CTFR 18/038,973 CTFR 85642 DETAILED ACTION Claim(s) 1-3 and 8-32 have been examined and are pending. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Remarks/Comments Prior Art Rejection(s) In the Non-Final Rejection (“NF”) mailed December 19, 2025, the status of the claim(s) in light of the prior art of record was as follows: Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 31, and 32, were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1). 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 24, 25, 30, were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of ABE (US 20140301286 A1) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of TAKEDA (“US 20210219271 A1”). Claim(s) 9 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of PARK (“US 20190274153 A1”). Claim(s) 28-29 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of ABE (US 20140301286 A1) in view of KRISHNAMOORTHY (“US 20160135158 A1”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 16, 18, and 19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of ABE (US 20140301286 A1) in view of TAKEDA (“US 20210099979 A1”) . 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim (s) 20 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of ABE (US 20140301286 A1) in view of TAKEDA (“US 20210099979 A1”) in view of CHEN (US 20200107301 A1). Claim(s) 21 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of ABE (US 20140301286 A1) in view of TAKEDA (“US 20210099979 A1”) in view of ASHRAF (US 20190349878 A1). Claim(s) 11, 17, 22, and 23, were objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In response to the prior art rejections, Applicants have amended independent claim(s) 1, 31, and 32, such that, “the blind decoding limit condition is based on a presence of a multi-transport block (TB) scheduling downlink control information (DCI) in the slot ”. Further responsive to the prior art rejections, Applicants have presented arguments with respect to the amended claims, arguing that the combination NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1), fail to teach and/or suggest a feature of where “the blind decoding limit condition is based on a presence of a multi-transport block (TB) scheduling downlink control information (DCI) in the slot…”, as arranged with the remaining elements of the independent claims. In light of the amendments to the claims, a new ground of rejection has been made in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1). Regarding the arguments, Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior rejections of claim(s) 1-3 and 8-32 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 2, 3, 31, and 32 , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1) In regards to claim(s) 1, 31, and 32, NOH (US 20200305134 A1) teaches a method of wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising (Note with respect to the apparatus and non-transitory computer readable medium embodiments of claim(s) 31 and 32, see, “[0040] In this case, it will be understood that each block of the flowchart illustrations, and combinations of blocks in the flowchart illustrations, can be implemented by computer program instructions. These computer program instructions can be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions specified in the flowchart block or blocks…[0306]… As illustrated in FIG. 14, a terminal according to the disclosure may include a terminal processor 1400, a receiver 1410, and a transmitter 1420 . [0307] T he terminal processor 1400 may control a series of processes in which the terminal can operate according to an embodiment of the disclosure. For example, the terminal processor 1400 may differently control the method for calculating the restrictions on the maximum number of PDCCH candidates and the maximum number of CCEs and the PDCCH monitoring operation of the terminal according to an embodiment of the disclosure. In an embodiment of the disclosure, the terminal receiver 1410 and the terminal transmitter 1420 may be commonly called a transceiver. The transceiver may transmit/receive a signal to/from a base station. The signal may include control information and data… ”): determining a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) blind decoding limit based on a blind decoding limit reduction condition, wherein the blind decoding limit condition is associated with a slot, and wherein blind decoding limit reduction condition is based on a presence of a multiple-transport-block scheduling downlink control information in the slot; and performing blind decoding for a PDCCH using one or more PDCCH candidates of a set of PDCCH candidates based on the determined PDCCH blind decoding limit (“[0241] FIG. 11 illustrates a diagram of an operation of a terminal to determine restrictions on the maximum number of PDCCH candidates and the maximum number of CCEs according to an embodiment of the disclosure. At operation 1100, with respect to a base station, the terminal performs a UE capability report (e.g. pdcch-BlindDetectionCA) for PDCCH monitoring for carrier aggregation and a UE capability report (e.g. pdcch-BlindDetectionNCJT) notifying whether additional PDCCH candidate monitoring is possible and the degree of the additional PDCCH candidate monitoring. At operation 1105, the base station performs higher layer configurations for downlink cells for carrier aggregation, whether an NC-JT transmission is possible, or whether multi-PDCCH based NC-JT transmission is possible based on the UE capability reports. Thereafter, the base station and the terminal determine whether additional PDCCH blind decoding for CA is possible by the UE capability report and subsequent higher layer configuration values (1110). If the additional PDCCH blind decoding is not possible, the terminal performs PDCCH blind decoding in accordance with the [condition A] (1120)… [0243] If the additional PDCCH blind decoding for the NC-JT is possible as the result of the determination at operation 1115, the terminal, at operation 1125, may additionally determine whether the third restriction is applicable in accordance with the above-described method (e.g., depending on whether the maximum number of PDSCHs configured for the CA and NC-JT is equal to or larger than a specific value). In accordance with the result of the determination, the terminal may perform the PDCCH decoding without changing the restrictions on the maximum number of PDCCH candidates and the maximum number of CCEs (1120), or the terminal may perform the PDCCH decoding in accordance with the third restriction and the second restriction by additionally increasing the restrictions on the maximum number of PDCCH candidates and the maximum number of CCEs (1135) ”). NOH differs from claim 1, in that NOH is silent on wherein blind decoding limit reduction condition is based on a presence of a multiple-transport-block scheduling downlink control information in the slot. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving the decoding of a downlink control channel. SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) teaches where a blind decoding limit reduction condition occurs when a slot includes a multi-TB scheduling DCI (“[0479] Additionally, in a method in which an enhanced terminal may know that NPDSCHs transmitted subsequently are multi-TB scheduling through the SC-MCCH payload or the SC-MTCH payload and legacy DCI (e.g., DCI scheduling SC-MTCH), a base station may inform a terminal of the number of repetitions which is not used or which may be used by legacy DCI (e.g., DCI scheduling SC-MTCH) through the SC-MCCH payload or the SC-MTCH payload. [0480] In this case, when enhanced terminals monitor a search space where legacy DCI is transmitted, the number of NPDCCH candidates which should perform blind decoding may be reduced .”). Thus based upon the teachings of SHIN it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blind decoding feature of NOH, such that the wherein blind decoding limit reduction condition is based on a presence of a multiple-transport-block scheduling downlink control information, as similarly seen in SHIN, in order to provide a benefit of more efficient energy usage a terminal device, by reducing the amount of processing dedicated to performing blind decodes. The blind decoding feature suggested by the combined teachings of NOH in view of SHIN differs from that of claim 1, in that the combined teachings are silent on wherein blind decoding limit reduction condition is based on a presence of a multiple-transport-block scheduling downlink control information in the slot . Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving blind decoding. IYER teaches a blind decoding reduction feature, where a blind decoding limit reduction condition, that is associated with a slot, is based on a presence of a scheduling DCI in the slot (See, Fig. 4, and read the following, “[0131] Grant-based Micro-sleep behavior: Furthermore, a UE behavior may be defined to support micro-sleep between the PDCCH giving a grant and the time of occurrence of the granted resources. This can be applied to scenarios of cross-slot grants where K0>0. The concept is shown in FIG. 4A where, the UE receives a grant with K0=2. The UE does not monitor the PDCCH occasions between the DCI and the granted resources . [0132] FIG. 4B shows another UE behavior wherein, the UE may micro-sleep over duration M ms immediately following the granted resources. Here M=2 ms; the UE does not monitor the PDCCH occasions in the 2 slots following the granted resources. After M ms, the UE wake up without the need for additional wake-up indication and continues to monitor PDCCH. These behaviors may be RRC configured to the UE using a flag (or other indicator) that indicates if the UE must follow such a micro-sleep procedure. [0133] As another alternative to the case described in FIG. 4A, the UE may skip monitoring C PDCCH monitoring occasions after detecting a DCI carrying a valid non-zero grant for it or may skip monitoring the PDCCH occasions in S slots after detecting a DCI carrying a valid non-zero grant for it. The value of C or S may be RRC configured to the UE. The concept is shown in FIG. 4C, where the UE receives a cross-slot grant with K0=3 and C=2; so UE is not required to monitor PDCCH in 2 slots following the DCI. This allows the UE to wake up from a micro-sleep just in time to receive the PDCCH and PDSCH occurring together in slot #3…” ). Thus, based upon the teachings of IYER it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the blind decoding feature suggested by the combination of NOH in view of SHIN, such that the blind decoding limit reduction condition is based on a presence of DCI (i.e. a multiple-transport-block scheduling downlink control information) in the slot, as similarly seen in IYER, to thus arrive at claim 1. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a benefit of a reliable means of controlling blind decoding at a UE, through use of a received DCI, the received DCI controlling the timing, slot timing, at which blind decoding is applied. In regards to claim 2 , NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1) suggest the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining an occurrence of the blind decoding limit reduction condition in a first slot, wherein the UE determines the PDCCH blind decoding limit based on the occurrence of the blind decoding limit reduction condition (See NOH, “[0218] I n LTE and NR systems, the terminal may adjust PDCCH detection attempt complexity of the terminal by controlling restrictions on the maximum number of PDCCH candidates and the maximum number of control channel elements (CCEs) for control channel reception in one slot in accordance with a specific condition, for example, in accordance with the number of downlink serving cells (which may be equally called “component carrier (CC)”) configured for the carrier aggregation. ”). In regards to claim 3 , NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1) suggest the method of claim 2, further comprising: determining the blind decoding limit reduction condition does not occur in a second slot, wherein the UE determines a different PDCCH blind decoding limit associated with the second slot (The blind decoding limit determination described by NOH occurs on a per slot basis. Therefore a situation when the blind decoding limit determination, determines that none of the conditions apply in a slot other than the first slot is regarded as sufficient in fulfilling the limitations of claim 3, See NOH, where “[0218] I n LTE and NR systems, the terminal may adjust PDCCH detection attempt complexity of the terminal by controlling restrictions on the maximum number of PDCCH candidates and the maximum number of control channel elements (CCEs) for control channel reception in one slot in accordance with a specific condition, for example, in accordance with the number of downlink serving cells (which may be equally called “component carrier (CC)”) configured for the carrier aggregation. ”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 24, 25, 30 , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1) in view of ABE (US 20140301286 A1) . In regards to claim 10, the combination of NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1) is silent on the method of claim 1, wherein the blind decoding limit reduction condition is based on a DCI format type. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving determination of a blind decoding limit. ABE (US 20140301286 A1) teaches where reduced blind decoding limit condition that depends on a format of downlink control information (“[0067] In this case, since DCI formats 1A and 0 arranged in the first-half slot are the same bit size, so that the mobile terminal apparatus UE is able to decode these at the same time by one blind decoding (maximum sixteen times). Blind decoding is tried sixteen times for each of DCI format 2A arranged in the first-half slot and DCI format 4 arranged in the second-half slot. Consequently, the number of times the mobile terminal apparatus UE tries blind decoding is 16.times.3 times (48 times). Consequently, the number of times to try blind decoding in the mobile terminal apparatus UE is reduced, so that it is possible to reduce the load of the mobile terminal apparatus UE. Note that DCI format 1A and DCI format 0 are distinguished by processing the top one bit, after blind decoding is tried sixteen times. ”). Thus based upon the teachings of ABE it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blind decoding limit feature of the combination of NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1), by taking into account a type of DCI when determining a blind decoding limit, in order to arrive at the method of claim 1, wherein the blind decoding limit reduction condition is based on a DCI format type, in order to provide reliable means for making a determination of reducing a blind decoding limit. In regards to claim 12, the combination of NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1) is silent on the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from a base station, a configuration of the blind decoding limit reduction condition. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving determination of a blind decoding limit. ABE (US 20140301286 A1) teaches where reduced blind decoding limit condition that depends on a format of downlink control information (“[0067] In this case, since DCI formats 1A and 0 arranged in the first-half slot are the same bit size, so that the mobile terminal apparatus UE is able to decode these at the same time by one blind decoding (maximum sixteen times). Blind decoding is tried sixteen times for each of DCI format 2A arranged in the first-half slot and DCI format 4 arranged in the second-half slot. Consequently, the number of times the mobile terminal apparatus UE tries blind decoding is 16.times.3 times (48 times). Consequently, the number of times to try blind decoding in the mobile terminal apparatus UE is reduced, so that it is possible to reduce the load of the mobile terminal apparatus UE. Note that DCI format 1A and DCI format 0 are distinguished by processing the top one bit, after blind decoding is tried sixteen times. ”). ABE also teaches where a terminal device receives from a base station, via higher layer/RRC signaling, a configuration of the blind decoding limit reduction condition (“[0062] It is also possible to provide a configuration in which the above-described limit of the aggregation level and the limit of the DCI format are reported from the base station apparatus eNB to the mobile terminal apparatus UE using higher layer signaling and the settings of the above limits are switched dynamically. By this means, flexible system operation is made possible. [0063] According to a third aspect of the present invention, the DCI type of each slot is limited such that a plurality of DCIs of the same bit size are arranged in one of the first-half slot and the second-half slot of a PRB where the FDM-type PDCCH is allocated. By this means, the number of times to try blind decoding in the mobile terminal apparatus UE is reduced, so that it is possible to reduce the load of the mobile terminal apparatus UE. ”). Thus based upon the teachings of ABE it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blind decoding limit feature of the combination of NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1), by taking into account a type of DCI when determining a blind decoding limit, in order to arrive at the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from a base station, a configuration of the blind decoding limit reduction condition , in order to provide reliable means for making a determination of reducing a blind decoding limit. In regards to claim 13, the combination of NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1) is silent on the method of claim 12, wherein the UE receives the configuration of one or more blind decoding limit reduction conditions in radio resource control (RRC) signaling. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving determination of a blind decoding limit. ABE (US 20140301286 A1) teaches where reduced blind decoding limit condition that depends on a format of downlink control information (“[0067] In this case, since DCI formats 1A and 0 arranged in the first-half slot are the same bit size, so that the mobile terminal apparatus UE is able to decode these at the same time by one blind decoding (maximum sixteen times). Blind decoding is tried sixteen times for each of DCI format 2A arranged in the first-half slot and DCI format 4 arranged in the second-half slot. Consequently, the number of times the mobile terminal apparatus UE tries blind decoding is 16.times.3 times (48 times). Consequently, the number of times to try blind decoding in the mobile terminal apparatus UE is reduced, so that it is possible to reduce the load of the mobile terminal apparatus UE. Note that DCI format 1A and DCI format 0 are distinguished by processing the top one bit, after blind decoding is tried sixteen times. ”). ABE also teaches where a terminal device receives from a base station, via higher layer/RRC signaling, a configuration of the blind decoding limit reduction condition (“[0062] It is also possible to provide a configuration in which the above-described limit of the aggregation level and the limit of the DCI format are reported from the base station apparatus eNB to the mobile terminal apparatus UE using higher layer signaling and the settings of the above limits are switched dynamically. By this means, flexible system operation is made possible. [0063] According to a third aspect of the present invention, the DCI type of each slot is limited such that a plurality of DCIs of the same bit size are arranged in one of the first-half slot and the second-half slot of a PRB where the FDM-type PDCCH is allocated. By this means, the number of times to try blind decoding in the mobile terminal apparatus UE is reduced, so that it is possible to reduce the load of the mobile terminal apparatus UE. ”). Thus based upon the teachings of ABE it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blind decoding limit feature of the combination of NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1), by taking into account a type of DCI when determining a blind decoding limit, in order to arrive at the method of claim 12, wherein the UE receives the configuration of one or more blind decoding limit reduction conditions in radio resource control (RRC) signaling , in order to provide reliable means for making a determination of reducing a blind decoding limit. In regards to claim 14, the combination of NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1) in view of ABE teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the UE determines the PDCCH blind decoding limit to be a blind decoding limit reduction value based on an occurrence of the blind decoding limit reduction condition (See NOH, Table(s) 10 and 11). In regards to claim 15, the combination of NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1) is silent on the method of claim 14, further comprising: receiving, from the base station, a first indication of the blind decoding limit reduction value via downlink control information (DCI) or radio resource control (RRC) signaling. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving determination of a blind decoding limit. ABE (US 20140301286 A1) teaches where reduced blind decoding limit condition that depends on a format of downlink control information, where when the condition is met a value is determined (“[0067] In this case, since DCI formats 1A and 0 arranged in the first-half slot are the same bit size, so that the mobile terminal apparatus UE is able to decode these at the same time by one blind decoding (maximum sixteen times). Blind decoding is tried sixteen times for each of DCI format 2A arranged in the first-half slot and DCI format 4 arranged in the second-half slot. Consequently, the number of times the mobile terminal apparatus UE tries blind decoding is 16.times.3 times (48 times). Consequently, the number of times to try blind decoding in the mobile terminal apparatus UE is reduced, so that it is possible to reduce the load of the mobile terminal apparatus UE. Note that DCI format 1A and DCI format 0 are distinguished by processing the top one bit, after blind decoding is tried sixteen times. ”). ABE also teaches where a terminal device receives from a base station, via higher layer/RRC signaling, the indication of a blind decoding limit value based on the determination of the blind decoding limit reduction condition (“[0062] It is also possible to provide a configuration in which the above-described limit of the aggregation level and the limit of the DCI format are reported from the base station apparatus eNB to the mobile terminal apparatus UE using higher layer signaling and the settings of the above limits are switched dynamically. By this means, flexible system operation is made possible. [0063] According to a third aspect of the present invention, the DCI type of each slot is limited such that a plurality of DCIs of the same bit size are arranged in one of the first-half slot and the second-half slot of a PRB where the FDM-type PDCCH is allocated. By this means, the number of times to try blind decoding in the mobile terminal apparatus UE is reduced, so that it is possible to reduce the load of the mobile terminal apparatus UE. ”). Thus based upon the teachings of ABE it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blind decoding limit feature of the combination of NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1), by taking into account a type of DCI when determining a blind decoding limit, in order to arrive at the method of claim 14, further comprising: receiving, from the base station, a first indication of the blind decoding limit reduction value via downlink control information (DCI) or radio resource control (RRC) signaling , in order to provide reliable means for making a determination of reducing a blind decoding limit. In regards to claim 24, the combination of NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1) in view of ABE teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising: transmitting, to the base station, a request requesting one or more blind decoding limit reduction conditions comprising the blind decoding limit reduction condition (See NOH, “[0123] If the terminal may perform the carrier aggregation with respect to four or more cells (which may be called “component carriers (CCs)” in the same manner), the terminal may report capability for the number N.sup.cap of downlink cells capable of monitoring PDCCH candidates to the base station. If the terminal is configured with total N.sup.μ cells in which the subcarrier spacing is configured to μ from the base station, the terminal may consider the following PDCCH candidate number restriction M.sup.total,μ and CCE number restriction C.sup.total,μ with respect to the configured N.sup.μ cells.” Also see “[0225] To solve this, it is possible to introduce “UE capability report for additional PDCCH candidate monitoring” in addition to the UE capability report for the number N.sup.cap of downlink cells capable of monitoring the PDCCH candidates, and thus to extend the restrictions on the maximum number of PDCCH candidates and the maximum number of CCEs. The UE capability report for the additional PDCCH candidate monitoring may be notification of whether carrier aggregation and separate additional PDCCH candidate monitoring are possible or the degree of the additional PDCCH candidate monitoring through additional signaling, for example, through pdcch-BlindDetectionNCJTϵ{1 or 2}, in addition to pdcch-BlindDetectionCA that is the UE capability report for the PDCCH monitoring for the carrier aggregation. This means that it is possible to extend the restrictions on the maximum number of PDCCH candidates and the maximum number of CCEs, if needed, even in case that the number N.sup.cap of downlink cells is not sufficiently large (e.g., is not larger than 4) . [0226] Specifically, the base station can extend the restrictions on the maximum number of PDCCH candidates and the maximum number of CCEs through the following methods only with respect to the terminal having performed the UE capability report for the additional PDCCH candidate monitoring among the terminals supporting the NC-JT .”) In regards to claim 25, the combination of NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1) in view of ABE teaches the method of claim 24, wherein the UE transmits the request to the base station in UE assistance information (See NOH, where “[0123] If the terminal may perform the carrier aggregation with respect to four or more cells (which may be called “component carriers (CCs)” in the same manner), the terminal may report capability for the number N.sup.cap of downlink cells capable of monitoring PDCCH candidates to the base station. If the terminal is configured with total N.sup.μ cells in which the subcarrier spacing is configured to μ from the base station, the terminal may consider the following PDCCH candidate number restriction M.sup.total,μ and CCE number restriction C.sup.total,μ with respect to the configured N.sup.μ cells.” Also see “[0225] To solve this, it is possible to introduce “UE capability report for additional PDCCH candidate monitoring” in addition to the UE capability report for the number N.sup.cap of downlink cells capable of monitoring the PDCCH candidates, and thus to extend the restrictions on the maximum number of PDCCH candidates and the maximum number of CCEs. The UE capability report for the additional PDCCH candidate monitoring may be notification of whether carrier aggregation and separate additional PDCCH candidate monitoring are possible or the degree of the additional PDCCH candidate monitoring through additional signaling, for example, through pdcch-BlindDetectionNCJTϵ{1 or 2}, in addition to pdcch-BlindDetectionCA that is the UE capability report for the PDCCH monitoring for the carrier aggregation. This means that it is possible to extend the restrictions on the maximum number of PDCCH candidates and the maximum number of CCEs, if needed, even in case that the number N.sup.cap of downlink cells is not sufficiently large (e.g., is not larger than 4) . [0226] Specifically, the base station can extend the restrictions on the maximum number of PDCCH candidates and the maximum number of CCEs through the following methods only with respect to the terminal having performed the UE capability report for the additional PDCCH candidate monitoring among the terminals supporting the NC-JT .”) In regards to claim 30, the combination of NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1) in view of ABE teaches the method of claim 24, wherein the request is for a set of blind decoding limit reduction conditions associated with one of: one slot, more than one slots, or one or more conditions (See where the blind limit reduction conditions depend on a slot timing according to Paragraph 218 of NOH, “[0218] I n LTE and NR systems, the terminal may adjust PDCCH detection attempt complexity of the terminal by controlling restrictions on the maximum number of PDCCH candidates and the maximum number of control channel elements (CCEs) for control channel reception in one slot in accordance with a specific condition, for example, in accordance with the number of downlink serving cells (which may be equally called “component carrier (CC)”) configured for the carrier aggregation. ”) 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1) in view of TAKEDA (“US 20210219271 A1”) In regards to claim 8, the combination of NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1) is silent on the method of claim 1, wherein the blind decoding limit reduction condition is based on the slot being associated with semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) or a configured grant (CG). Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving slot-based scheduling of information in a wireless network. TAKEDA (“US 20210219271 A1”) teaches where a slot is associated with a configured grant (“[0040] The UE may support the repetition of PUSCH in one slot or support the repetition of PUSCH over multiple slots in the configured grant type 1 transmission. The UE may support the repetition of PUSCH in one slot or support the repetition of PUSCH over multiple slots in the configured grant type 2 transmission. The configuration information of the configured grant (configured grant configuration information, ConfiguredGrantConfig) is configured by the higher layer and may include the number of times of repetition of data …). Thus based upon the teachings of TAKEDA it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply configured grant transmission to the slots of the combination of NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1) to arrive at the method of claim 1, wherein the blind decoding limit reduction condition is based on the slot being associated with semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) or a configured grant (CG), in order to take advantage of benefits of scheduling transmissions using configured grants . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1) in view of PARK (“US 20190274153 A1”) In regards to claim 9, the combination of NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1) is silent on the method of claim 1, wherein the blind decoding limit reduction condition is based on the slot being configured with UE specific DCI. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving slot-based scheduling of information in a wireless network. PARK (“US 20190274153 A1”) teaches where a slot is configured with UE-specific DCI (“[0107] For example, in case of the pre-notification method, the transmission of DL (or UL) data transmission resource allocation information for a corresponding UE in a corresponding slot through UE-specific DCI or DL assignment DCI in a common search space of an NR PDCCH of the slot may be generated, by including resource allocation information used for transmitting URLLC data of allocated resources and information (DL preemption indication information) for indicating whether puncturing or superposition is performed for resources allocated for transmitting the URLLC data ...”) Thus, based upon the teachings of PARK it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply UE-specific DCI scheduling to the slots of the combination of NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1) to arrive at the method of claim 1, wherein the blind decoding limit reduction condition is based on the slot being configured with UE specific DCI, in order to take advantage of benefits of scheduling transmissions using UE-specific DCI . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1) in view of ABE (US 20140301286 A1) in view of SHIMEZAWA (“US 20200305151 A1”) . In regards to claim 26, the combination of NOH in view of SHIN in view of IYER in view of ABE is silent on the method of claim 24, wherein the request for the blind decoding limit reduction condition is transmitted via a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH). Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving 5G/NG uplink transmissions. SHIMEZAWA (“US 20200305151 A1”) teaches use of a PUSCH, PUCCH, or a physical random-access channel (PRACH) for uplink transmissions (“[0088] The NR physical uplink channel includes an NR-PUSCH, an NR-PUCCH, an NR-PRACH, and the like .”). Thus based upon the teachings of SHIMEZAWA it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the uplink communications (i.e. UE capability report of NOH, see NOH Par. 225 – Par. 226) suggested by the combination of NOH in view of SHIN in view of IYER in view of ABE, by providing the uplink communications, via PUSCH or PUCCH, to thus arrive at claim 26, in order to provide a benefit of a reliable communication channel for the 5G uplink communication. In regards to claim 27, the combination of NOH in view of SHIN in view of IYER in view of ABE is silent on the method of claim 24, wherein the request for the blind decoding limit reduction condition is transmitted via a physical random access channel (PRACH). Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving 5G/NG uplink transmissions. SHIMEZAWA (“US 20200305151 A1”) teaches use of a PUSCH, PUCCH, or a physical random access channel (PRACH) for uplink transmissions (“[0088] The NR physical uplink channel includes an NR-PUSCH, an NR-PUCCH, an NR-PRACH, and the like .”). Thus based upon the teachings of SHIMEZAWA it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the uplink communications (i.e. UE capability report of NOH, see NOH Par. 225 – Par. 226) suggested by the combination of NOH in view of SHIN in view of IYER in view of ABE, by providing the uplink communications via PRACH, to thus arrive at claim 27, in order to provide a benefit of a reliable communication channel for the 5G uplink communication . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1) in view of ABE (US 20140301286 A1) in view of KRISHNAMOORTHY (“US 20160135158 A1”) In regards to claim 28, the combination of NOH in view of SHIN in view of IYER in view of ABE is silent on the method of claim 24, wherein the UE transmits the request when the UE establishes a connection with the base station. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving the transmissions of requests in a cellular communication network. KRISHNAMOORTHY (“US 20160135158 A1”) teaches where a UE transmits a request for a configuration, when establishing a connection with a base station. KHRISHNAMOORTHY further teaches where the base station sends a configuration in response to the request (“[0005] In LTE, like other cellular technologies, the call setup procedure involves a series of steps as follows: UE acquires the LTE network; UE decodes the system information broadcasted to all UEs within the cell using a broadcast control channel (BCCH) which provides the UE with the basic information it needs to know how to access this eNB/network; UE sends a random access request (RACH) to the eNB (MSG 1 ); eNB responds to the RACH with MSG 2 (Random Access Response) that includes UL grant allowing the UE to transmit a connection request, Temporary C-RNTI and timing advance value; using the UL grant that arrives with MSG 2 , UE sends RRC connection request to eNB (MSG 3 ); eNB responds with connection setup using the Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) (MSG 4 or Contention Resolution Message); eNB configures other aspects of the UE, such as configuring the transmission mode, other channel attributes and parameters such as the Sound Reference Signal (SRS) configuration to use, additional radio bearers to use, handover parameters and thresholds, etc.; and UE is now connected and able to send and receive user data using the Dedicated Traffic Channel (DTCH) ”) Thus, based upon the teachings of KRISHNAMOORTHY it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the request of the combination of NOH in view of SHIN in view of IYER in view of ABE, by transmitting the request as part of an establishment of a connection with a base station and to receive a response from the base station, to thus arrive at 28, in order to provide a benefit of a reliable method for transmitting the request suggested by the combination of NOH in view of SHIN in view of IYER in view of ABE. In regards to claim 29, the combination of NOH in view of SHIN in view of IYER in view of ABE is silent on the method of claim 28, wherein the UE receives, from the base station, the blind decoding limit reduction condition in response to the request. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving the transmissions of requests in a cellular communication network. KRISHNAMOORTHY (“US 20160135158 A1”) teaches where a UE transmits a request for a configuration, when establishing a connection with a base station. KHRISHNAMOORTHY further teaches where the base station sends a configuration in response to the request (“[0005] In LTE, like other cellular technologies, the call setup procedure involves a series of steps as follows: UE acquires the LTE network; UE decodes the system information broadcasted to all UEs within the cell using a broadcast control channel (BCCH) which provides the UE with the basic information it needs to know how to access this eNB/network; UE sends a random access request (RACH) to the eNB (MSG 1 ); eNB responds to the RACH with MSG 2 (Random Access Response) that includes UL grant allowing the UE to transmit a connection request, Temporary C-RNTI and timing advance value; using the UL grant that arrives with MSG 2 , UE sends RRC connection request to eNB (MSG 3 ); eNB responds with connection setup using the Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) (MSG 4 or Contention Resolution Message); eNB configures other aspects of the UE, such as configuring the transmission mode, other channel attributes and parameters such as the Sound Reference Signal (SRS) configuration to use, additional radio bearers to use, handover parameters and thresholds, etc.; and UE is now connected and able to send and receive user data using the Dedicated Traffic Channel (DTCH) ”) Thus, based upon the teachings of KRISHNAMOORTHY it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the request of the combination of NOH in view of SHIN in view of IYER in view of ABE, by transmitting the request as part of an establishment of a connection with a base station and to receive a response from the base station fulfilling the request (i.e blind detection limit reduction condition), to thus arrive at 29, in order to provide a benefit of a reliable method for transmitting the request suggested by the combination of NOH in view of SHIN in view of IYER in view of ABE, and receiving a response to the request . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 16, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1) in view of ABE (US 20140301286 A1) in view of TAKEDA (“US 20210099979 A1”) In regards to claim 16, the combination of NOH in view of SHIN in view of IYER in view of ABE is silent on the method of claim 14, further comprising: receiving, from the base station, a second indication of at least one timing parameter associated with the blind decoding limit reduction value for the blind decoding limit reduction condition. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving blind decoding a downlink control channel. TAKEDA (“US 20210099979 A1”) teaches receiving an indication of a timing parameter, number of slots, associated with a blind decoding limit value (“[0052] FIG. 3A illustrates three control resource sets (CORESETs #1 to #3) of different monitoring periodicities. The monitoring periodicity of a first control resource set (CORESET #1) is configured to two slots (or two symbols), and “M” is configured as a configuration value and a maximum value of the number of downlink control channel candidates (the number of times of blind decoding). The number of downlink control channel candidates of the first control resource set (CORESET #1) is configured to the identical value “M” on any monitoring occasion (a slot or a symbol) . [0053] The monitoring periodicity of a second control resource set (CORESET #2) is configured to three slots (or three symbols), and “N” is configured as a configuration value and a maximum value of the number of downlink control channel candidates (the number of times of blind decoding). The number of downlink control channel candidates of the second control resource set (CORESET #2) is configured to “N” on any monitoring occasion. [0054] The monitoring periodicity of a third control resource set (CORESET #3) is configured to 12 slots (or 12 symbols), and “K” is configured as a configuration value and a maximum value of the number of downlink control channel candidates (the number of times of blind decoding). The number of downlink control channel candidates of the third control resource set (CORESET #3) is configured to “K” on any monitoring occasion. ”). Thus, based upon the teachings of TAKEDA it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the indication of a blind decoding limit reduction value, suggested by the combination of NOH in view of SHIN in view of IYER in view of ABE, by taking into a timing a parameter such as a slot to thus arrive at claim 16, recognizing that a number of blind decodes depends on a timing unit such as a slot. In regards to claim 18, the combination of NOH in view of SHIN in view of IYER in view of ABE is silent on the method of claim 16, wherein the at least one timing parameter comprises an indicated number of slots. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving blind decoding a downlink control channel. TAKEDA (“US 20210099979 A1”) teaches receiving an indication of a timing parameter, number of slots, associated with a blind decoding limit value (“[0052] FIG. 3A illustrates three control resource sets (CORESETs #1 to #3) of different monitoring periodicities. The monitoring periodicity of a first control resource set (CORESET #1) is configured to two slots (or two symbols), and “M” is configured as a configuration value and a maximum value of the number of downlink control channel candidates (the number of times of blind decoding). The number of downlink control channel candidates of the first control resource set (CORESET #1) is configured to the identical value “M” on any monitoring occasion (a slot or a symbol) . [0053] The monitoring periodicity of a second control resource set (CORESET #2) is configured to three slots (or three symbols), and “N” is configured as a configuration value and a maximum value of the number of downlink control channel candidates (the number of times of blind decoding). The number of downlink control channel candidates of the second control resource set (CORESET #2) is configured to “N” on any monitoring occasion. [0054] The monitoring periodicity of a third control resource set (CORESET #3) is configured to 12 slots (or 12 symbols), and “K” is configured as a configuration value and a maximum value of the number of downlink control channel candidates (the number of times of blind decoding). The number of downlink control channel candidates of the third control resource set (CORESET #3) is configured to “K” on any monitoring occasion. ”). Thus, based upon the teachings of TAKEDA it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the indication of a blind decoding limit reduction value suggested by the combination of NOH in view of SHIN in view of IYER in view of ABE, by taking into a timing a parameter such as a slot to thus arrive at claim 16, recognizing that a number of blind decodes depends on a timing unit such as a slot. In regards to claim 19, the combination of NOH in view of SHIN in view of IYER in view of ABE is silent on the method of claim 16, wherein the at least one timing parameter comprises a multi-value indication indicating multiple numbers of slots. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving blind decoding a downlink control channel. TAKEDA (“US 20210099979 A1”) teaches receiving an indication of a timing parameter, multiple numbers of slots, associated with a blind decoding limit value (“[0052] FIG. 3A illustrates three control resource sets (CORESETs #1 to #3) of different monitoring periodicities. The monitoring periodicity of a first control resource set (CORESET #1) is configured to two slots (or two symbols), and “M” is configured as a configuration value and a maximum value of the number of downlink control channel candidates (the number of times of blind decoding). The number of downlink control channel candidates of the first control resource set (CORESET #1) is configured to the identical value “M” on any monitoring occasion (a slot or a symbol) . [0053] The monitoring periodicity of a second control resource set (CORESET #2) is configured to three slots (or three symbols), and “N” is configured as a configuration value and a maximum value of the number of downlink control channel candidates (the number of times of blind decoding). The number of downlink control channel candidates of the second control resource set (CORESET #2) is configured to “N” on any monitoring occasion. [0054] The monitoring periodicity of a third control resource set (CORESET #3) is configured to 12 slots (or 12 symbols), and “K” is configured as a configuration value and a maximum value of the number of downlink control channel candidates (the number of times of blind decoding). The number of downlink control channel candidates of the third control resource set (CORESET #3) is configured to “K” on any monitoring occasion. ”). Thus, based upon the teachings of TAKEDA it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the indication of a blind decoding limit reduction value suggested by the combination of NOH in view of SHIN in view of IYER in view of ABE, by taking into a timing a parameter such as a slot to thus arrive at claim 16, recognizing that a number of blind decodes depends on a timing unit such as a slot . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1) in view of ABE (US 20140301286 A1) in view of TAKEDA (“US 20210099979 A1”) in view of CHEN (US 20200107301 A1) In regards to claim 20, the combination of NOH in view of SHIN in view of IYER in view of ABE in view of TAKEDA is silent on the method of claim 16, wherein the at least one timing parameter comprises a starting index and a continuous length. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving configuration of timing parameters. CHEN (US 20200107301 A1) teaches where a timing parameter comprises a start index and a continuous length (“[0135] t he resource indicated by the retransmission resource index includes K continuous time slots, and starts at the sixth preset time slot after a time slot in which the feedback is received by default. ”). Thus, based upon the teachings of CHEN it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the timing parameters suggested by the combination of NOH in view of SHIN in view of IYER in view of ABE in view of TAKEDA, by relying on starting index and continuous length to indicate the timing, recognizing that using such a method can rely as a reliable alternative method for indicating a desired timing parameter . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOH (US 20200305134 A1) in view of SHIN (US 20210274536 A1) in view of in view of IYER (US 20220039009 A1) in view of ABE (US 20140301286 A1) in view of TAKEDA (“US 20210099979 A1”) in view of ASHRAF (US 20190349878 A1) In regards to claim 21, the combination of NOH in view of SHIN in view of IYER in view of ABE in view of TAKEDA is silent on the method of claim 16, wherein the at least one timing parameter comprises a minimum value. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving configuration of timing parameters. ASHRAF (US 20190349878 A1) teaches where a timing parameter comprises a start index and a continuous length (“[0019] To fulfill the requirements of latency for critical applications (e.g. CMTC), a mini-slot is defined in NR. The starting position and length of the mini-slot is variable. The minimum possible length of a mini-slot is one OFDM symbol. However, the alignment of mini-slot and slot is important for better interworking and co-existence. ”). Thus, based upon the teachings of CHEN it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the timing parameters suggested by the combination of NOH in view of SHIN in view of IYER in view of ABE in view of TAKEDA, by relying on a minimum value indicate the timing, recognizing that using such a method can rely as a reliable means to provide a consistent timing in the network feature suggested by NOH in view of TAKEDA . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim (s) 11, 17, 22, and 23, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 TARELL A HAMPTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7162. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 5712723795. 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. /TARELL A HAMPTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2476 /AYAZ R SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 2 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 3 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 4 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 5 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 6 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 7 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 8 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 9 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 10 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 11 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 12 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 13 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 14 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 15 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 16 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 17 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 18 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 19 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 20 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 21 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 22 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 23 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 24 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 25 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 26 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 27 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/038,973 Page 28 Art Unit: 2476
Prosecution Insights