CTNF 18/805,390 CTNF 86676 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. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/14/24 and 5/4/26. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,161 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus . 08-34 AIA Claim 2 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,161 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus . 08-34 AIA Claim 3 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,161 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus . 08-34 AIA Claim 4 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,161 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus . 08-34 AIA Claim 5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,161 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus . 08-34 AIA Claim 6 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,161 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus . 08-34 AIA Claim 7 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,161 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus . 08-34 AIA Claim 8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,161 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus . 08-34 AIA Claim 9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,161 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus . 08-34 AIA Claim 10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,161 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus . 08-34 AIA Claim 11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,161 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus . 08-34 AIA Claim 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,161 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus . 08-34 AIA Claim 13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,161 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus . 08-34 AIA Claim 14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,161 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus . 08-34 AIA Claim 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,161 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus . 08-34 AIA Claim 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,161 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus . 08-34 AIA Claim 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,161 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus . 08-34 AIA Claim 18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,161 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus . 08-34 AIA Claim 19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,161 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus . 08-34 AIA Claim 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,089,161 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the sub-genus . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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) 1, 2, 6 – 12, 16 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Deng et al. (US Publication 2020/0389847) published in English via PCT/US18/057909 . Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, Deng teaches a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to: (i.e. fig. 1b shows a UE comprising a processor, memory and transceiver for executing programmed instructions; see paragraphs 36, 37) transmit an indication, that indicates a time gap prior to a beginning of a configured monitoring window associated with a discontinuous reception (DRX) ON; (i.e. fig. 7 shows a UE may transmit an indication to a base station to notify a reconfiguration of a lower periodicity of a monitoring window (reduced monitoring time adjustment) (element 703, 704); see paragraph 205 - 207) and monitor for a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) within a monitoring window that is a portion of the configured monitoring window, excluding the time gap. (i.e. fig. 7 shows the UE may resume PDCCH monitoring based on the reconfigured periodicity (new monitoring window) (element 705, 706); see paragraphs 209 - 210) (See Also; the UE may maintain independent DRX cycles on each serving beam for NR PDCCH monitoring occasions; see paragraph 234) Regarding claims 2 and 12, Deng teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein the configured monitoring window is a time window, configured for the UE, that includes one or more PDCCH candidate locations for monitoring for a PDCCH wakeup signal (WUS). (i.e. fig. 3 shows a NR PDCCH search space comprise time-frequency locations wherein a UE search for a control channel (PDCCH), In 5G NR, as is supported, the PDCCH search space defines where and when the device monitors for downlink control information (DCI). When Discontinuous Reception (DRX) is active, it defines if the device is awake to monitor that space, directly dictating battery savings) Regarding claims 6 and 16, Deng teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein the time interval-gap is defined by a number of slots. (i.e. Deng discloses a periodicity adjustment in PDCCH monitoring which is a time adjustment by definition; see paragraph 205) (See Also fig. 3b shows a slot is defined as the time portion of NR PDCCH monitoring; see paragraph 135) Regarding claims 7 and 17, Deng teaches The UE of claim 1, wherein the monitoring window does not include one or more last search space occasions of the configured monitoring window. (i.e. fig. 7 shows the periodicity of the monitoring window may be reduced by the UE, the reduced monitoring window by definition will not include search space occasions of the prior configured window) Regarding claims 8 and 18, Deng teaches The UE of claim 1, wherein the monitoring window does not include one or more last PDCCH candidate locations of the configured monitoring window. (i.e. fig. 7 shows the periodicity of the monitoring window may be reduced by the UE, the reduced monitoring window by definition will not include PDCCH candidate locations of the prior configured window) Regarding claims 9 and 19, Deng teaches The UE of claim 1, wherein the monitoring window does not include one or more last slots of the configured monitoring window. (i.e. fig. 7 shows the periodicity of the monitoring window may be reduced by the UE, the reduced monitoring window by definition will not include one or more slots of the prior configured window) Regarding claims 10, Deng teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further to determine the monitoring window, are configured to: determine the monitoring window as a function of at least one of a duration of an active time period, a minimum monitoring window duration, or a maximum monitoring window. (i.e. the reconfigured or adjusted monitoring window may be determined by a minimum or maximum window duration; see paragraphs 205) duration Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 3 – 5 and 13 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Deng et al. (US Publication 2020/0389847) published in English via PCT/US18/057909. Regarding claim 3 and 13, Luo discloses all the recited limitations of claim 1 and 11 as described previously from which claims 3 and 13 depend. Deng does not explicitly teach wherein the monitoring window includes up to a threshold quantity of slots of the configured monitoring window. (i.e. Deng teaches an adjustment of the periodicity of the NR PDCCH monitoring window; see paragraph 205) It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed utilize a slot threshold quantity slots to indicate the adjustment of Deng. In wireless communications, defining a "window" is typically a trade-off between coverage/reliability and User Equipment (UE) battery life. A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) would immediately recognize that limiting the window size to a specific threshold is a predictable way to achieve this trade-off. Further, it is well known a slot is a basic unit of data transmission in TDM and a direct predictable way to make the adjustment. A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Deng to improve Power Conservation as the primary motivation to adjust a monitoring window is to save battery life. Regarding claim 4 and 14, Luo discloses all the recited limitations of claim 1 and 11 as described previously from which claims 4 and 14 depend. Deng does not explicitly teach wherein the monitoring window includes up to a threshold quantity of PDCCH candidate locations of the configured monitoring window. (i.e. Deng teaches an adjustment of the periodicity of the NR PDCCH monitoring window; see paragraph 205) (See Also; fig. 3b shows multiple candidate locations where to monitor for a control channel) It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed utilize PDCCH candidate locations to indicate the adjustment of Deng. In wireless communications, defining a "window" is typically a trade-off between coverage/reliability and User Equipment (UE) battery life. A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) would immediately recognize that limiting the window size to a specific threshold is a predictable way to achieve this trade-off. Further, it is well known a PDCCH candidate locations are just time-frequency locations wherein a UE may search for a control channel and a direct, predictable and obvious way to make the adjustment. A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Deng to improve Power Conservation as the primary motivation to adjust a monitoring window is to save battery life. Regarding claim 5 and 15, Luo discloses all the recited limitations of claim 1 and 11 as described previously from which claims 5 and 15 depend. Deng does not explicitly teach wherein the monitoring window includes up to a threshold quantity of control channel elements of the configured monitoring window. (i.e. Deng teaches an adjustment of the periodicity of the NR PDCCH monitoring window; see paragraph 205) (See Also; fig. 3b shows multiple candidate locations where to monitor for a control channel) It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to utilize control channel elements to indicate the adjustment of Deng. In wireless communications, defining a "window" is typically a trade-off between coverage/reliability and User Equipment (UE) battery life. A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) would immediately recognize that limiting the window size to a specific threshold is a predictable way to achieve this trade-off. Further, it is well known a control channel elements are simply just time-frequency locations, such as a resource block, wherein a UE may search for a control channel and a direct, predictable and obvious way to make the adjustment. A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Deng to improve Power Conservation as the primary motivation to adjust a monitoring window is to save battery life. 6. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J LOPATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-7 EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. ROBERT J. LOPATA Primary Examiner Art Unit 2471 /ROBERT J LOPATA/ June 11, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471 Application/Control Number: 18/805,390 Page 2 Art Unit: 2471
Prosecution Insights