CTNF 18/405,706 CTNF 95020 DETAILED ACTION 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. Applicant’s amendment filed 2/18/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12-17 and 25-30 are canceled. Claims 31-42 are newly added. Priority The present application does not claim for foreign priority. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 4/17/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. Election/Restriction 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 and 18-24 in the reply filed on 2/18/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12-17 and 25-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-11, 18-24, and 31-42 are examined on the merits. Claim Objections Claims 2-8, 11, and 42 are objected because of the following informalities: In claims 2-8 and 11, it is suggested to add “wherein” to read “The apparatus of claim X, wherein …” to provide a clear way to state additional limitation(s) that further defines element(s) already introduced in the parent claim. In claim 42, it is suggested to add “wherein” to read “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 41, wherein …” to provide a clear way to state additional limitation(s) that further defines element(s) already introduced in the parent claim. Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claims 35-40 recite “means for reporting” (claim 35), “means for transmitting” (claim 35), “means for transmitting” (claim 36), “means for transmitting” (claim 37), “means for activating” (claim 38), “means for transmitting” (claim 39), “means for activating” (claim 39), “means for receiving” (claim 35), and “means for activating” (line 40). Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Regarding the limitations, “means for reporting” (claim 35), “means for transmitting” (claim 35), “means for transmitting” (claim 36), “means for transmitting” (claim 37), “means for activating” (claim 38), “means for transmitting” (claim 39), “means for activating” (claim 39), “means for receiving” (claim 35), and “means for activating” (line 40), it appears that the following are corresponding structures described in the specification: see, device 905 shown in Fig. 9; paragraphs [0190-0198]. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 6, 11, 18-21, 23, 34-38 and 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moderator (Intel Corporation) (“Summary of issues for enhancements on cell DTX/DRX mechanism”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #113, R1-2306006, May 22-26, 2023, hereinafter R1-2306006 ) in view of Zhou et al. (US 2026/0107344 A1, hereinafter Zhou ) claiming benefit to and fully-supported by US provisional applications 63/531,100 filed on Aug. 7, 2023 . Regarding claim 1: R1-2306006 teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories (i.e., memory of UE, not shown) ; and one or more processors (i.e., processor of UE, not shown) coupled with the one or more memories and configured to cause the UE to: report, from a first layer of the UE to a second layer of the UE, a failure to receive an activation message or a deactivation message associated with a cell discontinuous operation (see, R1-2306006: Section 2.2 General cell DRX/DTX operation: CATT discusses that activating cell DTX/DRX can be done at L1/L2/L3, “Proposal 7: The cell DTX/DRX is configured to Rel-18 CONNECTED UEs via RRC signaling, and L1/L2 signaling or RRC signaling is used to activate at least one cell DTX/DRX configuration.” ; Section 2.3 Signaling aspects of cell DTX/DRX: LGE teaches “Proposal #1: Regarding the L1 signaling for enhancing Cell DTX/DRX, the following aspects can be considered: - The group-common DCI can be supported to activate/deactivate the Cell DTX/DRX configuration to reduce signaling overhead . – The NACK-only feedback can be considered to mitigate the potential reliability issues that may be cause bye UE not receiving group-common DCI correctly .” ) ; and transmit, to a network entity based at least in part on the report of the failure to receive the activation message or the deactivation message from the first layer to the second layer, a message that indicates the failure to receive the activation message or the deactivation message (see, R1-2306006: Section 2.3 Signaling aspects of cell DTX/DRX: LGE teaches “Proposal #1: … - The group-common DCI can be supported to activate/deactivate the Cell DTX/DRX configuration to reduce signaling overhead. – The NACK-only feedback can be considered to mitigate the potential reliability issues that may be cause bye UE not receiving group-common DCI correctly.” ) . R1-2306006 does not explicitly teach wherein the reporting of a failure to receive an activation message or a deactivation message associated with a cell discontinuous operation is in accordance with information that differentiates a first communication during a plurality of active periods of the cell discontinuous operation from a second communication outside of the plurality of active periods, the cell discontinuous operation associated with a cycle that includes the plurality of active periods and a plurality of non-active periods. In the same field of endeavor, Zhou teaches wherein the reporting of a failure to receive an activation message or a deactivation message associated with a cell discontinuous operation is in accordance with information that differentiates a first communication during a plurality of active periods of the cell discontinuous operation from a second communication outside of the plurality of active periods, the cell discontinuous operation associated with a cycle that includes the plurality of active periods and a plurality of non-active periods (see, Zhou: para. [0329], “When a cell DTX configuration is configured (and activated if an explicit activation command is needed) for a cell, in a first time duration of the cell DTX configuration (e.g., in a first power state/mode, in a cell DTX Active Time, in a cell DTX on duration, etc.), the base station may transmit periodic downlink signals (e.g., SIBs/SSBs/CSI-RSs/TRSs), downlink control channels (PDCCH), downlink shared channels (PDSCH), etc., as it does in normal state for the cell (e.g., when the Cell DTX configuration is not configured as in legacy system). In a second time duration of the cell DTX configuration (e.g., in a second power state/mode, in a cell DTX inactive/non-active time, in a cell DTX off duration, etc.), the base station may reduce transmission power/bandwidth/beam of the periodic downlink signals (e.g., CSI-RSs), stop transmission of the periodic downlink signals (e.g., CSI-RSs), keep transmitting SSBs, and/or stop transmission of PDCCHs/PDSCHs (e.g., SPS PDSCHs and/or dynamic scheduled PDSCHs) via the cell. The wireless device may stop receiving the periodic downlink signals and the PDCCHs/PDSCHs via the cell. The base station may perform the cell DTX operation (for each DTX cycle) on the cell periodically, e.g., by configuring a periodicity of a DTX cycle comprising the first time duration and/or the second time duration.” , support is found in para. [0328] of 63/531,100.; Fig. 43 and para. [0412], “the second wireless device may not receive the group common DCI comprising the activation/deactivation indication of the cell DTX/DRX configuration for the cell, e.g., in a measurement gap, in a sleep/power saving mode/state, or when the second wireless device drops PDCCH monitoring for the group common DCI due to the lower priority of the PDCCH monitoring when PDCCH occasion(s) for the group common DCI overlap with other PDCCH occasions with higher priorities. In response to not receiving the group common DCI, the second wireless device may transmit to the base station an uplink signal (e.g., a cell DTX/DRX activation/deactivation state request or a cell DTX/DRX state request) requesting the (current and/or activation/deactivation) state of the cell DTX/DRX configuration of the cell.” , supports are found in Fig. 43; para. [0411] of 63/531,100.) . Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of R1-2306006 in combination of the teachings of Zhou in order for the UE to transmit to the base station an uplink signal (e.g., a cell DTX/DRX activation/deactivation state request or a cell DTX/DRX state request) requesting the (current and/or activation/deactivation) state of the cell DTX/DRX configuration of the cell in response to not receiving the group common DCI (see, Zhou: Fig. 43 and para. [0412], supports are found in Fig. 43; para. [0411] of 63/531,100.) . Regarding claim 2: As discussed above, R1-2306006 in view of Zhou teaches all limitations in claim 1. R1-2306006 further teaches wherein the one or more processors further configured to cause the UE to: transmit, via the message, an indication that the cell discontinuous operation corresponds to cell discontinuous transmission (DTX) or cell discontinuous reception (DRX), or both (see, R1-2306006: Section 2.3 Signaling aspects of cell DTX/DRX: LGE teaches “Proposal #1: … - The group-common DCI can be supported to activate/deactivate the Cell DTX/DRX configuration to reduce signaling overhead. – The NACK-only feedback can be considered to mitigate the potential reliability issues that may be cause bye UE not receiving group-common DCI correctly.” ) . Regarding claim 3: As discussed above, R1-2306006 in view of Zhou teaches all limitations in claim 1. R1-2306006 further teaches wherein the one or more processors further configured to cause the UE to: transmit, via the message, an indication of a cell DTX or DRX (DTX/DRX) configuration associated with the cell discontinuous operation in accordance with a detection of the cell DTX/DRX configuration from a plurality of cell DTX/DRX configurations associated with the cell discontinuous operation (see, R1-2306006: Section 2.2 General cell DRX/DTX operation: CEWiT in page 7.) . Regarding claim 4: As discussed above, R1-2306006 in view of Zhou teaches all limitations in claim 1. R1-2306006 further teaches wherein the one or more processors further configured to cause the UE to: activate the cell DTX/DRX configuration at the UE in accordance with transmission of the message, wherein the message includes a second indication that the cell DTX/DRX configuration is activated at the UE (see, R1-2306006: Section 2.3 Signaling aspects of cell DTX/DRX: LGE in page 10.) . Regarding claim 6: As discussed above, R1-2306006 in view of Zhou teaches all limitations in claim 1. Zhou further teaches wherein the one or more processors further configured to cause the UE to: receive, from the network entity and responsive to the message, a control message that indicates to the UE to activate a cell DTX/DRX configuration associated with the cell discontinuous operation; and activate the cell DTX/DRX configuration at the UE based at least in part on the control message (see, Zhou: Fig. 43 and para. [0418], “the second wireless device may receive a cell DTX/DRX state indication from the base station after the second wireless device transmits the cell DTX/DRX state request. The cell DTX/DRX state indication may be transmitted in a DCI, a MAC CE and/or a RRC message, e.g., based on example embodiments of FIG. 41 and/or FIG. 42. In response to receiving the cell DTX/DRX state indication indicating that the cell DTX/DRX is activated, the second wireless device may determine that the cell DTX/DRX is activated.” , supports are found in Fig. 43; para. [0417] of 63/531,100.) . Regarding claim 11: As discussed above, R1-2306006 in view of Zhou teaches all limitations in claim 1. R1-2306006 further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the message, further configured to cause the UE to: transmit the message via a set of resources, the set of resources corresponding to a channel state information report or an uplink configured grant (see, R1-2306006: Section 2.4 Signals/Channels impacted by cel DTX/DRX: NEC, “Proposal 5: For UL control resource configurations during cell DRX, support delta parameters only for PUCCH resource configurations, SR or CSI report configurations and configured grant.” .) . Regarding claim 18: Claim 18 recites the method which corresponds to the apparatus of claim 1, and contains no additional limitations. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above. Regarding claim 19: Claim 19 is directed towards the method of claim 18 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 2. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 2 above. Regarding claim 20: Claim 20 is directed towards the method of claim 18 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 3. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 3 above. Regarding claim 21: Claim 21 is directed towards the method of claim 20 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 4. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 4 above. Regarding claim 23: Claim 23 is directed towards the method of claim 18 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 6. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 6 above. Regarding claim 34: Claim 35 is directed towards the method of claim 18 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 11. Therefore, claim 34 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 11 above. Regarding claim 35: Claim 36 recites the method which corresponds to the apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: means for performing features of claim 1 (see, Zhou: Fig. 15, Processing System 1518, Memory 1524, and TX Processing System 1520 of Wireless Device 1502; para. [0227], supports are found in Fig. 15; para. [0227] of 63/531,100.) . Therefore, claim 35 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above. Regarding claim 36: Claim 36 is directed towards the apparatus of claim 35 that is further comprising means for performing features of claim 2 (see, Zhou: Fig. 15, TX Processing System 1520 of Wireless Device 1502; para. [0227], supports are found in Fig. 15; para. [0227] of 63/531,100.) . Therefore, claim 36 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 2 above. Regarding claim 37: Claim 37 is directed towards the apparatus of claim 35 that is further comprising means for performing features of claim 3 (see, Zhou: Fig. 15, TX Processing System 1520 of Wireless Device 1502; para. [0227], supports are found in Fig. 15; para. [0227] of 63/531,100.) . Therefore, claim 37 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 3 above. Regarding claim 38: Claim 38 is directed towards the apparatus of claim 37 that is further comprising means for performing features of claim 4 (see, Zhou: Fig. 15, Processing System 1518 & TX Processing System 1520 of Wireless Device 1502; para. [0227], supports are found in Fig. 15; para. [0227] of 63/531,100.) . Therefore, claim 36 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 4 above. Regarding claim 40: Claim 40 is directed towards the apparatus of claim 35 that is further comprising means for performing features of claim 6 (see, Zhou: Fig. 15, Processing System 1518 & RX Processing System 1522 of Wireless Device 1502; para. [0227], supports are found in Fig. 15; para. [0227] of 63/531,100.) . Therefore, claim 40 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 6 above. Regarding claim 41: Claim 41 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium (see, Zhou: Fig. 15, Memory 1524 of Wireless Device 1502; para. [0227], supports are found in Fig. 15; para. [0227] of 63/531,100.) storing code for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), the code comprising instructions executable by one or more processors to cause the UE to: perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 41 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above. Regarding claim 42: Claim 42 is directed towards the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 41 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 2. Therefore, claim 42 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 2 above . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 5, 7-10, 22, 24, 31-33, and 39 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, ET. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471 Application/Control Number: 18/405,706 Page 2 Art Unit: 2471
Prosecution Insights