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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elshafie (US2025/0008490).
As per claim 1, Elshafie teaches an Internet of Things device for wireless communication (paragraph 30, “energy harvesting device may be referred to as passive IOT”) comprising: at least one memory (Fig. 3, item 360), at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (Fig. 3, item 359; paragraph 64, “processor 359 can be associated with, and coupled to, a memory”) and configured to cause the IoT device to: receive, from a network entity, a first message associated with an IoT operation (paragraph 100, “"The receiver component 710 may receive various signals including the EH configuration 620, the ACK/NACK 640, and communications 670”), and transmit a second message that includes error information associated with the IoT operation (paragraph 98, "UE may generate an error in response to indicated LDPC iteration".
As per claim 2, Elshafie teaches that the second message includes a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) that contains a defined error code indicating the error information (Fig. 3, item 359; paragraph 61, “processor includes… MAC layer functionality associated with… error correction through HARQ”).
As per claim 6, Elshafie teaches that at least one processor is configured to cause the IoT device to transmit the second message after being enabled by a network entity (Fig. 9, items 920, 990; paragraph 64: "The controller/processor 359 is also responsible for error detection using an acknowledge (ACK) and/or negative acknowledge (NACK) protocol to support HARQ operations.").
As per claim 7, Elshafie teaches the IoT device is an ambient IoT device (paragraph 88, "user equipment may be referred to as ambient IOT").
As per claim 8, Elshafie teaches IoT operation is an inventor or command procedure (Fig. 9 shows a flowchart of an example method of indicating communication parameters for an energy harvesting user equipment.)
As per claim 9, Elshafie teaches the network entity is a radio access network (RAN) node (paragraph 42, “The base stations 102 configured for 4G LTE (collectively referred to as Evolved Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN)”), and wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the IoT device to transmit the second message to the RAN node (paragraph 61, “controller/processor 375 provides RRC layer functionality").
As per claim 10, Elshafie teaches a network entity is an AIoT Function (AIOTF) (Fig. 9, item 910; paragraph 94, "base station may optionally transmit an ACK/NACK"), and where in the at least one processor is configured to cause the IoT device to transmit the second message to a radio access network (RAN) node associated with the AIOTF (paragraph 94, “UE may execute EH control component to generate an error in response”).
As per claim 19, Elshafie teaches a method performed by an Internet of Things device (Fig. 9, items 920-990), which comprises: receiving, from a network entity, a first message associated with an IoT operation (paragraph 100, "The receiver component 710 may receive various signals including the EH configuration 620, the ACK/NACK 640, and communications 670"); and transmitting a second message that includes error information associated with the IoT operation (paragraph 98, "UE may generate an error in response to indicated LDPC iteration").
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11-13, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elshafie (US2025/0008490) in view of Abotabl (US2024/0298323).
As per claim 11, Elshafie teaches a network entity for wireless communication (Fig. 1, item 102) comprising of: at least one memory (Fig. 3, item 376) and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (Fig. 3, item 375) and configured to cause the network entity to transmit a first message requesting performance of an Internet of Things (IoT) operation by an IoT device (paragraph 84, " The base station may transmit the ACK 540 and switch to a configuration corresponding to energy mode 2 for the UE"). Elshafie does not disclose the network entity receiving a second message that includes error information associated with the IoT operation.
However, Abotabl discloses if the user equipment (UE) fails to decode data transmission sent from the network entity (NE), it can transmit a NACK message to the NE to indicate the error (paragraph 138). This would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have the NE receive an error message from the UE after the first message as the NE can indicate whether or not the UE successfully decoded the data transmission and possibly send information to assist with the UE (Abotabl, paragraph 138).
As per claim 12, Elshafie in view of Abotabl teaches the apparatus of claim 11 but does not disclose the network entity to transmit a third message requesting performance of a modified IoT operation in response to receiving the second message.
However, Abotabl discloses if the user equipment (UE) transmits a NACK message to the network entity (NE) indicating that the UE failed to decode the data transmission, the NE may attempt to resume transmission of data repetitions to assist the UE in decoding the data transmission (paragraph 138). This would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to configure the network entity to transmit a third message after receiving the second message of the IoT device so the NE can have an indication whether or not the UE successfully decoded the data transmission after the second message (Abotabl, paragraph 138).
As per claim 13, Elshafie in view of Abotabl teaches the apparatus of claim 11. Elshafie further teaches the second message includes a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) that contains a defined error code indicating the error information (Fig. 3, item 359; paragraph 61, “processor includes… MAC layer functionality associated with… error correction through HARQ”).
As per claim 17, Elshafie teaches, in view of above rejections, the network entity is a radio access network (RAN) node (paragraph 42, “The base stations 102 configured for 4G LTE (collectively referred to as Evolved Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN)”).
As per claim 18, Elshafie teaches, in view of above rejections, the network entity is an ambient IoT function (Fig. 9, items 920, 990; paragraph 94, "base station may optionally transmit an ACK/NACK", UE may execute EH control component to generate an error in response").
As per claim 20, Elshafie teaches a method performed by a network entity (Fig. 10), comprising of transmitting a first message requesting performance of an Internet of Things (IoT) operation by an IoT device (paragraph 84, "The base station may transmit the ACK 540 and switch to a configuration corresponding to energy mode 2 for the UE"). Elshafie does not disclose the network entity receiving a second message that includes error information associated with the IoT operation.
However, Abotabl discloses if the user equipment (UE) fails to decode data transmission sent from the network entity (NE), it can transmit a NACK message to the NE to indicate the error (paragraph 138). This would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have the NE receive an error message from the UE after the first message as the NE can indicate whether or not the UE successfully decoded the data transmission and possibly send information to assist with the UE (Abotabl, paragraph 138).
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elshafie (US2025/0008490) in view of Wang (WO2025/169061).
As per claim 3, Elshafie teaches all of the elements stated in claim 2 but does not disclose the defined error code represents an error associated with one of more capabilities of the IoT devices.
However, Wang teaches that an AIoT (ambient internet of things) device may report positioning failure information if the device fails to receive carrier waves in at least of their positioning resources (paragraph 141). This would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement an error code based on the capabilities of the IoT device as if a component of the IoT device breaks down, the communication workflow between the device and network entity may not work as intended (Wang, paragraph 41).
As per claim 14, Elshafie teaches all of the elements stated in claim 13 but does not disclose the defined error code represents an error associated with one or more capabilities of the IoT device.
However, Wang teaches that an AIoT (ambient internet of things) device may report positioning failure information if the device fails to receive carrier waves in at least of their positioning resources (paragraph 141). This would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement an error code based on the capabilities of the IoT device as if a component of the IoT device breaks down, the communication workflow between the device and network entity may not work as intended (Wang, paragraph 41).
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elshafie (US2025/0008490) in view of Liu (US2023/0040331).
As per claim 4, Elshafie teaches all of the elements stated in claim 2 but does not disclose the defined error code representing an error associated with a power level of the IoT device that is insufficient with respect to the IoT device performing the IoT operation.
However, Liu teaches that a device may perform power compensation may in response to determining that a data error exists due to insufficient transmission power (paragraph 42). The compensation is stated that it may be a data transmission between the base station and user equipment. This would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement an error code based on the power level of the IoT device to improve transmission reliability (Liu, paragraph 42).
As per claim 15, Elshafie teaches all elements stated in claim 13 but does not disclose the defined error code representing an error associated with a power level of the IoT device that is insufficient with respect to the IoT device performing the IoT operation.
However, Liu teaches that a device may perform power compensation may in response to determining that a data error exists due to insufficient transmission power (paragraph 42). The compensation is stated that it may be a data transmission between the base station and user equipment. This would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement an error code based on the power level of the IoT device to improve transmission reliability (Liu, paragraph 42).
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elshafie (US2025/0008490) in view of Dong (CN116560824).
As per claim 5, Elshafie teaches all elements stated in claim 2, but does not disclose the error code associating with the memory of the IoT device that is insufficient with respect to performing the IoT operation.
However, Dong discloses that the IoT device can adjust the size of the memory in order to avoid communication failure caused by insufficient memory (paragraph 75). This would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement an error code based on an IoT device’s memory, in order to avoid any kind of memory resource waste (Dong, paragraph 74), then allow the device to communicate with an adjusted memory to continue workflow.
As per claim 16, Elshafie teaches all elements stated in claim 13, but does not disclose the error code associating with the memory of the IoT device that is insufficient with respect to performing the IoT operation.
However, Dong discloses that the IoT device can adjust the size of the memory in order to avoid communication failure caused by insufficient memory (paragraph 75). This would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement an error code based on an IoT device’s memory, in order to avoid any kind of memory resource waste (Dong, paragraph 74), then allow the device to communicate with an adjusted memory to continue workflow.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Elshafie (WO 2024/119389) discusses methods of communication between user equipment and network nodes, using energy harvesting devices as a middleman to wirelessly transmit information between the devices.
Chatterjee (WO 2025/174468) discloses methods to improve communication efficiency and reduce communication failures, such as repetition of data transmission in ambient internet of things devices.
Fouad et al. (herein Fouad, US 2025/0219775) discloses a system and method for performing ambient internet of things (A-IoT) based communications, where there is communication between the user equipment, the A-IoT device, and the base station and techniques that are described for any loss of energy or data transmission, such as frequency shifting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANG HUU NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5978. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00am - 5:00pm) ET.
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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at 571-260-3750. 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.
/KHANG HUU NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2111
/MARK D FEATHERSTONE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2111
Prosecution Insights