DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on 06/02/2026 has been entered and made of record.
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 11 are amended.
No new claims is/are added.
Claims 1, 9-11 and 19-20 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (remark pages 5-8), filed on 06/02/2026, with respect to claims 1, 9-11 and 19-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection below which better address the claimed invention as amended.
This Office Action is made Final.
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, 9-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 20230362954 A1), hereinafter “Moon”, in view of Guo et al. (WO 2022204871 A1), hereinafter “Guo”.
Per claim 1 and 11:
Regarding claim 11, Moon teaches ‘A user equipment’ (Moon: Fig.2; [Abstract]: “a terminal for monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH)”); ‘comprising: at least one processor’ (Moon: [0025]: “a processor”); ‘at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to the at least one processor and storing one or more computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the user equipment to’ (Moon: [0025]: “a memory storing at least one instruction executable by the processor, wherein the at least one instruction causes the terminal to”);
‘receive configuration information corresponding to a plurality of search space set groups, wherein a number of search space set groups in the plurality of search space set groups is greater than two’ (Moon: [FIG.8]; [0007]: “receiving, from a base station, configuration information of a first search space set group (SSSG) and a second SSSG”; [0015]: “the third SSSG”);
‘monitor a first search space set group of the plurality of search space set groups for a physical downlink control channel using a search space set group identifier’ (Moon: [FIG.3A]; [FIG.3B]; [0007]: “performing monitoring on the first SSSG in a first period”; [0008]: “Each of the first SSSG and the second SSSG may include search space set(s) to be monitored”). However, Moon fails to expressly teach using a SSSG identifier;
‘receive downlink control information (DCI) which includes a DCI field with a value indicating switching to a second search space set group of the plurality of search space set groups’ (Moon: [0007]: “downlink control information (DCI) including an indication for switching a monitoring target from the first SSSG to the second SSSG is received from the base station in a period before the second period”);
‘wherein no search space set or no monitoring occasion is included in the second search space set group’ (Moon: [FIG.5]; [FIG.6]; [0100]: “an SSSG (e.g., a null SSSG, an empty SSSG, a dormant SSSG, etc. (hereinafter referred to as a ‘null SSSG’)) that does not include any search space set may be defined or configured … When the terminal is indicated to monitor the null SSSG, the terminal may not monitor any search space set”);
However, Guo in the same field of endeavor teaches monitoring by using a SSSG identifier (Guo: [Page 4]: “an SSSG identifier (ID) of the SSSG, to which the wireless communication device should behanded over to perform PDCCH monitoring”; [Page 19]: “the UE should be switched to the SSSG ID for monitoring the PDCCH”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Guo’s teaching with that of Moon in order to support group of search space sets (Guo: [Page 2]: “The wireless communication device may receive, from the wireless communication node, control information. The wireless communication device perform physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring using a group of search space sets (SSSs) selected from a plurality of search space set groups (SSSGs) according to the control information”).
Combination of Moon and Guo teaches ‘in response to receiving the DCI, forgo monitoring any search space set, included in the plurality of search space set groups, for the physical downlink control channel for a specific time period’ (Moon: [0097]: “The terminal may receive information indicating to skip PDCCH monitoring (i.e., PDCCH monitoring skipping indication) through a DCI, and based thereon, may not perform a PDCCH monitoring operation in a certain period”; [FIG.3A]: “
PNG
media_image1.png
50
139
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”, skip (forgo) monitoring PDCCH; [0088]: “the terminal may perform an SSSG switching operation between the first SSSG and the second SSSG within the active time. For another example, the terminal may skip PDCCH monitoring in some periods of the active time. This may be implemented by a PDCCH monitoring skipping method”. GUO: [Page 23]: “If PDCCH skipping is performed, the wireless communication device 104 or 204 may stop monitoring the PDCCH according to a search space set having a type-3 common search space type and/or a UE-specific search space type”);
‘monitor the first search space set group after the specific time period has passed’ (Moon: FIG.3A]: “
PNG
media_image2.png
51
169
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, “
PNG
media_image1.png
50
139
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”, monitor first SSSG again after the skipping period expires. Guo: [Page 20]: “The PS timer may be used as a skip duration. After the PS timer expires, the wireless communication device 104 or 204 may switch to a "normal" SSSG”;);
‘wherein the first search space set group is different from a default search space set group of the plurality of search space set groups’ (Moon: [0023]: “if the timer of the third SSSG expires when the first skipping period ends, the terminal may switch a monitoring target to a default SSSG; and if the timer of the third SSSG does not expire when the first skipping period ends, the terminal may perform monitoring on the third SSSG”, after skipping period ends, if the previous SSSG is still valid to monitor (does not expire yet), then would be back to monitor the previous SSSG (which is different from a default SSSG); [0085]: “a first SSSG configured in the terminal may have a larger number of PDCCH candidates and/or a shorter PDCCH monitoring periodicity”, first SSSG is not a default SSSG. Guo: [Page 20]: “The PS timer may be used as a skip duration. After the PS timer expires, the wireless communication device 104 or 204 may switch to a "normal" SSSG”; [Page 2]: “a normal SSSG, including at least one set of search spaces comprising a type of Type-3 Common Search Space (Type-3 CSS) or User Equipment-Specific Search Space (USS), or (ii) a conventional SSSG”, a normal SSSG could be a non-default SSSG such as USS; [Page 40]: “the wireless communication device 104 or 204 supports monitoring the PDCCH according to the power-saving search space set … the power-saving search space set may be associated with a PS timer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Guo’s teaching of power-saving SSSG with that of Moon in order to save UE power by skipping PDCCH monitoring (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the method implemented by the user equipment of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above).
Per claim 9 and 19:
Regarding claim 19, Moon teaches the user equipment of claim 11 (discussed above).
Moon teaches ‘wherein a format of the downlink control information comprises one of DCI format 0_1, format 0_2, DCI format 1_1,or DCI format 1_2’ (Moon: [0113]: “the DCI may be a scheduling DCI (e.g., DCI formats 0_0, 1_0, 0_1, 1_1, 0_2, 1_2, etc.)”).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the method implemented by the user equipment of claim 19 (see rejection of claim 19 above).
Per claim 10 and 20:
Regarding claim 20, Moon teaches the user equipment of claim 11 (discussed above).
Moon does not expressly teach, but Guo teaches ‘wherein the downlink control information further includes the number of search space set groups in the plurality of search space set groups’ (Guo: [Page 7]: “Numberofsearchspacegroup-r17), indicating the number of search space sets supported”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Guo’s teaching with that of Moon in order to support group of search space sets (Guo: [Page 2]: “a group of search space sets (SSSs) selected from a plurality of search space set groups (SSSGs)”).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the method implemented by the user equipment of claim 20 (see rejection of claim 20 above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GUOXING FAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571)272-3927. 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.
/G.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2462
/YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights