises a sequence for the WUS [see para. 51, 55; the wake-up message is generated based on a sequence which includes ProSe address (a group-cast ProSe destination address for a group the UE participates in) or cellular address (C-RNTI)].
Lu does not explicitly disclose wherein the sequence is initialized at a start subframe including at least one slot.
However, Ang teaches a WUS is generated based on a sequence which is initialized at a start subframe including at least one slot [see Fig. 4-7, para. 58, 60-61, 63, 66-67, 70; the WUPI is generated based on a sequence which is initialized at a start subframe including at least one slot].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “a WUS is generated based on a sequence which is initialized at a start subframe including at least one slot”, as taught by Ang, into the system of Lu so that it would avoid collision or puncturing of the control data by the wake up signal [see Ang, para. 63].
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Ang and Shellhammer et al. (US 2018/0115953 A1, hereinafter “Shellhammer”).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Lu discloses wherein the paging message exists on a same channel as the WUS [see para. 35, 39, 55, 78, 80, 163; the paging message exists on the same predefined channel (PDCCH) of the wake-up signal].
Lu does not explicitly disclose the paging message exists on a same “carrier” as the WUS.
However, Shellhammer teaches uplink/downlink transmissions exists on a same carrier [see Fig. 1-2, para. 160].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “uplink/downlink transmissions exists on a same carrier”, as taught by Shellhammer, into the combined system of Lu and Ang so that it would lower the data rate, and hence improve the receiver sensitivity [see Shellhammer, para. 64].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
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, JAE LEE can be reached on 571-270-3936. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights