DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments of claim 1 include:
A) on pages 7-8 “the cited references, taken singly or in combination, fail to teach or suggest at least "wherein a mapping between a respective TCI state of each of the M repetitions of the PDCCH and a corresponding scrambling ID is configured'”, points to Lee [US 2022/0124686 A1] and further argues “ControlResourceSet IE indicating TCI state IDs and scrambling IDs is entirely unrelated to configuring a mapping between TCI states and scrambling IDs”, and asserts “"mapping" between two quantities implies a relationship between the two quantities, such that knowledge of one of the two quantities enables deduction of the other of the two quantities, e.g., as indicated by the mapping between the two quantities. Lee fails to teach or suggest this feature, as each of the TCI state ID and the scrambling ID are separately indicated in the ControlResourceSet IE. Making this even more clear, the separate indication of a TCI State ID and a Scrambling ID by a ControlResourceSet IE does not teach or suggest any mapping or other relationship between the indicated TCI State ID and Scrambling ID.” [emphasis by applicant]. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding A) Applicant’s argument relies on a particular, desired interpretation of “mapping” not commensurate with claim language and not commensurate with the specification. A mapping does not require that “knowledge of one of the two quantities enables deduction of the other of the two quantities” as asserted (see attached definitions of “map”). Further, amended claim language merely indicates “a mapping between a respective TCI state of each of the M repetitions of the PDCCH and a corresponding scrambling ID is configured” which indicates one is associated with another [a configuration], not that knowledge of one necessarily enables knowledge of the other (e.g. two transmitters “mapped” to the same antenna does not necessarily enable determination of which transmitter is being used based on knowledge of the antenna). Applicant’s use of “mapped/mapping” in the specification supports the examiner’s assertion:
“one SS mapped to up to a specified number (N) of CORESETs” [para. 09], “a first TCI may be mapped to a first number of symbols of the time resources and a second TCI may be mapped to remaining symbols of the time resources ... a first TCI may be mapped to even symbols of the time resources and a second TCI may be mapped to odd symbols of the time resources ... each TCI may be mapped to a respective demodulation reference signal (DMRS) port of a specified number of DMRS ports” [para. 13], “a UE has to identify the TCI states to receive PDCCH from multiple beams, based on a certain mapping of the TCI states and the time/frequency resource(s) of a PDCCH transmission” [para. 77 which indicates a configuration/association], and “Case 2: different TCIs may be mapped to different scramble IDs used to generate the DMRS sequence. A UE may be configured with up to a specified number (N) of scramble IDs, and the mapping between a TCI state and corresponding scramble ID may be configured by (or via) RRC signaling” [para. 84 which indicates a configuration/association]
commensurate with the examiner’s interpretation. Accordingly, Lee’s cited Table 5 [also see para. 115-116 describing Table 5] showing a CORESET configured by ControlResourceSet IE including TCI state ID and scrambling ID discloses a mapping between a TCI state and a corresponding scramble ID is configured. Thus, Lee’s cited Table 5 along with previously cited portions for the previous/current limitations a first number M>1 of repetitions of the PDCCH respectively mapped to M CORESETs of the two or more CORESETs (first PDCCH received on first CORESET and second PDCCH received on second CORESET; para. [24, 27, 302, 304, 306] and Figs. [13-14]), wherein first parameters are configured to be the same for the M CORESETs (downlink control information (DCI) same for first CORESET and second CORESET; para. [07, 21-22, 223-224, 228, 233, 240, 258, 302-303, 306, 310]) discloses newly amended claim limitation “a mapping between a respective TCI state of each of the M repetitions of the PDCCH and a corresponding scrambling ID is configured” with (first PDCCH received on first CORESET and second PDCCH received on second CORESET; para. [24, 27, 302, 304, 306] and Figs. [13-14], DCI same for first CORESET and second CORESET; para. [07, 21-22, 223-224, 228, 233, 240, 258, 302-303, 306, 310], Table 5 showing a CORESET configured by ControlResourceSet IE including TCI state ID and scrambling ID).
B) on page 8 “the cited references, taken singly or in combination, fail to teach or suggest at least "wherein a starting symbol index for each of the M repetitions of the PDCCH corresponding to the M CORESETs are configured separately for each of the M CORESETs and each of the M repetitions of the PDCCH are within symbol indices {0, 1, 2} of the same slot"”, points to Lee, and further argues “Lee in view of Svedman [US 2023/0076897 A1] fail to teach or suggest separate configuration for the starting symbol index for each of M repetitions of a PDCCH mapped to respective CORESETs, where the M repetitions of the PDCCH are within symbol indices {0, 1, 2} of the same [slot]”, and asserts “Lee is silent on multiple instances of the same PDCCH candidate having separately configured starting symbol indices, in the manner recited by claim 1. Making this even more clear, Lee is silent on multiple repetitions of the same PDCCH candidate starting at separately configured symbol indices, where each repetition has a separately configured starting symbol index and is within symbol indices {0, 1, 2} of the same slot” and further asserts “Lee is silent on multiple repetitions of the same PDCCH candidate starting at separately configured symbol indices, where each repetition has a separately configured starting symbol index and is within symbol indices {0, 1, 2} of the same slot, in the manner recited” [emphasis by applicant]. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding B) As best understood, applicant’s arguments are based on a lack of explicit disclosure by Lee, however, the rejection is a 35 USC § 103 obvious-type rejection, and, on pages 6-7 of the OA of 12/2/2025, cited portions of Lee discloses (first and second CORESETs overlap in time [slot] and frequency [BWP]; para. [10, 20, 96, 231, 284, 307, 317] and Fig. 9(B)), (monitoringSymbolWithinSlot indicates symbol [starting] position within slot of each CORESET of a plurality of CORESETs, use same parameters if not independently configured [at least suggesting separately configured parameters when independently configured]; para. 271, same DCI / PDCCH for first CORESET and second CORESET; para. [07, 21-22, 223-224, 228, 233, 240, 258, 302-303, 306, 310]) [emphasis added], thus, disclosing the argued “separately configured starting symbol index” limitation.
C) on pages 8-9, “the monitoringSymbolsWithinSlot field configures different duration CORESETs with different numbers of symbols for PDCCH monitoring, but that all three described CORESET durations have the same starting symbol. In contrast, the quoted feature of claim 1 describes separately configured starting symbol indices for multiple repetitions of a PDCCH candidate in multiple CORESETs. Applicant respectfully submits that Table 22 and Lee in general fail to teach or suggest separately configured starting symbol indices, as the same starting symbol is configured for PDCCH monitoring for each CORESET.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding C) Applicant’s arguments regarding monitoringSymbolsWithinSlot are arguments without evidence (see MPEP 2145 Consideration of Applicant’s Rebuttal Arguments and Evidence, I. ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY, Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.")). The examiner asserts monitoringSymbolsWithinSlot is not merely “different duration CORESETs with different numbers of symbols for PDCCH monitoring” and includes starting symbol location. As support for the examiner’s stance of monitoringSymbolsWithinSlot, Rune (US 2021/0127354 A1, filed 6/26/2019) in para. 38 discloses “The length of each PDCCH monitoring occasion in terms of symbols is determined by the length of the associated CORESET. That is, starting from an OFDM symbol indicated by the monitoringSymbolsWithinSlot parameter” [emphasis added], thus, monitoringSymbolsWithinSlot is understood to at least disclose starting symbol. Regarding the argument “the same starting symbol is configured for PDCCH monitoring for each CORESET” which implies the starting symbol (index) must be different for each CORESET, is not commensurate with claim language. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the starting symbol (index) must be different for each CORESET) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim language indicates “wherein a starting symbol index for each of the M repetitions of the PDCCH corresponding to the M CORESETs are configured separately for each of the M CORESETs and each of the M repetitions of the PDCCH are within symbol indices {0, 1, 2} of the same slot” indicating a CORESET has a corresponding configuration, and the PDCCHs are within indices 0 or 1 or 2 (first or second or third symbol), not that each separate PDCCH start at separate indices/slots. Thus, cited portions of Lee disclosing (first and second CORESETs overlap in time [slot] and frequency [BWP]; para. [10, 20, 96, 231, 284, 307, 317] and Fig. 9(B)), (monitoringSymbolWithinSlot indicates symbol [starting] position within slot of each CORESET of a plurality of CORESETs, use same parameters if not independently configured [at least suggesting separately configured parameters when independently configured]; para. 271, same DCI / PDCCH for first CORESET and second CORESET; para. [07, 21-22, 223-224, 228, 233, 240, 258, 302-303, 306, 310]) [emphasis added], thus, disclosing the argued “separately configured starting symbol index” limitation.
Accordingly, in light of the above, applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive. Further arguments rely on the above arguments and thus, are correspondingly non-persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 12, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1: line 9 includes TCI which should be transmission configuration indication (TCI).
Regarding claim 2: lines 2-3 includes transmission configuration indication (TCI) which should be includes TCI.
Regarding claim 12: line 2 includes transmission configuration indication (TCI) which should be includes TCI.
Regarding claim 19: line 9 includes TCI which should be transmission configuration indication (TCI).
Regarding claim 20: line 7 includes TCI which should be transmission configuration indication (TCI).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 12, 16-20, and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0124686 A1) hereinafter Lee in view of Svedman et al. (US 2023/0076897 A1, all citations are supported by US Provisional Application No. 62/976,095, filed 2/13/2020).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a processor (processor 102; para. 328 and Fig. 19) comprising: memory configured to store information (memory 104; para. 238 and Fig. 19); and processing circuitry (processing circuitry; para. 238) coupled with the memory (processor coupled with memory including software executed by processor; para. 328) and configured to: cause reception of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) using multiple beams (UE receives physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) using multiple beams; para. 248), wherein the PDCCH is carried on two or more control channel resource sets (CORESETs) (two or more control channel resource sets (CORESETs) defined for PDCCH; para. [27, 248-249]) and is received in a same bandwidth part (BWP) and a same slot (one active bandwidth part (BWP); para. [83, 128] and Table 21, first and second CORESETs overlap in time [slot] and frequency [BWP]; para. [10, 20, 96, 231, 284, 307, 317] and Fig. 9(B)) according to a first number M>1 of repetitions of the PDCCH respectively mapped to M CORESETs of the two or more CORESETs (first PDCCH received on first CORESET and second PDCCH received on second CORESET; para. [24, 27, 302, 304, 306] and Figs. [13-14]), wherein a starting symbol index for each of the M repetitions of the PDCCH corresponding to the M CORESETs are configured separately for each of the M CORESETs (monitoringSymbolWithinSlot indicates symbol [starting] position within slot of each CORESET of a plurality of CORESETs, use same parameters if not independently configured [at least suggesting separately configured parameters when independently configured]; para. 271, same DCI / PDCCH for first CORESET and second CORESET; para. [07, 21-22, 223-224, 228, 233, 240, 258, 302-303, 306, 310]) and each of the M repetitions of the PDCCH are within symbol indices {0, 1, 2} of the same slot (first one / two / three symbol(s) [indices {0, 1, 2}] determined by duration of each identified CORESET, monitoringSymbolWithinSlot indicates symbol [starting] position within slot of each CORESET; para. [271, 314] and Table 22, same DCI / PDCCH for first CORESET and second CORESET; para. [07, 21-22, 223-224, 228, 233, 240, 258, 302-303, 306, 310]), wherein first parameters are configured to be the same for the M CORESETs (downlink control information (DCI) same for first CORESET and second CORESET; para. [07, 21-22, 223-224, 228, 233, 240, 258, 302-303, 306, 310]), wherein scrambling IDs are configured to be different for the M CORESETs (scrambling ID for first CORESET different from second scrambling ID for second CORESET; para. [11, 20, 231-232, 285-286, 308, 317]), and wherein a mapping between a respective TCI state of each of the M repetitions of the PDCCH and a corresponding scrambling ID is configured (first PDCCH received on first CORESET and second PDCCH received on second CORESET; para. [24, 27, 302, 304, 306] and Figs. [13-14], DCI same for first CORESET and second CORESET; para. [07, 21-22, 223-224, 228, 233, 240, 258, 302-303, 306, 310], Table 5 showing a CORESET configured by ControlResourceSet IE including TCI state ID and scrambling ID).
While Lee teach each TCI state relates to one reference signal (RS) set and demodulation reference signal (DM-RS) relates to PDCCH, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein each repetition of the M repetitions of the PDCCH is associated with a different TCI state.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Svedman teaches wherein each repetition of the M repetitions of the PDCCH is associated with a different TCI state (DCI / PDCCH of a duplicated set [each repetition] repeated using a different TCI state; para. [142, 172, 174, 176, 180, 359, 396, 409, 427, 455, 495, 527] and Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Svedman to the system of Lee, where Lee’s improved decoding success of downlink control channel (para. 222, 225) along with Svedman’s improved reliability of a downlink control channel (para. [03-04, 119]) improves reliability for services such as ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lee and Svedman teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the PDCCH is received further according to a second number N>1 of transmission configuration indication (TCI) states configured for a single CORESET of the two or more CORESETs, wherein a single instance of the PDCCH is received from the single CORESET using the N TCI states.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Svedman further teaches wherein the PDCCH is received further according to a second number N>1 of transmission configuration indication (TCI) states configured for a single CORESET of the two or more CORESETs (PDCCH transmitted in single CORESET associated with multiple transmission configuration indication (TCI) states; para. [107, 151]), wherein a single instance of the PDCCH is received from the single CORESET using the N TCI states (the multiple TCI states applied to a single PDCCH corresponding to the (single) CORESET; para. 329).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Svedman to the modified system of Lee and Svedman, where Lee and Svedman’s modified system along with Svedman’s improved reliability of a downlink control channel (para. [03-04, 119]) improves reliability for services such as ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lee and Svedman teaches the limitation of previous claim 2.
Lee further teaches wherein the N TCI states are selected from a list of TCI states configured in the single CORESET via radio resource control (TCI state ID(s) for a CORESET configured [selected] from list of TCI states by higher layer signaling [radio resource control]; para. [96, 172, 298] and Table 13).
While Lee teaches activation command for TCI states, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the N TCI states are activated according to a media access control (MAC) control element (CE).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Svedman further teaches wherein the N TCI states are activated according to a media access control (MAC) control element (CE) (media access control (MAC) control element (CE) activates multiple TCI states; para. 365-368).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Svedman to the modified system of Lee and Svedman, where Lee and Svedman’s modified system along with Svedman’s improved reliability of a downlink control channel (para. [03-04, 119]) improves reliability for services such as ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lee and Svedman teaches the limitation of previous claim 2.
Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein reception of the PDCCH according to the N TCI states includes receiving the PDCCH using time and frequency resources indicated by the single CORESET, based on the N TCI states.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Svedman further teaches wherein reception of the PDCCH according to the N TCI states (PDCCH transmitted (received) associated with multiple TCI states; para. [107, 151]) includes receiving the PDCCH using time and frequency resources indicated by the single CORESET, based on the N TCI states (PDCCH time-frequency resources associated with multiple TCI states through corresponding (indicated by single) CORESET; para. [180-181, 356]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Svedman to the modified system of Lee and Svedman, where Lee and Svedman’s modified system along with Svedman’s improved reliability of a downlink control channel (para. [03-04, 119]) improves reliability for services such as ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lee and Svedman teaches the limitation of previous claim 2.
Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the N TCI states are multiplexed according to one of: frequency division multiplexing (FDM); time division multiplexing (TDM); or spatial division multiplexing (SDM).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Svedman further teaches wherein the N TCI states are multiplexed (multiplexing multiple TCI states; para. 355-356) according to one of: frequency division multiplexing (FDM) (frequency division multiplexing (FDM) of different TCI states; para. 175-178 and Fig. 5, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference); time division multiplexing (TDM) (time division multiplexing (TDM) of different TCI states; para. 171-174 and Fig. 4); or spatial division multiplexing (SDM) (spatial multiplexing (SDM) of different TCI states; para. 179-181, SDM of TCI states; para. 355-356).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Svedman to the modified system of Lee and Svedman, where Lee and Svedman’s modified system along with Svedman’s improved reliability of a downlink control channel (para. [03-04, 119]) improves reliability for services such as ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lee and Svedman teaches the limitation of previous claim 7.
Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein any one or more of the FDM, TDM, or SDM are configured via one or more of: higher layer signaling; or parameters configured in the corresponding CORESET.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Svedman further teaches wherein any one or more of the FDM, TDM, or SDM are configured via one or more of: higher layer signaling (TDM configured by higher layer; para. [418, 420, 464, 466], FDM configured by higher layer; para. [423, 471, 507], examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference); or parameters configured in the corresponding CORESET (FDM resources associated (configured) using CORESET with different TCI states (parameters); para. 175-178, FDM scheme using CORESET configured with parameter; para. 334-335, TDM resources associated using CORESET with different TCI states IDs; para. 171-174, SDM resources associated using CORESET with different TCI states IDs; para. 179-181).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Svedman to the modified system of Lee and Svedman, where Lee and Svedman’s modified system along with Svedman’s improved reliability of a downlink control channel (para. [03-04, 119]) improves reliability for services such as ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lee and Svedman teaches the limitation of previous claim 8.
Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the parameters comprise one or more of: precoder granularity; or duration.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Svedman further teaches wherein the parameters comprise one or more of: precoder granularity (FDM scheme using CORESET configured with precoderGranularity; para. 335, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference); or duration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Svedman to the modified system of Lee and Svedman, where Lee and Svedman’s modified system along with Svedman’s improved reliability of a downlink control channel (para. [03-04, 119]) improves reliability for services such as ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC).
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1, including a device (wireless device 100; para. [52-55, 328] and Fig. 19: Lee) comprising: radio circuitry configured to facilitate wireless communications of the device (transceiver 106 implementing signaling; para. 328 and Fig. 19: Lee); and a processor coupled with the radio circuitry (processor 102 coupled with transceiver 106; para. 328 and Fig. 19: Lee).
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches a method for transmitting a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) (physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) transmitted using multiple beams; para. 248), the method comprising: transmitting the PDCCH using multiple beams (physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) transmitted using multiple beams; para. 248), wherein the PDCCH is carried on two or more control channel resource sets (CORESETs) (two or more control channel resource sets (CORESETs) defined for PDCCH; para. [27, 248-249]) and is received in a same bandwidth part (BWP) and a same slot (one active bandwidth part (BWP); para. [83, 128] and Table 21, first and second CORESETs overlap in time [slot] and frequency [BWP]; para. [10, 20, 96, 231, 284, 307, 317] and Fig. 9(B)) according to a first number M > 1 of repetitions of the PDCCH respectively mapped to M CORESETs of the two or more CORESETs (first PDCCH received on first CORESET and second PDCCH received on second CORESET; para. [24, 27, 302, 304, 306] and Figs. [13-14]), wherein a starting symbol index for each of the M repetitions of the PDCCH corresponding to the M CORESETs are configured separately for each of the M CORESETs (monitoringSymbolWithinSlot indicates symbol [starting] position within slot of each CORESET of a plurality of CORESETs, use same parameters if not independently configured [at least suggesting separately configured parameters when independently configured]; para. 271, same DCI / PDCCH for first CORESET and second CORESET; para. [07, 21-22, 223-224, 228, 233, 240, 258, 302-303, 306, 310]) and each of the M repetitions of the PDCCH are within symbol indices {0, 1, 2} of the same slot (first one / two / three symbol(s) [indices {0, 1, 2}] determined by duration of each identified CORESET, monitoringSymbolWithinSlot indicates symbol [starting] position within slot of each CORESET; para. [271, 314] and Table 22, same DCI / PDCCH for first CORESET and second CORESET; para. [07, 21-22, 223-224, 228, 233, 240, 258, 302-303, 306, 310]), wherein the first parameters are configured to be the same for the M CORESETs (downlink control information (DCI) same for first CORESET and second CORESET; para. [07, 21-22, 223-224, 228, 233, 240, 258, 302-303, 306, 310]), wherein scrambling IDs are configured to be different for the M CORESETs (scrambling ID for first CORESET different from second scrambling ID for second CORESET; para. [11, 20, 231-232, 285-286, 308, 317]), and wherein a mapping between a respective TCI state of each of the M repetitions of the PDCCH and a corresponding scrambling ID is configured (first PDCCH received on first CORESET and second PDCCH received on second CORESET; para. [24, 27, 302, 304, 306] and Figs. [13-14], DCI same for first CORESET and second CORESET; para. [07, 21-22, 223-224, 228, 233, 240, 258, 302-303, 306, 310], Table 5 showing a CORESET configured by ControlResourceSet IE including TCI state ID and scrambling ID).
While Lee teach each transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state relates to one reference signal (RS) set and demodulation reference signal (DM-RS) relates to PDCCH, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein each repetition of M the repetitions of the PDCCH is associated with a different TCI state.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Svedman teaches wherein each repetition of M the repetitions of the PDCCH is associated with a different TCI state (DCI / PDCCH repeated using a different TCI state; para. [142, 172, 174, 176, 180, 359, 396, 409, 427, 455, 495, 527] and Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Svedman to the system of Lee, where Lee’s improved decoding success of downlink control channel (para. 222, 225) along with Svedman’s improved reliability of a downlink control channel (para. [03-04, 119]) improves reliability for services such as ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lee and Svedman teaches the limitation of previous claim 20.
Lee further teaches wherein a search space associated with the one or more CORESETs (search space associated with CORESET; para. 216-217 and Table 21) is one or more of: device specific search space (UE-specific search space; Table 23, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference); or cell specific search space (common search space for cell; Tables [21, 23]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lee and Svedman teaches the limitation of claim 20.
Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the PDCCH is received further according to a second number N>1 of transmission configuration indication (TCI) states configured for a single CORESET of the two or more CORESETs, wherein a single instance of the PDCCH is received from the single CORESET using the N TCI states.
Svedman further teaches wherein the PDCCH is received further according to a first number N>1 of transmission configuration indication (TCI) states configured for a single CORESET of the one or more CORESETs (PDCCH transmitted in single CORESET associated with multiple transmission configuration indication (TCI) states; para. [107, 151]), wherein a single instance of the PDCCH is received from the single CORESET using the N TCI states (the multiple TCI states applied to a single PDCCH corresponding to the (single) CORESET; para. 329).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Svedman to the modified system of Lee and Svedman, where Lee and Svedman’s modified system along with Svedman’s improved reliability of a downlink control channel (para. [03-04, 119]) improves reliability for services such as ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Lee and Svedman teaches the limitation of claim 20.
Lee further teaches wherein the starting symbol index of time resources associated with the M CORESETs is determined by a duration of each of the M CORESETs and a corresponding CORESET identifier (first one / two / three symbol(s) [index] determined by duration of each identified CORESET; para. [271, 314] and Table 22).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Lee and Svedman teaches the limitation of previous claim 20.
While Lee discloses frequency division multiplexing (FDM), time division multiplexing (TDM), and code division multiplexing (CDM), Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the N TCI states are multiplexed according to one of: frequency division multiplexing (FDM); time division multiplexing (TDM); or spatial division multiplexing (SDM).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Svedman further teaches wherein the N TCI states are multiplexed (multiplexing multiple TCI states; para. 355-356) according to one of: frequency division multiplexing (FDM) (frequency division multiplexing (FDM) of different TCI states; para. 175-178 and Fig. 5, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference); time division multiplexing (TDM) (time division multiplexing (TDM) of different TCI states; para. 171-174 and Fig. 4); or spatial division multiplexing (SDM) (spatial multiplexing (SDM) of different TCI states; para. 179-181, SDM of TCI states; para. 355-356).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Svedman to the modified system of Lee and Svedman, where Lee and Svedman’s modified system along with Svedman’s improved reliability of a downlink control channel (para. [03-04, 119]) improves reliability for services such as ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Lee and Svedman teaches the limitation of previous claim 24.
While Lee discloses TDM, FDM, CDM, configuration via higher layer signaling and parameters for CORESET, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein any one or more of the FDM, TDM, or SDM are configured via one or more of: higher layer signaling; or parameters configured in the corresponding CORESET.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Svedman further teaches wherein any one or more of the FDM, TDM, or SDM are configured via one or more of: higher layer signaling (TDM configured by higher layer; para. [418, 420, 464, 466], FDM configured by higher layer; para. [423, 471, 507], examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference); or parameters configured in the corresponding CORESET (FDM resources associated (configured) using CORESET with different TCI states (parameters); para. 175-178, FDM scheme using CORESET configured with parameter; para. 334-335, TDM resources associated using CORESET with different TCI states IDs; para. 171-174, SDM resources associated using CORESET with different TCI states IDs; para. 179-181).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Svedman to the modified system of Lee and Svedman, where Lee and Svedman’s modified system along with Svedman’s improved reliability of a downlink control channel (para. [03-04, 119]) improves reliability for services such as ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Lee and Svedman teaches the limitation of previous claim 25.
Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the parameters comprise one or more of: precoder granularity; or duration.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Svedman further teaches wherein the parameters comprise one or more of: precoder granularity (FDM scheme using CORESET configured with precoderGranularity; para. 335, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference); or duration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Svedman to the modified system of Lee and Svedman, where Lee and Svedman’s modified system along with Svedman’s improved reliability of a downlink control channel (para. [03-04, 119]) improves reliability for services such as ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Svedman, and further in view of Noh et al. (US 2021/0314927 A1) hereinafter Noh.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lee and Svedman teaches the limitation of claim 3.
The combination of Lee and Svedman does not explicitly disclose wherein the N TCI states are activated for one of: the single CORESET with a same ID in each cell of a group of serving cells; or all CORESETs in the group of serving cells.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Noh teaches wherein the N TCI states are activated for one of: the single CORESET with a same ID in each cell of a group of serving cells (MAC CE signaling includes CORESET ID (same CORESET with same ID) and serving cell ID (each cell of a group of serving cells); para. 149 and Fig. 9, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference); or all CORESETs in the group of serving cells (MAC CE signaling includes CORESET ID (CORESET with same ID) and serving cell ID (each cell of a group of serving cells); para. 149 and Fig. 9, plurality of CORESETs configured similarly; para. [189, 243], UE monitors CORESETs (IDs) and cells (IDs) according to priority order (all CORESETs in group of serving cells); para. 262-263).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Noh to the modified system of Lee and Svedman, where Lee and Svedman’s modified system along with Noh’s multi-beam indication (para. 297) improves reliability for PDCCH important for maintaining a link.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lee, Svedman, and Noh teaches the limitation of claim 4.
The combination of Lee and Svedman does not explicitly disclose wherein the group of serving cells are configured via radio resource control signaling as determined by capabilities of the device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Noh further teaches wherein the group of serving cells are configured via radio resource control signaling as determined by capabilities of the device (UE reports capability for component carriers (cells) for PDCCH limits; para. [122-123, 127, 129-134], UE receives PDCCH RRC configuration; para. [77, 265] and Table 7 and Fig. 16 step 1600).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Noh to the modified system of Lee, Svedman, and Noh, where Lee, Svedman, and Noh’s modified system along with Noh’s multi-beam indication (para. 297) improves reliability for PDCCH important for maintaining a link.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Svedman, and further in view of Khoshnevisan et al. (US 2021/0226820 A1, all citations are supported by US Provisional Application No. 62/962,067, filed 1/6/2020) hereinafter Khoshnevisan.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lee and Svedman teaches the limitation of previous claim 12.
The combination of Lee and Svedman does not explicitly disclose wherein a first TCI state of the N TCI states is mapped to a third number of symbols of time resources indicated by the single CORESET, and a second TCI state of the N TCI states is mapped to remaining symbols of the time resources.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Khoshnevisan teaches wherein a first TCI state of the N TCI states is mapped to a third number of symbols of time resources indicated by the single CORESET (symbols associated with TCI states; para. 77, one resource element group (REG) includes one resource block (RB) in one symbol; para. 79; first set of REG bundles defined by ceiling function, first TCI state associated (mapped) to first set of REG bundles (symbols) of the CORESET; para. 146), and a second TCI state of the N TCI states is mapped to remaining symbols of the time resources (symbols associated with TCI states; para. 77, one REG includes one RB in one symbol; para. 79; first set of REG bundles defined by ceiling function, second TCI state associated (mapped) to remaining set of REG bundles (symbols) of the CORESET; para. 146).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Khoshnevisan to the modified system of Lee and Svedman, where Lee and Svedman’s modified system along with Khoshnevisan’s enhanced diversity and reliability (para. [08, 109]) improves user experience by supporting services with ultra-reliable low-latency communications (URLLC) or mission critical communications.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lee and Svedman teaches the limitation of previous claim 12.
The combination of Lee and Svedman does not explicitly disclose wherein a first TCI state of the N TCI states is mapped to even symbols of time resources indicated by the single CORESET, and a second TCI state of the N TCI states is mapped to odd symbols of the time resources.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Khoshnevisan teaches wherein a first TCI state of the N TCI states is mapped to even symbols of time resources indicated by the single CORESET (symbols associated with TCI states; para. 77, one REG includes one RB in one symbol; para. 79, even indices of first set of REG bundles of the CORESET associated with (mapped to) first TCI state; para. 157), and a second TCI state of the N TCI states is mapped to odd symbols of the time resources (symbols associated with TCI states; para. 77, one REG includes one RB in one symbol; para. 79, odd indices of first set of REG bundles of the CORESET associated with (mapped to) second TCI state; para. 157).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Khoshnevisan to the modified system of Lee and Svedman, where Lee and Svedman’s modified system along with Khoshnevisan’s enhanced diversity and reliability (para. [08, 109]) improves user experience by supporting services with ultra-reliable low-latency communications (URLLC) or mission critical communications.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shao et al. (US 2021/0352636 A1) discloses downlink channel transmission method and apparatus.
Kim et al. (US 2023/0119810 A1) discloses a method and apparatus for transmitting and receiving physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) in wireless communication system.
Sun et al. (US 2020/0169956 A1) discloses a method and apparatus for detecting indication information, and methods and devices for relaying transmission.
US Provisional Application No. 62/976,095 (Svedman), filed 2/13/2020, having been made of record in the OA of 8/29/2024, and US Provisional Application No. 62/962,067 (Khoshnevisan), filed 1/16/2020, having been made of record in the OA of 2/16/2024, are not included in the instant OA.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights