CTNF 18/802,301 CTNF 69003 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. Specification 06-31 AIA The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-33-01 Claim s 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without transceiver (#220) , which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew , 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). A processor, by definition, only processes data and a memory, by definition, stores data, they cannot by themselves or in combination can receive or transmit any radio signal as claimed. This is accomplished by the transceiver as described by the specification. The processor and memory may also cause the wireless transmit/receive unit transmit and receive . 07-34-01 Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. 07-34-03 AIA The term “ approximately ” in claim s 2 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ approximately ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 (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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (A)(1) as being anticipated by CATT , " Power saving signal/channel design and performance ", 3GPP DRAFT . CATT discloses receiving a wake-up indication from a first transmission and reception point, TRP (Section 3.5: "To support multiple beams WUS [wake-up signal] transmission, network may configure multiple search spaces for UE before DRX ON cycle, and each search space corresponds to a CORESET with different TCI state and QCL assumption. Although at most 5 CORESETs are agreed to support multi-TRP "); and in response to the wake-up indication, waking up to monitor control resource set, CORESET, groups, COGs, of the first TRP and a second TRP (Section 3.5: " To support multiple beams WUS transmission, network may configure multiple search spaces for UE before DRX ON cycle, and each search space corresponds to a CORESET with different TCI state and QCL assumption. Although at most 5 CORESETs are agreed to support multi-TRP transmission". The underlined implies presence of CORESETs for multi-TRP. It is implicit that such CORESETs can carry signaling information for more than one TRP. Therefore, the wakeup signal for such a CORESET indicates a wakeup to listen to CORESET of the first and second TRP. Regarding claims 14, section 4 discloses receiving a go-to-sleep indication from the second TRP, wherein the first TRP is associated with a first COG of the COGs and the second TRP is associated with a second COG of the COGs and based on receiving the go-to-sleep indication from the second TRP, not monitoring the second COG, while monitoring the first COG. The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011) . 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 (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. 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 3, 5-8, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CATT , " Power saving signal/channel design and performance ", 3GPP DRAFT in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0154467 ( Gong, et al ) . CATT discloses all subject matter, except a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising a processor and a memory. Gong, et al teaches the use of a processor and a memory in a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) for the purpose of receiving a configuration to monitor more than one physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for scheduling more than one physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) or physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), or both, from one physical cell within one monitoring occasion wherein more than one PDSCH or PUSCH is associated with one data channel type and one radio Network Temporary Identifier (RNTI) type, note figure 3A, #110, 200, 208. Hence, it 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 to incorporate the use of a processor and a memory in a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) for the purpose of receiving a configuration to monitor more than one physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for scheduling more than one physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) or physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), or both, from one physical cell within one monitoring occasion wherein more than one PDSCH or PUSCH is associated with one data channel type and one radio Network Temporary Identifier (RNTI) type, as taught by Gong, et al , in the a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) of CATT in order for monitoring more than one PDCCH based on the configuration and receiving more than one PDSCH or transmitting more than one PUSCH simultaneously. Regarding claim 3 and 12, note ¶13, 20-21, 68, etc. in Gong, et al. Regarding claim 5-8, note section 4 in GATT . The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011) . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1, 3, 6, 9, 11,14, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,356 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because It is clear that all the elements of the application claims are to be found in patent claims (as the application claims fully encompasses patent claims). The difference between the application claims and the patent claims lies in the fact that the patent claim includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus, the invention of claims of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claims. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since application claims are anticipated by claims of the patent, it is not patentably distinct from claims of the patent . CURRENT APPLICATION A wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising a processor and a memory, the processor and memory configured to : receive a first wake-up indication from a first transmission and reception point (TRP); and in response to the first wake-up indication, wake up to monitor control resource set (CORESET) groups (COGs) of the first TRP and a second TRP. 3. The WTRU of claim 1, wherein the first wake-up indication is received through repeated transmissions on different CORESETs. 6. The WTRU of claim 1, wherein the processor and memory are further configured to: receive a go-to-sleep indication from the second TRP, wherein the first TRP is associated with a first COG of the COGs and the second TRP is associated with a second COG of the COGs; and based on receiving the go-to-sleep indication from the second TRP, not monitoring the second COG while monitoring the first COG. U.S. Patent No. 12,096,356 1. A device that performs wireless communication comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled with the processor , the memory comprising executable instructions stored thereon that when executed by the processor cause the processor to effectuate operations comprising: receiving configuration information indicating a plurality of control resource set (CORESET) information, wherein each respective CORESET information of the plurality of CORESET information comprises a set of power saving parameters ; receiving, using a first set of power saving parameters, a first physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) transmission from a first transmission and reception point (TRP) using a first CORESET information of the plurality of CORESET information ; receiving, using a second set of power saving parameters, second PDCCH transmission from a second TRP using a second CORESET information of the plurality of CORESET information; receiving a power saving indicator (PSI) from the first TRP indicating a third set of power saving parameters; and receiving additional PDCCH transmissions from the first TRP and the second TRP by: using the respective CORESET information, and using the third set of power saving parameters. 3. The device of claim 1, wherein the additional PDCCH transmissions comprises a wake-up indication. 6. The device of claim 1, the operations further comprising: receiving a go-to-sleep indication from the second TRP, wherein the first TRP is associated with a first CORESET group ( COG) of the a plurality of COGs and the second TRP is associated with a second COG of the plurality of COGs; and based on receiving the go-to-sleep indication from the second TRP , skip monitoring the second COG that corresponds to an indicated monitoring occasion, while monitoring the first COG . Regarding claims 9, 11, 14, these claims are the inherent method version of the apparatus claims and is rejected for the same reasons . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-03 AIA As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 13 is 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. 07-43-02 AIA Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion If applicants wish to request for an interview, an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form (PTOL-413A) should be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the issues to be discussed. This form should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, or video conference, and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. A copy of the completed "Applicant Initiated Interview Request " form should be attached to the Interview Summary form, PTOL-413 at the completion of the interview and a copy should be given to applicant or applicant's representative. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D CUMMING whose telephone number is (571)272-7861 . The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 noon to 6pm. 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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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. WILLIAM D. CUMMING Primary Examiner Art Unit 2645 /WILLIAM D CUMMING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/802,301 Page 2 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/802,301 Page 3 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/802,301 Page 6 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/802,301 Page 7 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/802,301 Page 8 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/802,301 Page 10 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/802,301 Page 11 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/802,301 Page 12 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/802,301 Page 13 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/802,301 Page 14 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/802,301 Page 15 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/802,301 Page 16 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/802,301 Page 17 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/802,301 Page 18 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/802,301 Page 19 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/802,301 Page 20 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/802,301 Page 21 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/802,301 Page 22 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/802,301 Page 23 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/802,301 Page 24 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION
Prosecution Insights