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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a reply to the application filed on 6/04/2025, in which, claims 31-50 are pending. Claims 31, 41, and 42 are independent.
When making claim amendments, the applicant is encouraged to consider the references in their entireties, including those portions that have not been cited by the examiner and their equivalents as they may most broadly and appropriately apply to any particular anticipated claim amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 6/04/2025 are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure filed on 6/04/2025 is accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 50 does not further limit any limitation of claim 42 from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 31-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20180018185 A1 (hereinafter ‘Sun’).
As regards claim 31, Sun (US 20180018185 A1) discloses: A method performed in a wireless device, the method comprising: receiving, from a radio node, a wake-up signal comprising an authentication pattern; (Sun: Figs. 1-2, ¶5-¶12, i.e., the wireless device receiving the wake up signal including the authentication sequence)
determining whether the authentication pattern matches a verification pattern of the wireless device, wherein the verification pattern is determined according to a configured set of rules in the wireless device; and (Sun: Figs. 2-3; ¶46, Matching between authentication pattern and wake-up sequence= verification/validation pattern is carried out, steps 54, 56.)
performing the following operations in response to a determination that the authentication pattern matches the verification pattern; (Sun: Figs. 2-3; ¶47, i.e., the wake-up process is started, step 60, in case a matching of patterns has been determined and an acknowledgement is sent to the AP, step 58)
performing a wake-up process in the wireless device, and transmitting an acknowledgement signal to the radio node. (Sun: Figs. 2-3; ¶47, i.e., the wake-up process is started, step 60, in case a matching of patterns has been determined and an acknowledgement is sent to the AP, step 58)
Claims 41-42, 50 recite substantially the same features as recited in claim 31 above, and are rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 32, Sun discloses the method according to claim 31, wherein: the operations performed in response to a determination that that authentication pattern matches the verification pattern also include the following: transmitting to the radio node a first authentication response, and receiving from the second radio node a second authentication response; and the wake-up process is performed in response to the second authentication response being verified by the wireless device. (Sun: Fig. 7, ¶99-¶100)
Claim 43 recites substantially the same features as recited in claim 32 above, and are rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 33, Sun discloses the method according to claim 31, wherein: the wake-up signal further comprises a target identification (ID); (Sun: Fig. 10A, ¶5-¶19, ¶87-¶88, i.e., the ID) the method further comprises determining whether the target ID matches or corresponds to a device ID of the wireless device; (Sun: Fig. 10A, ¶5-¶19, ¶87-¶88, i.e., the ID associated with the MAC address) and determining whether or not the authentication pattern matches a verification pattern of the wireless device is responsive to a determination that the target ID matches or corresponds to the device ID. (Sun: Fig. 10A, ¶5-¶19, ¶87-¶90, ¶99-¶100)
As regards claim 34, Sun discloses the method according to claim 33, wherein the target ID identifies one of the following: an individual wireless device, or a group of wireless devices. (Sun: Fig. 10A, ¶5-¶19, ¶87-¶90, ¶99-¶100)
As regards claim 35, Sun discloses the method according to claim 31, wherein: the authentication pattern is determined according to a same set of rules as the configured set of rules used to determine the verification pattern; and the set of rules is configured in the wireless device before the wake-up signal is received. (Sun: Figs. 2, 10A-10B, ¶5-¶19, i.e., the Gold sequence)
Claim 46 recites substantially the same features as recited in claim 35 above, and are rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 36, Sun discloses the method according to claim 31, wherein: the wireless device comprises a first and second circuit, with the first circuit having a lower power consumption than the second circuit; and (Sun: Fig. 4, ¶38, ¶55-¶63, i.e., lower power circuit) receiving the wake-up signal and determining whether the authentication pattern matches the verification pattern is performed by the first circuit. (Sun: Fig. 4, ¶38, ¶55-¶63, i.e., lower power circuit)
As regards claim 37, Sun discloses the method according to claim 36, wherein: performing the wake-up process comprises transforming the wireless device from a first operating mode to a second operating mode; (Sun: Fig. 4, ¶38, ¶55-¶63) the first circuit is operational in the first operating mode; and (Sun: Fig. 4, ¶38, ¶55-¶63) the second circuit is operational in the second operating mode. (Sun: Fig. 4, ¶38, ¶55-¶63)
As regards claim 38, Sun discloses the method according to claim 31, further comprising: in response to the authentication pattern not matching the verification pattern, increasing a count of failed verification attempts by one; and (Sun: Fig. 5, ¶95-¶96) in response to the count of failed verification attempts being above a threshold, transmitting a notification signal to the radio node. (Sun: Fig. 5, ¶95-¶96)
As regards claim 39, Sun discloses the method according to claim 31, further comprising reconfiguring the set of rules according to one of the following: at a periodic time interval, or in response to occurrence of an event. (Sun: ¶19, ¶99)
Claim 48 recites substantially the same features as recited in claim 39 above, and are rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 40, Sun discloses the method according to claim 31, wherein: the verification pattern is a sequence generated by a Linear Feedback Shift Register; and (Sun: ¶12, i.e., the shift operator) the configured set of rules defines the following: a sequence length of the verification pattern, a seed for the Linear Feedback Shift Register, and a location of taps in the Linear Feedback Shift Register. (Sun: Fig. 9, ¶5-¶19, ¶77-¶83, i.e., i.e., the feedback register and sequence verification)
Claim 49 recites substantially the same features as recited in claim 40 above, and are rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
As regards claim 44, Sun discloses the method according to claim 42, wherein the wake-up signal further comprises a target identification (ID) of an intended wireless device. (Sun: Fig. 10A, ¶5-¶19, ¶87-¶88, i.e., the ID)
As regards claim 45, Sun discloses the method according to claim 44, wherein the target ID identifies one of the following: an individual wireless device, or a group of wireless devices. (Sun: Fig. 10A, ¶5-¶19, ¶87-¶88, i.e., the ID associated with the MAC address)
As regards claim 47, Sun discloses the method according to claim 42, further comprising, receiving from the radio node a notification signal indicating that a count of failed verification attempts by the wireless device is above a threshold. (Sun: Fig. 5, ¶95-¶96)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ZAIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-5995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 5:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/SYED A ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights