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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/20/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/25 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, starting on page 11, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Applicant argues that Hosseini does not teach in regards to a first cell and a second cell as in the instant claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). A first and second cell in a similar context to the instant claims is taught by Zhou in paragraphs 301-306. Thus, Zhou in view of Hosseini do teach this feature of the claims. Applicant also argues that Zhou does not teach “quantity of PDCCH candidates is based at least in part on the at least one control message identifying the third search space set with the quantity of PDCCH candidates and on the linking of the second search space set with the third search space set.” Examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gao (US 20240032067 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 5-12, 14-21, and 23-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 20240137938 A1) in view of Hosseini (US 20200221431 A1) and further in view of Gao (US 20240032067 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou discloses:
“A method for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving at least one control message identifying a first search space set and a third search space set for a first cell and a second search space set for a second cell, wherein the third search space set for the first cell is linked, for cross-carrier scheduling of the first cell by the second cell, with the second search space set for the second cell;” ([para 0301]: “In the example of FIG. 30, a wireless device receives from a base station one or more configuration parameters of a first cell and a second cell. The one or more configuration parameters of the first cell comprise: cross carrier scheduling parameters indicating the first cell is cross-carrier scheduled by a second cell, first SSs of a first BWP of the first cell, and/or second SSs of the first BWP of the first cell. The first cell comprises a plurality of BWPs comprising the first BWP. The one or more configuration parameters of the second cell comprise a plurality of SSs on a BWP of the second cell.”)
“monitoring the first cell over the first search space set for one or more first control messages associated with a first scheduling of first communication for the first cell” ([para 0306]: “In response to the BWP specific cross-carrier scheduling parameters of the first BWP indicating the first BWP is self-scheduled, the wireless device monitors PDCCH, on SSs of the first BWP, for detecting DCI indicating self-scheduling.”)
“monitoring the second cell over a quantity of physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) candidates of the second search space set for one or more second control messages associated with a second scheduling of second communication for the first cell… and is based at least in part on the linking of the second search space set with the third search space set…” ([para 0303]: “In response to the switching to the second BWP of the second cell, the wireless device determines whether there is a linkage between an SS of the second SSs of the first BWP of the first cell and any one of the plurality of SSs of the second BWP of the second cell. In response to an SS of the first SSs of the first BWP being linked to one of the plurality of SSs of the second BWP, the wireless device monitors PDCCH, on the one of the plurality of SSs of the second BWP, for detecting DCI indicating cross-carrier scheduling the first BWP.”; [para 0281]: “The configuration parameters may comprise one or more PDCCH configuration parameters of a first cell and one or more PDCCH configuration parameters of a second cell.” ; [para 0284]: “In response to BWP x of the first cell and BWP m of the second cell being active, the wireless device may monitor PDCCH in SS 1 of BWP x for BWP m of the second cell for cross-carrier scheduling, when SS 1 of BWP x is linked to SS 1 of BWP m.”)
“…communicating over the first cell based at least in part on the one or more first control messages or the one or more second control messages.” ([para 0303]: “The wireless device may receive TBs via the first BWP in response to receiving the DCI indicating downlink assignments on the first BWP. The wireless device may transmit TBs via an active uplink BWP of the first cell in response to receiving the DCI indicating uplink grants on the active uplink BWP.”)
Zhou does not explicitly disclose “wherein monitoring the second cell over the second search space set for the one or more second control messages associated with the second scheduling of the second communication for the first cell is at least partially concurrent with monitoring the first cell over the first search space set for the one or more first control messages associated with the first scheduling of the first communication for the first cell” nor “wherein the quantity of PDCCH candidates is based at least in part on the at least one control message identifying the third search space set with the quantity of PDCCH candidates and on the linking of the second search space set with the third search space set.”
However, Hosseini discloses the missing feature monitoring the second cell over the second search space set “wherein monitoring the second cell over the second search space set for the one or more second control messages associated with the second scheduling of the second communication for the first cell is at least partially concurrent with monitoring the first cell over the first search space set for the one or more first control messages associated with the first scheduling of the first communication for the first cell” ([para 0136]: “In some cases, before ceasing monitoring the first set of decoding candidates within the first search space, UE 115-b may concurrently monitor the first set of decoding candidates within the first search space and the second set of decoding candidates within the second search space.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Zhou and Hosseini, to modify the monitoring of search space sets as disclosed by Zhou, to modify the first and second set concurrently as disclosed by Hosseini. The motivation for doing so is that it prevents failed communications and enhances flexibility when switching search spaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhou with Hosseini to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Hosseini also does not disclose “wherein the quantity of PDCCH candidates is based at least in part on the at least one control message identifying the third search space set with the quantity of PDCCH candidates and on the linking of the second search space set with the third search space set.”
However, Gao discloses the missing features:
“wherein the quantity of PDCCH candidates is based at least in part on the at least one control message identifying the third search space set with the quantity of PDCCH candidates” ([para 0099]: “The search space set configuration information may include one or more of the following items: a search space set identifier, an identifier of the CORESET linked with the search space set, a monitoring period and a slot offset in the monitoring period, a monitoring time domain location, an aggregation level and a corresponding quantity of PDCCH candidates, and a DCI format.”)
“and on the linking of the second search space set with the third search space set.” ([para 0073]: “It may be understood that, a quantity of PDCCH candidates used for repeatedly transmitting DCI is not limited in this disclosure, and a quantity of linked PDCCH candidates is not limited to only two. There may be more than two linked PDCCH candidates used for transmitting same DCI. Correspondingly, the more than two linked PDCCH candidates respectively belong to more than two linked SS sets.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Zhou and Gao, to modify the PDCCH candidates disclosed by Zhou, to have a quantity determined based on the control message and the linking of search spaces as disclosed by Gao. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhou with Hosseini and Gao to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Zhou in view of Hosseini and Gao discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhou further discloses “suppressing monitoring of the first cell over the third search space set that is linked with the second search space set for the cross-carrier scheduling based at least in part on the linking of the second search space set with the third search space set.” (Note that in Fig. 30 that if there is no linkage then the SS on the 2nd BWP is not monitored.)
Regarding claim 3, Zhou in view of Hosseini and Gao discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhou further discloses “receiving an indication that the second search space set and the third search space set have a same search space identifier, wherein the linking between the second search space set with the third search space set is based at least in part on the second search space set and the third search space set having the same search space identifier, and wherein suppressing the monitoring of the first cell over the third search space set is based at least in part on the second search space set and the third search space set having the same search space identifier.” ([para 0280]: “In an example, when a base station configures a first cell to be cross-carrier scheduled by a second cell, the base station may link a search space of the first cell to a search space of the second cell. A search space ID of a search space of the first cell is set to be same as a search space ID of a search space of the second cell, which is referred to as search space linkage.”)
Regarding claim 5, Zhou in view of Hosseini and Gao discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhou further discloses “monitoring the first cell over the third search space set that is linked with the second search space set for the cross-carrier scheduling if a condition associated with the third search space set is satisfied; and suppressing monitoring of the first cell over the third search space set that is linked with the second search space set if the condition with the third search space set is not satisfied.” (Note that in Fig. 30 that if there is no linkage then the SS on the 2nd BWP is not monitored.)
Regarding claim 6, Zhou in view of Hosseini and Gao discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhou further discloses “receiving, via the at least one control message, a parameter exclusively configured for indicating whether to monitor over the third search space set.” ([para 0274]: “The configuration parameters may comprise a scheduling cell information (e.g., schedulingCellinfo), the scheduling cell information comprising second set of parameters (e.g., schedulingcellid and/or cif-InSchedulingCell) indicating a cell (identified by the cif-InSchedulingCell) is cross-carrier scheduled by another cell identified by the schedulingcellid.”)
Regarding claim 7, Zhou in view of Hosseini and Gao discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhou further discloses “monitoring the first cell over the third search space set that is linked with the second search space set for the cross-carrier scheduling based at least in part on the parameter indicating that the UE is to monitor over the third search space set; or suppressing monitoring of the first cell over the third search space set that is linked with the second search space set for the cross-carrier scheduling based at least in part on the parameter indicating that the UE is to refrain from monitoring over the third search space set.” ([para 0274]: “The configuration parameters may comprise a scheduling cell information (e.g., schedulingCellinfo), the scheduling cell information comprising second set of parameters (e.g., schedulingcellid and/or cif-InSchedulingCell) indicating a cell (identified by the cif-InSchedulingCell) is cross-carrier scheduled by another cell identified by the schedulingcellid.” Also note that in Fig. 30 that if there is no linkage then the SS on the 2nd BWP is not monitored.))
Regarding claim 8, Zhou in view of Hosseini and Gao discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhou further discloses “receiving a downlink shared channel message based at least in part on scheduling information in the one or more first control messages or the one or more second control messages.” ([para 0316]: “In the example of FIG. 34, the wireless device monitors PDCCH on SSs, configured for the second cell, on a first BWP for detecting a first DCI indicating a transmission of a first TB via PDSCH of an active BWP of the second cell, when the first BWP of the first cell is active.”)
Regarding claim 9, Zhou in view of Hosseini and Gao discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhou further discloses “receiving a control message indicating that the second cell is a scheduling cell for the first cell, wherein the first cell comprises a primary cell (PCell) or a primary secondary cell (PSCell) and the second cell comprises a secondary cell (SCell).” ([para 0274]: “The configuration parameters may comprise a scheduling cell information (e.g., schedulingCellinfo), the scheduling cell information comprising second set of parameters (e.g., schedulingcellid and/or cif-InSchedulingCell) indicating a cell (identified by the cif-InSchedulingCell) is cross-carrier scheduled by another cell identified by the schedulingcellid.” ; [para 0254]: “A base station (gNB) may configure a wireless device (UE) with uplink (UL) bandwidth parts (BWPs) and downlink (DL) BWPs to enable bandwidth adaptation (BA) on a PCell. If carrier aggregation is configured, the gNB may further configure the UE with at least DL BWP(s) (i.e., there may be no UL BWPs in the UL) to enable BA on an SCell. For the PCell, an initial active BWP may be a first BWP used for initial access. For the SCell, a first active BWP may be a second BWP configured for the UE to operate on the SCell upon the SCell being activated.”)
Claims 10-12 and 14-18 are substantially similar to claims 1-3 and 5-9 with the differences amounting to that claims 1-3 and 5-9 are from the perspective of the user equipment while claims 10-12 and 14-18 are from the perspective of a network device. Thus, claims 10-12 and 14-18 are rejected for substantially similar reasons to claims 1-3 and 5-9.
Claims 19-21 and 23-29 are substantially similar to claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-12 with the differences amounting to that claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-12 are directed towards methods while claims 19-21 and 23-29 are directed towards apparatuses containing generic hardware. Such hardware is taught by Zhou in paragraph 342. Thus, claims 19-21 and 23-29 are rejected for substantially similar reasons to claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412