DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a response to an Application No. 18/967,111 filed on 12/03/2024 in which claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Drawings
The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 12/03/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 12/03/2024 and 05/11/2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10-11, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “A terminal device, comprising a processor and a memory…” in line 1. For clarity and formality, it is suggested to insert the colon ":" after the word -- comprising: -- in order to properly demarcate the preamble and the body of the claim.
Claims 1 and 20 recite a contingent limitation not required to be performed by the recitation of “if” conditional statement. The term “if” raises ambiguity in the limitation as “if” is a supposition that an event may or may not happen. In view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, MPEP 2111, these limitations may be interpreted in the sense that the limitation occurs when the conditional statement occurs, but also introduces the possibility that the conditional statement may not occur. If the condition for performing the conditional statement is not satisfied, the functionality recited by the statement need not be carried out in order for the claimed functionality to be performed. Since the claim fails to recite any specific limitations regarding the possibility that the conditional statement may not occur, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim allows for the possibility wherein no functionality is achieved when the condition statement is not achieved. Thus, the limitation(s) may be optional.
Claims 10 and 19 recites a pronoun “its” in line 3 respectively. For clarity, it is suggested to change a pronoun word “its” to a positively recited non-pronoun word.
Claim 11 recites “A network device, comprising a processor and a memory…” in line 1. For clarity and formality, it is suggested to insert the colon ":" after the word -- comprising: -- in order to properly demarcate the preamble and the body of the claim.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kneckt et al. (US 2019/0075521 A1) hereinafter “Kneckt”.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Kneckt discloses Claim 1 of a terminal device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, and the processor is configured to invoke and run the computer program stored in the memory to cause the terminal device to perform (see FIG. 5 and 14; see ¶ [0121] [0131], an electronic/terminal device includes processor and memory): and Claim 20 of a wireless communication method, comprising:
determining first information if a first receiver of the terminal device receives a wake-up signal, wherein the first information is used to wake up a second receiver of the terminal device (see FIG. 4 and 5; see ¶ [0074-75] [0079], after receiving wake-up frame, WUR may extract and analyze information and a wake-up signal that transitions main radio from lower-power mode to a higher-power mode).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Kneckt discloses wherein the first information comprises second information, and the second information indicates a wake-up time of the second receiver (see ¶ [0053] [0075], a frame that indicates a TWT schedule for electronic device, and a wake-up frame may be used (e.g., by access point) to wake up electronic device between TWT SPs in the TWT schedule).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Kneckt discloses wherein the second information is determined based on an indication of the wake-up signal (see ¶ [0053] [0075], a frame that indicates a TWT schedule for electronic device, and a wake-up frame may be used (e.g., by access point) to wake up electronic device between TWT SPs in the TWT schedule).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Kneckt discloses wherein the wake-up time comprises one or more of a wake-up start time, a wake-up duration period, or a wake-up end time (see ¶ [0075], there may be a TWT schedule for electronic device, based at least in part on the TWT schedule, WUR may transition to a higher-power mode in order to receive a schedule wake-up frame during a TWT SP).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Kneckt discloses wherein the first information comprises third information, and the third information indicates an operating frequency domain after the second receiver is waked up (see ¶ [0139], the wake-up frame may be communicated in the same or a different band of frequencies that the band(s) of frequencies used by the main radio).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Kneckt discloses wherein the third information is determined based on one or more of following: information about an operating frequency domain of the second receiver in a last awake period; pre-defined information; pre-configured information; or an indication of the wake-up signal (see ¶ [0139], the wake-up frame may be communicated in the same or a different band of frequencies that the band(s) of frequencies used by the main radio).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Kneckt discloses wherein the operating frequency domain after the second receiver is waked up comprises an activated bandwidth part (BWP) in which the second receiver operates after it is waked up (see ¶ [0139], the wake-up frame may be communicated in the same or a different band of frequencies that the band(s) of frequencies used by the main radio).
Regarding claim 11, Kneckt discloses a network device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, and the processor is configured to invoke and run the computer program stored in the memory to cause the network device to perform (see FIG. 5, Access point; and see FIG. 14; see ¶ [0121] [0131], an electronic device/AP includes processor and memory):
determining first information, wherein the first information is used to wake up a second receiver of a terminal device (see FIG. 4 and 5; see ¶ [0073-74] [0079], determine to provide wake-up frame for electronic device and a wake-up signal that transitions main radio from lower-power mode to a higher-power mode of electronic device); and
wherein the second receiver is waked up by a first receiver of the terminal device based on a wake-up signal transmitted by the network device (see FIG. 4 and 5; see ¶ [0074-75] [0079], a wake-up signal that transitions main radio from lower-power mode to a higher-power mode of electronic device).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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.
Claims 3-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneckt in view of YANG (US 2023/0232327 A1) hereinafter “Yang”.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Kneckt does not explicitly disclose a first time offset.
However, Yang discloses wherein the second information is determined based on a first time offset, and the first time offset is a time offset between a reception time of the wake-up signal and the wake-up time of the second receiver (see ¶ [0073] [0160], The transmission configuration is used to indicate a time offset of transmission starting time of the SL wake-up signal with respect to a starting time of a DRX cycle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide a first time offset as taught by Yang, in the system of Kneckt, so that it would provide to enable the UE to learn whether to stay in sleep in the corresponding DRX cycle, so as to avoid the second UE from being waken up in every DRX cycle, thereby improving the success rate of receiving the second type of SL wake-up signal and reducing the energy consumption of receiving the second SL wake-up signal (Yang: see ¶ [0093]).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the combined system of Kneckt and Yang discloses wherein the first time offset is determined based on one or more of following: a terminal device capability; a time domain resource of a target channel corresponding to the wake-up signal; a time domain resource of a paging frame (PF) or a paging occasion (PO) corresponding to the wake-up signal; or discontinuous reception (DRX) on duration corresponding to the wake-up signal (Yang: see ¶ [0072], the time offset may also be a predetermined number of units in time domain).
Regarding claim 5, the combined system of Kneckt and Yang discloses wherein the first time offset comprises a second time offset and a third time offset, the second time offset is a preset time offset that uses a reception time of the wake-up signal as a start time, and the third time offset is a time offset from an end time of the second time offset to a wake-up start time of the second receiver (Yang: see ¶ [0073] [0160], The transmission configuration is used to indicate a time offset of transmission starting time of the SL wake-up signal with respect to a starting time of a DRX cycle).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suh et al. (US 2018/0103431 A1) teaches methods and systems for waking up a wireless receiving device having a wake-up radio (WUR) circuit. A low-power wake-up signal is transmitted, comprising a wake-up frame (WUF) including having a portion that is subjected to spectrum spreading and transmitted using a single carrier (see Abstract).
Li et al. (US 2019/0075520 A1) teaches a recipient electronic device may include a main radio and a wake-up radio (WUR) that at least selectively transitions the main radio from a lower-power mode to a higher-power mode in response to a wake-up frame. During operation, the WUR receives a wake-up frame associated with an electronic device, e.g., a second or a sending device (see Abstract).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am to 5:00pm.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571) 272-3927. 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.
/PETER CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights