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 .
DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
This action is responsive to the communication received November 25th, 2025. Claims 1-2, 9, 37-40, 43-44, 46 have been amended. Claims 47-50 have been newly added. Claims 5-7, 10, 13-17, 19-36, 41-42, 45 have been canceled. Claims 1-4, 8-9, 11-12, 18, 37-40, 43-44, 46-50 have been entered and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 27th, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed October 30th, 2025, have been fully considered, but deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection which has been necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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) 1-4, 8-9, 11-12, 37-40, 43-44, 46-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2020/0228966) in view of Schober et al. (WO 2019/138150).
Regarding claims 1, 37, 43, 46, Xu et al. discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (see Figure 3 [UE/BS]), comprising: at least one memory (see Figure 3 [Memory]); and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (see Figure 3 [Processor]) and configured to cause the UE to: receive a configuration of a first control resource set (CORESET) from a network equipment (NE) (paragraph 0060 [A special CORESET, known as CORESET #0 with ID=0, may be initially configured in the master information block (MIB)]); and determine a second CORESET based at least in part on the first CORESET (paragraph 0069-0070 [the configuration for the low tier CORESET #0 may be considered as an implicit configuration, because the configuration of the low tier CORESET #0 may be based on the configuration of the larger bandwidth CORESET #0]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein a frequency of an initial physical resource block (PRB) of the second CORESET is the same as a frequency of an initial PRB of the first CORESET, and wherein a frequency band of the second CORESET is smaller than a frequency band of the first CORESET.
However, Schober et al. suggests wherein a frequency of an initial physical resource block (PRB) of the second CORESET is the same as a frequency of an initial PRB of the first CORESET (see Figure 4 and page 10, lines 27-28; page 15, lines 22-23, page 16, line 26-page 17, line 3[The dedicated CORESET is aligned in the 6PRB grid. The RMSI CORESET can float anywhere in the PRB grid as a gNB may have limited flexibility to place the RMSI CORESET relative to the SS/PBCH block. dedicated CORESET and a RMSI CORESET on a NW carrier]), and wherein a frequency band of the second CORESET is smaller than a frequency band of the first CORESET (see Figure 4 [one CORESET frequency band is smaller than the other CORESET frequency band]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize the both CORESETs could start at the same PRB since Schober et al. discloses the RMSI CORESET can float anywhere in the PRB grid. The motivation for this is to start both CORESETs at the same PRB.
Regarding claims 2, 38, 44, the references as combined disclose all the recited subject matter in claims 1, 37, 43.
However, Schober et al. further suggests wherein the initial PRB of the second CORESET is allocated as the initial PRB of a control channel element CCE of the first CORESET and a frequency band of the second CORESET is within the frequency band of the first CORESET (see Figure 4 [6PRB grid is one CCE]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize the both CORESETs could start at the same PRB since Schober et al. discloses the RMSI CORESET can float anywhere in the PRB grid. The motivation for this is to start both CORESETs at the same PRB.
Regarding claims 3, 39, 48, Xu et al. further discloses wherein the first CORESET includes a CORESET zero (CORESET0) (paragraph 0060 [A special CORESET, known as CORESET #0 with ID=0, may be initially configured in the master information block (MIB)]) and the CCE of the first CORESET includes an initial CCE of the CORESET0 (see Figures 5-6 and paragraphs 0065, 0068 [the low tier and larger bandwidth CORESET #0 may also share the same 6 PRB grid; 6 RBs for 1 symbol may be equal to 1 CCE]).
Regarding claims 4, 40, 49, Xu et al. further discloses wherein an initial CCE of the second CORESET is mapped to an initial resource element group bundle (REGB) of the second CORESET (paragraph 0079 [CCE-to-REG]).
Regarding claim 8, 47, 50, Xu et al. further discloses wherein the initial PRB of the second CORESET is allocated as the initial PRB of a resource element group bundle (REGB) of the first CORESET (see Figures 5-6 and paragraphs 0065, 0078 [CORESETs overlapping; the low tier CORESET #0 and an larger bandwidth CORESET #0 may be centered at the same or roughly the same center frequency. In addition, the low tier and larger bandwidth CORESET #0 may also share the same 6 PRB grid]).
Regarding claim 9, Xu et al. further discloses wherein the initial PRB of the second CORESET is allocated as the initial PRB of the REGB of the first CORESET [[when]] if a frequency band of the second CORESET is within a frequency band of the first CORESET (see Figures 5-6 and paragraphs 0065, 0078 [CORESETs overlapping; the low tier CORESET #0 and an larger bandwidth CORESET #0 may be centered at the same or roughly the same center frequency. In addition, the low tier and larger bandwidth CORESET #0 may also share the same 6 PRB grid]).
Regarding claim 11, Xu et al. further discloses wherein the second CORESET starts from the first OFDM symbol of the first CORESET (paragraph 0069 [the low tier CORESET #0 506 and the larger bandwidth CORESET #0 504 may occupy the same set of symbols]).
Regarding claim 12, Xu et al. further discloses wherein the second CORESET includes at least one resource unit defined in time domain (paragraph 0078 [The second initial CORESET may be nested within at least one of frequency resources or time resources of the first initial CORESET]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2020/0228966) in view of Schober et al. (WO 2019/138150) as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of Frenne et al. (US 2022/0038207).
Regarding claim 18, the references as combined above disclose all the recited subject matter in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein: receiving the configuration further comprises receiving the configuration of the first CORESET and a first search space set corresponding to a first aggregation level; and wherein the method further comprises determining a second aggregation level for a second search space of the second CORESET, wherein the second aggregation level is equal to or higher than the first aggregation level.
However, Frenne et al. discloses receiving the configuration further comprises receiving the configuration of the first CORESET and a first search space set corresponding to a first aggregation level (paragraph 0128 [first CORESET first aggregation level]); and wherein the method further comprises determining a second aggregation level for a second search space of the second CORESET (paragraph 0128 [second CORESET second aggregation level]) wherein the second aggregation level is equal to or higher than the first aggregation level (different aggregation levels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize the CORESETs can have different aggregation levels. The motivation for this is a design choice for different UE types.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE whose telephone number is (571)270-3937. The examiner can normally be reached 4pm-11:30pm.
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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571)270-0422. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights