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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/19/25 and 9/25/24 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 (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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 13-15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneckt et al. (U.S. 2019/0075521) (hereinafter “Kneckt”) in view of Benveniste (U.S. 7,881,322).
Regarding claim 1, Kneckt teaches an electronic device 1400 (UE) shown in Figure 14 that includes a memory subsystem 1412 (memory) coupled to a processing subsystem 1410 (processor) as spoken of on page 12, paragraphs [0121]-[0122], where the electronic device receives a wake-up frame indicating whether one or more urgent-data criteria (urgency of data) has been met and decides whether to use its main radio to receive data as spoken of on page 10, paragraph [0112].
Kneckt also teaches where a low-urgency wake-up frame indicates that one or more urgent-data criteria is not met, and that transmission of a wake-up frame is delayed such that the wake up of the main radio of the electronic device is also delayed (delay a wake-up of a main radio of UE) as spoken of on page 11, paragraph [0115].
Kneckt also teaches where the electronic device may use frame-urgency classification to decide when it starts to obtain a transmission opportunity (TXOP) for its uplink frames (urgency of uplink data) in order to reduce the number of wake ups of its main radio as spoken of on page 8, paragraph [0086].
While Kneckt also teaches where the electronic device has capability to use knowledge of the type and amount of buffered data in deciding whether to wake up as spoken of on pages 10-11, paragraph [0113], Kneckt does not explicitly teach “receive uplink data in a buffer of the UE”.
However, Benveniste teaches a power-saving mechanism in wireless networks where a station 202 (UE) enters a doze state, wakes up in accordance with a temporal period and temporal offset, and then receives one or more downlink frames and transmits one or more buffered uplink frames as shown in steps 740, 750, and 760 of Figure 7 and spoken of on column 8, lines 28-42.
Given the above references, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the buffering of uplink data as taught in Benveniste to the system of Kneckt in order to better regulate the flow of data through the network, thereby increasing data efficiency and network stability as spoken of on column 7, lines 43-54 and column 8, lines 32-48 of Benveniste.
Regarding claim 2, Kneckt further teaches where the electronic device wakes up to use the main radio to fetch data 1022 following a selected wake-up-frame transmission time 1018 (threshold time) as shown in Figure 10 and spoken of on page 11, paragraph [0115].
Regarding claim 3, Kneckt further teaches where one or more urgent-data criteria is checked and an access point 112 decides to wait before transmitting a wake-up frame (based on a remaining delay) as shown in step 1010 of Figure 10 and spoken of on page 11, paragraph [0115].
Regarding claim 13, Kneckt teaches an electronic device 1400 (processor) shown in Figure 14 that includes a memory subsystem 1412 (memory) coupled to a processing subsystem 1410 (controller) as spoken of on page 12, paragraphs [0121]-[0122], where the electronic device receives a wake-up frame indicating whether one or more urgent-data criteria (urgency of data) has been met and decides whether to use its main radio to receive data as spoken of on page 10, paragraph [0112].
Kneckt also teaches where a low-urgency wake-up frame indicates that one or more urgent-data criteria is not met, and that transmission of a wake-up frame is delayed such that the wake up of the main radio of the electronic device is also delayed (delay a wake-up of a main radio of UE) as spoken of on page 11, paragraph [0115].
Kneckt also teaches where the electronic device may use frame-urgency classification to decide when it starts to obtain a transmission opportunity (TXOP) for its uplink frames (urgency of uplink data) in order to reduce the number of wake ups of its main radio as spoken of on page 8, paragraph [0086].
While Kneckt also teaches where the electronic device has capability to use knowledge of the type and amount of buffered data in deciding whether to wake up as spoken of on pages 10-11, paragraph [0113], Kneckt does not explicitly teach “receive uplink data in a buffer”.
However, Benveniste teaches a power-saving mechanism in wireless networks where a station 202 (UE) enters a doze state, wakes up in accordance with a temporal period and temporal offset, and then receives one or more downlink frames and transmits one or more buffered uplink frames as shown in steps 740, 750, and 760 of Figure 7 and spoken of on column 8, lines 28-42.
Given the above references, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the buffering of uplink data as taught in Benveniste to the system of Kneckt in order to better regulate the flow of data through the network, thereby increasing data efficiency and network stability as spoken of on column 7, lines 43-54 and column 8, lines 32-48 of Benveniste.
Regarding claim 14, Kneckt further teaches where the electronic device wakes up to use the main radio to fetch data 1022 following a selected wake-up-frame transmission time 1018 (threshold time) as shown in Figure 10 and spoken of on page 11, paragraph [0115].
Regarding claim 15, Kneckt further teaches where one or more urgent-data criteria is checked and an access point 112 decides to wait before transmitting a wake-up frame (based on a remaining delay) as shown in step 1010 of Figure 10 and spoken of on page 11, paragraph [0115].
Regarding claim 19, Kneckt teaches an electronic device 1400 (UE) shown in Figure 14 that includes a memory subsystem 1412 (memory) coupled to a processing subsystem 1410 (processor) as spoken of on page 12, paragraphs [0121]-[0122], where the electronic device receives a wake-up frame indicating whether one or more urgent-data criteria (urgency of data) has been met and decides whether to use its main radio to receive data as spoken of on page 10, paragraph [0112].
Kneckt also teaches where a low-urgency wake-up frame indicates that one or more urgent-data criteria is not met, and that transmission of a wake-up frame is delayed such that the wake up of the main radio of the electronic device is also delayed (delay a wake-up of a main radio of UE) as spoken of on page 11, paragraph [0115].
Kneckt also teaches where the electronic device may use frame-urgency classification to decide when it starts to obtain a transmission opportunity (TXOP) for its uplink frames (urgency of uplink data) in order to reduce the number of wake ups of its main radio as spoken of on page 8, paragraph [0086].
While Kneckt also teaches where the electronic device has capability to use knowledge of the type and amount of buffered data in deciding whether to wake up as spoken of on pages 10-11, paragraph [0113], Kneckt does not explicitly teach “receiving uplink data in a buffer of the UE”.
However, Benveniste teaches a power-saving mechanism in wireless networks where a station 202 (UE) enters a doze state, wakes up in accordance with a temporal period and temporal offset, and then receives one or more downlink frames and transmits one or more buffered uplink frames as shown in steps 740, 750, and 760 of Figure 7 and spoken of on column 8, lines 28-42.
Given the above references, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the buffering of uplink data as taught in Benveniste to the system of Kneckt in order to better regulate the flow of data through the network, thereby increasing data efficiency and network stability as spoken of on column 7, lines 43-54 and column 8, lines 32-48 of Benveniste.
Claim(s) 4-9 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneckt in view of Benveniste and Kanamarlapudi et al. (U.S. 2024/0244479) (hereinafter Kanamarlapudi).
Regarding claims 4-9 and 16-18, Kneckt in view of Benveniste does not explicitly teach “wherein the threshold time is configured as a timer that triggers a buffer status report (BSR), or a scheduling request (SR), or both” or “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to start the timer upon entry of low-priority uplink data in the buffer, or non-urgent uplink data in the buffer, or both” or “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to trigger the BSR, or the SR, or both upon expiration of the timer” or “wherein the threshold time is configured as a timer to transmit a buffer status report (BSR), or a scheduling request (SR), or both” or “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to start the timer upon triggering the BSR, or the SR, or both” or “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit the BSR, or the SR, or both upon expiration of the timer”.
However, Kanamarlapudi teaches a system and method for BSR configuration where based on priority logic, different timers that expire with lower or higher values may help to enable differential behaviors based on the traffic characteristics; where a smaller Tx BSR timer associated with a particular data radio bearer may help to send (trigger) a quicker BSR request for grant management for a particular type traffic compared to another type of traffic (e.g. low-priority data) as spoken of on page 11, paragraph [0092]; and where BSR specific timers may be flow-specific so that a higher priority flow might result in a quicker BSR transmission compared to a lower priority flow as spoken of on page 11, paragraph [0093].
Given the above references, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the use of buffer status reporting and associated timers as taught in Kanamarlapudi to the system of Kneckt in order to regulate the flow of data in the network based upon priority, thereby improving the user experienced quality of service in the network system as spoken of on page 11, paragraphs [0092]-[0093] of Kanamarlapudi.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneckt in view of Benveniste and Marinier et al. (WO 2023/081258) (hereinafter “Marinier”).
Regarding claim 10, Kneckt in view of Benveniste does not explicitly teach “wherein the priority of the uplink data comprises a logical channel (LCH) priority, and wherein a wake-up timer duration is based on the LCH priority”.
However, Marinier a method and system for network energy savings where a WTRU (UE) may select a wake-up request resource based on an indication of what triggered the wake-up request which may include a logical channel priority (LCH) as spoken of on page 21, paragraph [0108]; and where the WTRU may complete the wake-up request procedure in case of timer expiry according to the logical channel priority as spoken of on page 21, paragraph [0115].
Given the above references, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the logical channel priority taught in Marinier as a wake-up time parameter in the system of Kneckt in order to regulate the resource allocation in the network according to priority, thereby improving the user experienced quality of service in the network system as spoken of on page 21, paragraphs [0108] and [0115] of Marinier.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneckt in view of Benveniste and Alfarhan et al. (WO 2023/196223) (hereinafter “Alfarhan”).
Regarding claim 11, Kneckt in view of Benveniste does not explicitly teach “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to, in response to the wake-up of the main radio, trigger a buffer status report (BSR)”.
However, Alfarhan teaches a method and system for discontinuous network access where the triggering of transmission of wake-up assistance information may trigger a new BSR as spoken of on page 26, paragraph [0109].
Given the above references, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the triggering of a buffer status report in response to a wake-up event as taught in Alfarhan to the system of Kneckt in order to provide an updated report of buffered data waiting to be transmitted, thereby improving the awareness of the network and the resulting resource allocation such that resources are conserved.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneckt in view of Benveniste and Goktepe et al. (U.S. 2023/0164765) (hereinafter “Goktepe”).
Regarding claim 12, Kneckt in view of Benveniste does not explicitly teach “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to skip one or more configured grant (CG) resources unless the uplink data meets requirements for the wake-up of the main radio”.
However, Goktepe teaches a method of SPS or CG deactivation for redcap devices where a UE monitors a channel for a wake-up signal before a SPS or CG opportunity, and responsive to the absence of the wake-up signal, the UE is to skip a configured or preconfigured number of SPS or CG opportunities, or responsive to the presence of the wake-up signal (meets requirements for the wake-up), the UE is to wake up and receive or transmit during the SPS or CG opportunities as spoken of on page 4, paragraphs [0052]-[0055].
Given the above references, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the skipping of CG resources in relation to a wake-up event as taught in Goktepe to the system of Kneckt in order to reduce the amount of unnecessary traffic transmitted over the network, thereby conserving resources and saving battery life as spoken of on page 3, paragraph [0033] of Goktepe.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneckt in view of Kanamarlapudi.
Regarding claim 20, Kneckt teaches an electronic device 1400 (base station) shown in Figure 14 that includes a memory subsystem 1412 (memory) coupled to a processing subsystem 1410 (processor) as spoken of on page 12, paragraphs [0121]-[0122], where the electronic device 110 wakes up to use the main radio to fetch data 1022 following (delayed by) a selected wake-up-frame transmission time 1018 (threshold time) selected by access point 112 (base station) in response to detecting non-urgent data as shown in Figure 10 and spoken of on page 11, paragraph [0115].
Kneckt does not explicitly teach “receive a buffer status report (BSR), or a scheduling request (SR), or both based on the threshold time to delay the wake up of the main radio”.
However, Kanamarlapudi teaches a system and method for BSR configuration where based on priority logic, different timers that expire with lower or higher values may help to enable differential behaviors based on the traffic characteristics; where a smaller Tx BSR timer associated with a particular data radio bearer may help to send a quicker BSR request for grant management for a particular type traffic compared to another type of traffic as spoken of on page 11, paragraph [0092]; and where BSR specific timers (threshold time) may be flow-specific so that a higher priority flow (urgent data) might result in a quicker BSR transmission (receive BSR report) compared to a lower priority flow (non-urgent data) as spoken of on page 11, paragraph [0093].
Given the above references, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the use of buffer status reporting and associated timers as taught in Kanamarlapudi to the system of Kneckt in order to regulate the flow of data in the network based upon priority, thereby improving the user experienced quality of service in the network system as spoken of on page 11, paragraphs [0092]-[0093] of Kanamarlapudi.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References considered relevant to this application are listed in the attached “Notice of References Cited” (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J. MOORE, JR., whose telephone number is (571)272-3168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9am-4pm).
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, Hassan A. Phillips can be reached at (571)272-3940. 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.
/MICHAEL J MOORE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights