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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 12/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-24 are amended.
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1,13,25, and 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,323,916 (referred to as P916). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Re claim 1: Claim 1 is substantially similar to claim 1 of P916.
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 14 of P916.
Re claim 25: Claim 25 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 28: Claim 25 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 13.
Claims 1,13,25, and 28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17 of copending Application No. 17/845462 (referred to as A462). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Re claim 1: Claim 1 is substantially similar to claim 1 of P916.
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 17 of P916.
Re claim 25: Claim 25 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 28: Claim 25 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 13.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4,6-9,11,13-16,18-21,23,25,26,28, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Iyer (US 20220369225).
Re claim 1:
Iyer discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled with the at least one processor, with instructions stored in the at least one memory, the instructions being executable by the at least one processor to cause the UE to (Fig. 19F):
receive first control signaling indicating a first network operation sequence associated with a first network entity, the first network operation sequence comprising a first set of time intervals corresponding to a first set of network operation modes for the first network entity (Para.[0033] In an example, PSI received in active time may indicate the UE to skip PDCCH monitoring in N successive monitoring occasions where the occasion belongs to one CORESET or one COG or one TRP or one panel and Para.[0036] In an example, a single PSI may provide the power savings indication for multiple CORESETs or COGs or TRPs or panels);
receive second control signaling indicating a second network operation sequence associated with a second network entity, the second network operation sequence different from the first network operation sequence, the second network operation sequence comprising a second set of time intervals corresponding to a second set of network operation modes for the second network entity (Para.[0033] In an example, PSI received in active time may indicate the UE to skip PDCCH monitoring in N successive monitoring occasions where the occasion belongs to one CORESET or one COG or one TRP or one panel and Para.[0036] In an example, a single PSI may provide the power savings indication for multiple CORESETs or COGs or TRPs or panels),
the second set of time intervals and the second set of network operation modes different from the first set of time intervals and the first set of network operation modes, respectively (Fig. 9A and Fig. 9B);
communicate with the first network entity in accordance with the first network operation sequence (Para.[0134] A POW may include one or more monitoring occasions of one or more CORESETs. In one example, a POW may include CORESETs from one COG, and may map to one TRP and Para.[0148] In FIG. 14B, separate PSI may be received on COG1 and COG2. Each PSI may indicate the number of PDCCH to be skipped on the respective CORESET or COG monitoring occasions. PSI1 may indicate one PDCCH monitoring occasion is to be skipped on COG1. PSI2 may indicate one PDCCH monitoring occasion is to be skipped on COG2); and
communicate with the second network entity in accordance with the second network operation sequence (Para.[0134] A POW may include one or more monitoring occasions of one or more CORESETs. In one example, a POW may include CORESETs from one COG, and may map to one TRP and Para.[0148] In FIG. 14B, separate PSI may be received on COG1 and COG2. Each PSI may indicate the number of PDCCH to be skipped on the respective CORESET or COG monitoring occasions. PSI1 may indicate one PDCCH monitoring occasion is to be skipped on COG1. PSI2 may indicate one PDCCH monitoring occasion is to be skipped on COG2).
Re claim 2:
Iyer discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the first network entity is associated with a first control resource set index, and wherein the instructions to communicate with the first network entity are executable by the at least one processor to cause the UE to: communicate with the first network entity in accordance with the first network operation sequence and based at least in part on control information associated with the first control resource set index (Para.[0134] A POW may include one or more monitoring occasions of one or more CORESETs. In one example, a POW may include CORESETs from one COG, and may map to one TRP and Para.[0148] In FIG. 14B, separate PSI may be received on COG1 and COG2. Each PSI may indicate the number of PDCCH to be skipped on the respective CORESET or COG monitoring occasions. PSI1 may indicate one PDCCH monitoring occasion is to be skipped on COG1. PSI2 may indicate one PDCCH monitoring occasion is to be skipped on COG2).
Re claim 3:
Iyer discloses the UE of claim 2, wherein the instructions to communicate with the first network entity based at least in part on control information associated with the first control resource set index are executable by the at least one processor to cause the UE to: receive, during one or more active modes of the first set of network operation modes, control information associated with the first control resource set index (Para.[0029] In an example, a CORESET from a COG in which the PSI is received within the active time indicates the UE to perform power savings as per that PSI in the CORESETs in that COG within the active time).
Re claim 4:
Iyer discloses the UE of claim 2, wherein the instructions to communicate with the first network entity based at least in part on control information associated with the first control resource set index are executable by the at least one processor to cause the UE to: avoid receiving, during one or more inactive modes of the first set of network operation modes, control information associated with the first control resource set index (Para.[0028] In an example, a CORESET from a COG in which the PSI is received outside the active time indicates the UE to perform power savings as per that PSI in the CORESETs in the COG within the active time).
Re claim 6:
Iyer discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the UE to: receive, from the first network entity, downlink control information comprising one or more parameters for communicating with the second network entity during a first time interval (Para.[0094] The PSI may be in the form of a DCI and the CORESET on which the corresponding PDCCH is transmitted indicates the TRP to the UE),
the first time interval corresponding to a flexible mode of the second set of network operation modes for the second network entity (Para.[0097] The techniques may give more control to the network on how to enable power savings by dynamically controlling UE 101 monitoring of different CORESETs/COGs).
Re claim 7:
Iyer discloses the UE of claim 6, wherein the instructions to receive the downlink control information are executable by the at least one processor to cause the UE to: receive the downlink control information in a second time interval corresponding to an active mode of the first set of network operation modes for the first network entity, the second time interval overlapping with a third time interval corresponding to an inactive mode of the second set of network operation modes for the second network entity (Para.[0029] In an example, a CORESET from a COG in which the PSI is received within the active time indicates the UE to perform power savings as per that PSI in the CORESETs in that COG within the active time and Para.[0094] The PSI may be in the form of a DCI and the CORESET on which the corresponding PDCCH is transmitted indicates the TRP to the UE and Para.[0134] A POW may include one or more monitoring occasions of one or more CORESETs. In one example, a POW may include CORESETs from one COG, and may map to one TRP and Para.[0148] In FIG. 14B, separate PSI may be received on COG1 and COG2. Each PSI may indicate the number of PDCCH to be skipped on the respective CORESET or COG monitoring occasions. PSI1 may indicate one PDCCH monitoring occasion is to be skipped on COG1. PSI2 may indicate one PDCCH monitoring occasion is to be skipped on COG2).
Re claim 8:
Iyer discloses the UE of claim 6, wherein the downlink control information indicates a second control resource set index or a second set of virtual component carriers associated with the second network entity (Para.[0123] The DCI for the single PSI may carry the WUS/GTS indication for multiple COGs. UE 101 is configured with a N-bit bitmap corresponding to N configured COGs. UE 101 skips monitoring COGs for which the bit is reset and wake-up for monitoring COGs for which the bit is set.).
Re claim 9:
Iyer discloses the UE of claim 6, wherein the downlink control information comprises multiple sets of parameters for communicating with multiple network entities during time intervals corresponding to flexible modes, the multiple sets of parameters comprising the one or more parameters for communicating with the second network entity during the first time interval (Para.[0029] In an example, a CORESET from a COG in which the PSI is received within the active time indicates the UE to perform power savings as per that PSI in the CORESETs in that COG within the active time and Para.[0094] The PSI may be in the form of a DCI and the CORESET on which the corresponding PDCCH is transmitted indicates the TRP to the UE and Para.[0134] A POW may include one or more monitoring occasions of one or more CORESETs. In one example, a POW may include CORESETs from one COG, and may map to one TRP and Para.[0148] In FIG. 14B, separate PSI may be received on COG1 and COG2. Each PSI may indicate the number of PDCCH to be skipped on the respective CORESET or COG monitoring occasions. PSI1 may indicate one PDCCH monitoring occasion is to be skipped on COG1. PSI2 may indicate one PDCCH monitoring occasion is to be skipped on COG2 and Para.[0097] The techniques may give more control to the network on how to enable power savings by dynamically controlling UE 101 monitoring of different CORESETs/COGs).
Re claim 11:
Iyer discloses wherein the first control signaling is the same as the second control signaling (Para.[0036] In an example, a single PSI may provide the power savings indication for multiple CORESETs or COGs or TRPs or panels).
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1 from the perspective of the network entity.
Re claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2 from the perspective of the network entity.
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3 from the perspective of the network entity.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4 from the perspective of the network entity.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6 from the perspective of the network entity.
Re claim 19: Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7 from the perspective of the network entity.
Re claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 8.
Re claim 21: Claim 21 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 9.
Re claim 23: Claim 23 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 11.
Re claim 25: Claim 25 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 26: Claim 26 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 28: Claim 28 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1 from the perspective of the network entity.
Re claim 29: Claim 29 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2 from the perspective of the network entity.
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.
Claim(s) 5,17, 27, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer in view of Gong (US 20200112959).
Re claim 5:
As discussed above, Iyer meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Iyer discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the first network entity is associated with a first set of (Para.[0134] A POW may include one or more monitoring occasions of one or more CORESETs. In one example, a POW may include CORESETs from one COG, and may map to one TRP and Para.[0148] In FIG. 14B, separate PSI may be received on COG1 and COG2. Each PSI may indicate the number of PDCCH to be skipped on the respective CORESET or COG monitoring occasions. PSI1 may indicate one PDCCH monitoring occasion is to be skipped on COG1. PSI2 may indicate one PDCCH monitoring occasion is to be skipped on COG2).
Iyer does not explicitly disclose virtual component carriers.
Gong discloses virtual component carriers (Para.[0055] As shown, a TRP 210 transmits data streams to a UE 203 over a physical component carrier 291 and a virtual component carrier 292 that belong to the same component carrier group. In this example, the TRP 210 includes a primary cell (PCell) 211 that transmits a data stream over the physical component carrier 291 and a virtual secondary cell (Virtual SCell) 212 that transmits a data stream over the virtual component carrier 292).
Iyer and Gong are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iyer to include virtual component carriers as taught by Gong in order to increase the effective bandwidth available to a given UE (Gong Para.[0049]).
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5 from the perspective of the network entity.
Re claim 27: Claim 27 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Re claim 30: Claim 30 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5 from the perspective of the network entity.
Claim(s) 10,12,22,24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer in view of Chen (US 20250287367).
Re claim 10:
As discussed above, Iyer meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Iyer discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the first network operation sequence is associated with a first set of parameters, and wherein the second network operation sequence is associated with a second set of parameters different from the first set of parameters, the first set of parameters, the second set of parameters, or both, (Para.[0134] A POW may include one or more monitoring occasions of one or more CORESETs. In one example, a POW may include CORESETs from one COG, and may map to one TRP and Para.[0148] In FIG. 14B, separate PSI may be received on COG1 and COG2. Each PSI may indicate the number of PDCCH to be skipped on the respective CORESET or COG monitoring occasions. PSI1 may indicate one PDCCH monitoring occasion is to be skipped on COG1. PSI2 may indicate one PDCCH monitoring occasion is to be skipped on COG2).
Chen discloses a network energy consumption level, a maximum data rate, or both (Para.[0108] Optionally, the above indication information is related to network energy-saving. Specifically, the indication information may be used to inform the terminal device whether the base station device is in a network energy-saving mode on at least one of the serving cell, the bandwidth part, the cell physical layer identity and the transmission and reception point indicated by the indication information. If a first information indicates that it is not in the network energy-saving mode, the terminal device monitors the reference signal set on the corresponding serving cell, the bandwidth part, the cell physical layer identity and the transmission and reception point; if the first information indicates that it is in the network energy-saving mode, the terminal device does not monitor the reference signal set on the corresponding serving cell, the bandwidth part, the cell physical layer identity and the transmission and reception point).
Iyer and Chen are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iyer to include a network energy savings mode as taught by Chen in order to improve reliability of the UE by improving candidate beam detection (Chen Para.[0014]).
Re claim 12:
As discussed above, Iyer meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Iyer does not explicitly disclose the UE of claim 1, wherein the first set of network operation modes, the second set of network operation modes, or both, comprise a first network energy saving mode, a second network energy saving mode, a flexible mode, a legacy mode, an inactive mode, or any combination thereof.
Chen discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the first set of network operation modes, the second set of network operation modes, or both, comprise a first network energy saving mode, a second network energy saving mode, a flexible mode, a legacy mode, an inactive mode, or any combination thereof (Para.[0108] Optionally, the above indication information is related to network energy-saving. Specifically, the indication information may be used to inform the terminal device whether the base station device is in a network energy-saving mode on at least one of the serving cell, the bandwidth part, the cell physical layer identity and the transmission and reception point indicated by the indication information. If a first information indicates that it is not in the network energy-saving mode, the terminal device monitors the reference signal set on the corresponding serving cell, the bandwidth part, the cell physical layer identity and the transmission and reception point; if the first information indicates that it is in the network energy-saving mode, the terminal device does not monitor the reference signal set on the corresponding serving cell, the bandwidth part, the cell physical layer identity and the transmission and reception point).
Iyer and Chen are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iyer to include a network energy savings mode as taught by Chen in order to improve reliability of the UE by improving candidate beam detection (Chen Para.[0014]).
Re claim 22: Claim 22 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 10.
Re claim 24: Claim 24 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, Applicant contends regarding the double patenting rejection that U.S. Patent No. 12,323,916 does not disclose a first and second network entity that are different.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not define the first and second network entities as different.
In the remarks, Applicant contends Iyer does not disclose “the second set of network operation modes different from the first set of network operation modes.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Iyer discloses the second set of network operation modes different from the first set of network operation modes (Para.[0134] A POW may include one or more monitoring occasions of one or more CORESETs. In one example, a POW may include CORESETs from one COG, and may map to one TRP and Para.[0148] In FIG. 14B, separate PSI may be received on COG1 and COG2. Each PSI may indicate the number of PDCCH to be skipped on the respective CORESET or COG monitoring occasions. PSI1 may indicate one PDCCH monitoring occasion is to be skipped on COG1. PSI2 may indicate one PDCCH monitoring occasion is to be skipped on COG2).
The claim does not define what the “operation modes” are. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, different sequences for when the skip or monitor PDCCH reads on different network operation modes. The Examiner recommends further defining the operation modes.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MOHAMMAD SAJID ADHAMI whose telephone number is (571)272-8615. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471