Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Office Action is responsive to the communication filed on 06/04/2026.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16-19 have been amended.
Claims 5, 10, 15 and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16-19 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/04/2024, 11/25/2024, 09/11/2025 and 05/07/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on Receipt Date10/04/2024. These drawings are reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12114264. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant claim 1 is broader in scope and thus encompasses the subject matter of conflicting claim 1. Conflicting claim 1 does not require the “a wake-up operation in a case that the wireless user device does not receive the second type control signal on the predefined resource set in the inactive time period” of instant claim 1 and each of the other steps are more broadly written.
Regarding claim 1, the table below shows that claim 1 of the patent contains the elements of claim 1 of the instant application, and therefore, is an obvious variant thereof.
Instant Application 18/906,630
Patent 12114264
1. (Currently Amended) method, comprising:
generating, by a wireless network device, a first type control signal, wherein the first type control signal carries a first set of indication information, wherein the first set of indication information includes a carrier indicator, a time domain resource scheduling indicator, and a transmission configuration indication (TCI) indicator; and transmitting, by the wireless network device to a wireless user device, the first type control signal within an active time period, wherein the wireless user device performs an operation according to a second type control signal in a case that the wireless network device receives the second type control signal on a predefined resource set within an inactive time period, wherein the wireless user device performs a wake-up operation in a case that the wireless user device does not receive the second type control signal on the predefined resource set in the inactive time period, wherein the second set of indication information includes a wake-up indicator for indicating a wake-up state or a not wake-up state, wherein the second set of indication information corresponds to a bandwidth part (BWP) indicator and a secondary cell (SCell) operation indicator.
1. A method, comprising:
generating, by a wireless network device, a first type control signal, wherein the first type control signal carries a first set of indication information, the first set of indication information including a bandwidth part (BWP) indicator, a carrier indicator, a time domain resource scheduling indicator, and a transmission configuration indication (TCI) indicator; generating, by the wireless network device, a second type control signal, wherein the second type control signal carries a second set of indication information, the second set of indication information including a wake-up indicator for indicating a wake-up state or a not wake-up state, wherein the second set of indication information corresponds to the bandwidth part BWP indicator and a secondary cell (SCell) operation indicator; and transmitting, by the wireless network device, the first type control signal to at least one wireless user device within an active time period; and transmitting, by the wireless network device, the second type control signal to the at least one wireless user device within an inactive time period.
Instant claim 2 and conflicting claim 1 correspond.
Instant claim 3 and conflicting claim 3 correspond.
Instant claim 4 and conflicting claim 4 correspond.
Instant claim 5 (Cancelled).
Instant claim 6 is broader in scope and thus encompasses the subject matter of conflicting claim 8. Conflicting claim 8 does not require the “a wake-up operation in a case that the wireless user device does not receive the second type control signal on the predefined resource set in the inactive time period” of instant claim 6 and each of the other steps are more broadly written.
Instant claim 7 and conflicting claim 9 correspond.
Instant claim 8 and conflicting claim 10 correspond.
Instant claim 9 and conflicting claim 4 correspond.
Instant claim 10 (Cancelled).
Instant claim 11 is broader in scope and thus encompasses the subject matter of conflicting claim 11. Conflicting claim 11 does not require the “a wake-up operation in a case that the wireless user device does not receive the second type control signal on the predefined resource set in the inactive time period” of instant claim 11 and each of the other steps are more broadly written.
Instant claim 12 and conflicting claim 13 correspond.
Instant claim 14 and conflicting claim 8 correspond.
Instant claim 15 (Cancelled).
Instant claim 15 and conflicting claim 16 correspond.
Instant claim 16 is broader in scope and thus encompasses the subject matter of conflicting claim 11. Conflicting claim 11 does not require the “a wake-up operation in a case that the wireless user device does not receive the second type control signal on the predefined resource set in the inactive time period” of instant claim 16 and each of the other steps are more broadly written.
Instant claim 17 and conflicting claim 12 correspond.
Instant claim 18 and conflicting claim 13 correspond.
Instant claim 19 and conflicting claim 11 correspond.
Instant claim 20 (Cancelled).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #96bis-R1-190417 (INTEL).
Regarding claim 1, Intel discloses a method, comprising:
generating, by a wireless network device (1. Introduction, 2. Discussion: Wireless network device – 5G/NR base station/gNB generates a PDCCH control signal/channel and transmits to a single UE, e.g., wireless user device), a first type control signal, wherein the first type control signal carries a first set of indication information (page 1, 1 Introduction: “According to the WID, PDCCH-based power saving signal/channel should be specified to trigger UE adaptation in RRC CONNECTED mode. …. In this contribution, we provide details of PDCCH-based power saving signal designs, including potential DCI contents, DCI formats, PDCCH monitoring configurations as well as the aspects related to the blind decoding operations.” Further, 2. Discussion: “During the SID of UE power saving in NR, wake-up signal and go-to-sleep signal as potential power saving signals were extensively evaluated. As one of the objective of the WID is to specify PDCCH-based power saving signal/channel, below we discuss PDCCH-based wake-up signal and go-to-sleep signal, focusing on several key aspects such as, what contents should be signaled, which DCI format is better suited, and where these PDCCH should be monitored.” Further, 2.1: “PDCCH-based Go-to-sleep (GTS) Signal, When the UE is in active time, gNB may signal GTS DCI so that UE could sleep or skip PDCCH monitoring for a given duration if there is no expected traffic activity for the UE. PDCCH-based wake-up signal (WUS” (equivalent to generating, by a wireless network device, a control signal comprising a first type of control signal or a second type of control signal); wherein the first set of indication information includes a carrier indicator, a time domain resource scheduling indicator, and a transmission configuration indication (TCI) indicator (page 4, 2.1.4: DCI formats, “In our view, contents in the WUS DCI can be transmitted in a UE specific manner and the DCI can be associated with a configured RNTI. As traffic characteristics may vary from one UE to another, UE-specific signaling for wake-up indication is more efficient and provides best power saving performance. On the other hand, a group-specific DCI format generally yields a lower signaling overhead. More specially, the power consumption degradation for group-specific DCI may be still negligible, e.g. by properly grouping a small number of UEs (e.g. two UEs) with similar traffic characteristic and DRX configurations so as to guarantee the power saving benefit. Both UE specific DCI format and group common DCI format with UE specific field can be considered and further down selection can be made e.g. based on the decision on WUS contents. If the signaling content of a WUS DCI for a single UE is limited, such as including BW part indication only, it can be efficiently signaled in a UE specific field in a group-common DCI. At the minimum, UE specific field in GC DCI includes a trigger whether UE needs to wake-up or not (equivalent to transmitting, by the wireless network device, the control signal to wireless user devices, at least 1; the first type of control signal carries a first set of indication information, and the second type of control signal carries a second set of indication information; the first set of indication information comprises a wake-up indicator for indicating a wake-up state, and the second set of indication information comprises the wake-up indicator”); a second type control signal (page 1, 1 Introduction: “According to the WID, PDCCH-based power saving signal/channel should be specified to trigger UE adaptation in RRC CONNECTED mode. …. In this contribution, we provide details of PDCCH-based power saving signal designs, including potential DCI contents, DCI formats, PDCCH monitoring configurations as well as the aspects related to the blind decoding operations.” Further, 2. Discussion: “During the SID of UE power saving in NR, wake-up signal and go-to-sleep signal as potential power saving signals were extensively evaluated. As one of the objective of the WID is to specify PDCCH-based power saving signal/channel, below we discuss PDCCH-based wake-up signal and go-to-sleep signal, focusing on several key aspects such as, what contents should be signaled, which DCI format is better suited, and where these PDCCH should be monitored.” Further, 2.1: “PDCCH-based Go-to-sleep (GTS) Signal, When the UE is in active time, gNB may signal GTS DCI so that UE could sleep or skip PDCCH monitoring for a given duration if there is no expected traffic activity for the UE. PDCCH-based wake-up signal.” (equivalent to generating, by a wireless network device, a control signal comprising a first type of control signal or a second type of control signal (WUS)”), wherein the second type control signal carries a second set of indication information, the second set of [indication information including a wake-up indicator for indicating a wake-up state or a not wake-up state], wherein the second set of indication information corresponds to the bandwidth part BWP indicator and a secondary cell (SCell) operation indicator (page 4, 2.1.4: DCI formats, “In our view, contents in the WUS DCI can be transmitted in a UE specific manner and the DCI can be associated with a configured RNTI. As traffic characteristics may vary from one UE to another, UE-specific signaling for wake-up indication is more efficient and provides best power saving performance. On the other hand, a group-specific DCI format generally yields a lower signaling overhead. More specially, the power consumption degradation for group-specific DCI may be still negligible, e.g. by properly grouping a small number of UEs (e.g. two UEs) with similar traffic characteristic and DRX configurations so as to guarantee the power saving benefit. Both UE specific DCI format and group common DCI format with UE specific field can be considered and further down selection can be made e.g. based on the decision on WUS contents. If the signaling content of a WUS DCI for a single UE is limited, such as including BW part indication only, it can be efficiently signaled in a UE specific field in a group-common DCI. At the minimum, UE specific field in GC DCI includes a trigger whether UE needs to wake-up or not (equivalent to transmitting, by the wireless network device, the control signal to wireless user devices, at least 1; the first type of control signal carries a first set of indication information, and the second type of control signal carries a second set of indication information; the first set of indication information comprises a wake-up indicator for indicating a wake-up state, and the second set of indication information comprises the wake-up indicator”); and
transmitting, by the wireless network device, the first type control signal to at least one wireless user device within an active time period (equivalent to: page 1, 2.1.1, “During the study item phase, two possible time domain locations have been identified for WUS transmission: either before DRX ON duration or at the beginning of DRX ON duration. In our view, the former option (i.e. before DRX ON duration) is preferable due to the simplicity and less potential impacts on the legacy C-DRX operation. For example, the former option may preserve most, if not all, of the legacy C-DRX configuration and operation during active time, such as in legacy C-DRX operation, UE can potentially receive scheduling DCI at the beginning of DRX ON. However, WUS is monitored at the beginning of DRX ON in the latter option. Consequently, monitoring scheduling DCIs would be delayed. It may require RAN2 to reconsider definitions and operation of some of the existing C-DRX timers.” which reads on the first type of control signal is transmitted within an active time period, and the second type of control signal is transmitted within an inactive time period;” further, page 2, 2.1.2, Fields in Wake-Up Signal (WUS) DCI), “ . A wake-up signal makes it possible for NR UE to wake up just in time for the data to be received and hence the power consumption can be significantly reduced. Correspondingly, UE decides whether to wake up or keep sleeping to skip the associated DRX cycle or not. To get a good design in place for WUS DCI, it is desirable to analyze what information needs to be carried within the DCI by a trade-off between control overhead and power saving gain. To allow more efficient BWP selection at the start of DRX cycle, a BWP indicator should be included in WUS DCI to provide the flexibility for network to choose a suitable BWP e.g. based on traffic characteristic of applications or the buffer status at network side. To support a fast CSI feedback, a CSI request trigger field can be present in WUS DCI to allow the network to trigger CSI report to capture the DL channel conditions just before DRX ON duration,” which reads on the first type of control signal is transmitted within an active time period, and the second type of control signal is transmitted within an inactive time period); and
transmitting, by the wireless network device, the second type control signal to the at least one wireless user device within an inactive time period (page 1, 2 Discussion: “During the study item phase, two possible time domain locations have been identified for WUS transmission: either before DRX ON duration or at the beginning of DRX ON duration. In our view, the former option (i.e. before DRX ON duration) is preferable due to the simplicity and less potential impacts on the legacy C-DRX operation. For example, the former option may preserve most, if not all, of the legacy C-DRX configuration and operation during active time, such as in legacy C-DRX operation, UE can potentially receive scheduling DCI at the beginning of DRX ON. However, WUS is monitored at the beginning of DRX ON in the latter option. Consequently, monitoring scheduling DCIs would be delayed. It may require RAN2 to reconsider definitions and operation of some of the existing C-DRX timers,” which reads on the first type of control signal is transmitted within an active time period, and the second type of control signal is transmitted within an inactive time period; further, page 2, 2.1.2, Fields in Wake-Up Signal (WUS) DCI), “ . A wake-up signal makes it possible for NR UE to wake up just in time for the data to be received and hence the power consumption can be significantly reduced. Correspondingly, UE decides whether to wake up or keep sleeping to skip the associated DRX cycle or not. To get a good design in place for WUS DCI, it is desirable to analyze what information needs to be carried within the DCI by a trade-off between control overhead and power saving gain. To allow more efficient BWP selection at the start of DRX cycle, a BWP indicator should be included in WUS DCI to provide the flexibility for network to choose a suitable BWP e.g. based on traffic characteristic of applications or the buffer status at network side. To support a fast CSI feedback, a CSI request trigger field can be present in WUS DCI to allow the network to trigger CSI report to capture the DL channel conditions just before DRX ON duration,” which reads on the first type of control signal is transmitted within an active time period, and the second type of control signal is transmitted within an inactive time period).
Intel does not explicitly recite a wake-up indicator for indicating a not wake-up state, however, Intel discloses that a basic wireless network device generates a control signal carrying corresponding sets of indication information, wherein the first set of indication information consists of a wake-up indicator for indicating a wake-up state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to includes an indicator for not wake-up because in the field of wireless communications, the wake-up indicator conventionally comprises an indication for a wake-up state or an indication for not wake-up state. Therefore, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to include indication of not wake-up in order to increase the indicating flexibility of information as those skilled in the art would generally choose conventional indication content of the information as needed. That is, first set of indication information also comprises a wake-up indicator for indicating a not wake-up state, as it is customary in the art of wireless communications.
Regarding claim 2, Intel discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first type control signal is transmitted to a single wireless user device and the second type control signal is transmitted to a group of wireless user devices (page 4, 2.1.5: “in our view, contents in the WUS DCI can be transmitted in a UE specific manner and the DCI can be associated with a configured RNTI. As traffic characteristics may vary from one UE to another, UE-specific signaling for wake-up indication is more efficient and provides best power saving performance. On the other hand, a group-specific DCI format generally yields a lower signaling overhead. More specially, the power consumption degradation for group-specific DCI may be still negligible, e.g. by properly grouping a small number of UEs (e.g. two UEs) with similar traffic characteristic and DRX configurations so as to guarantee the power saving benefit. Both UE specific DCI format and group common DCI format with UE specific field can be considered and further down selection can be made e.g. based on the decision on WUS contents. If the signaling content of a WUS DCI for a single UE is limited, such as including BW part indication only, it can be efficiently signaled in a UE specific field in a group-common DCI. At the minimum, UE specific field in GC DCI includes a trigger whether UE needs to wake-up or not”.
Regarding claim 3, Intel discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first type control signal is associated with a first type of radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) and comprises a field that enables an indication; and the second type control signal is associated with a second type of RNTI (PAGE 2, 2.1.2: “Fields in Wake-Up Signal (WUS) DCI. A wake-up signal makes it possible for NR UE to wake up just in time for the data to be received and hence the power consumption can be significantly reduced. Correspondingly, UE decides whether to wake up or keep sleeping to skip the associated DRX cycle or not. To get a good design in place for WUS DCI, it is desirable to analyze what information needs to be carried within the DCI by a trade-off between control overhead and power saving gain. To allow more efficient BWP selection at the start of DRX cycle, a BWP indicator should be included in WUS DCI to provide the flexibility for network to choose a suitable BWP e.g. based on traffic characteristic of applications or the buffer status at network side. To support a fast CSI feedback, a CSI request trigger field can be present in WUS DCI to allow the network to trigger CSI report to capture the DL channel conditions just before DRX ON duration; PAGE 3, 2.1.3: Support of efficient CA operation. “WUS DCI may also indicate which carriers the UE wake-up to for monitoring scheduling DCls, if the UE is configured with CA mode. The configured CCs may be first grouped based on frequency bands or UE assisted information (e.g. CCs within a group share a same RF chain), which is fully controlled by network. Base on the traffic application characteristic and buffer status at gNB side, different CC groups can be selected for a UE to wake up for PDCCH monitoring to balance latency and power consumption aspects. Some joint coding of the BWP indicator and CO group indicator can be considered to reduce overhead. As shown in Table 1, fields of the WUS DCI comprise PUSCH time/frequency resource, TPC, cross-slots scheduling configuration indicator, BWP indicator, CSI request, reserved bits, etc. (to sum up, the above is equivalent to that the set of indication information comprises a bandwidth part (BWP) indicator, a carrier indicator, a time domain resource scheduling indicator, and a transmission configuration indication (TCI) indicator”).
4. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the first set of indication information comprises a bandwidth part (BWP) indicator (PAGE 3, 2.1.3, As shown in Table 1, fields of the WUS DCI comprise PUSCH time/frequency resource, TPC, cross-slots scheduling configuration indicator, BWP indicator, CSI request, reserved bits, etc. (to sum up, the above is equivalent to that the set of indication information comprises a bandwidth part (BWP) indicator, a carrier indicator, a time domain resource scheduling indicator, and a transmission configuration indication (TCI) indicator”).
5. (Cancelled).
Claim 6 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 7 contains subject matter similar to claim 2, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 8 contains subject matter similar to claim 3, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 9 contains subject matter similar to claim 4, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
10. (Cancelled).
Claim 11 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 12 contains subject matter similar to claim 2, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 contains subject matter similar to claim 3, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14 contains subject matter similar to claim 4, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
15. (Cancelled).
Claim 16 contains subject matter similar to claim 11, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 contains subject matter similar to claim 2, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 contains subject matter similar to claim 3, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 contains subject matter similar to claim 4, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
20. (Cancelled).
Conclusion
Regarding claim 26, Intel discloses the method of claim 23, wherein upon not receiving the second type control signal on a predefined resource set, performing, by the wireless user device, a wake-up operation (page 1, 2 Discussion: “During the study item phase, two possible time domain locations have been identified for WUS transmission: either before DRX ON duration or at the beginning of DRX ON duration. In our view, the former option (i.e. before DRX ON duration) is preferable due to the simplicity and less potential impacts on the legacy C-DRX operation. For example, the former option may preserve most, if not all, of the legacy C-DRX configuration and operation during active time, such as in legacy C-DRX operation, UE can potentially receive scheduling DCI at the beginning of DRX ON. However, WUS is monitored at the beginning of DRX ON in the latter option. Consequently, monitoring scheduling DCIs would be delayed. It may require RAN2 to reconsider definitions and operation of some of the existing C-DRX timers,” which reads on the first type of control signal is transmitted within an active time period, and the second type of control signal is transmitted within an inactive time period).
Claim 27 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale (Intel, Saving in NR, page 1, 1 Introduction).
Claim 28 contains subject matter similar to claim 21, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 29 contains subject matter similar to claim 22, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 30 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale (Intel, the UE, page 1).
Claim 31 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 32 contains subject matter similar to claim 21, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 33 contains subject matter similar to claim 22, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 34 contains subject matter similar to claim 26, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIO R PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7846. The examiner can normally be reached 10Am - 6PM EST M-F.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 5712705371. 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.
/JULIO R PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights