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 April 6th, 2026. Claims 1-3, 8-9, 11, 18, 37-39, 43-44, 46-48, 50 have been amended. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed April 6th, 2026, 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, 8-9, 11-12, 37, 43, 46-47, 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2020/0228966) in view of Seo et al. (US 2020/0351924).
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 control resource set zero (CORESET0) 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 CORESET0 (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]), and wherein a frequency band of the second CORESET is smaller than a frequency band of the CORESET0 (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 CORESET0.
However, Seo 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 CORESET0 (see Figure 5 and paragraphs 0067, 0108-0109 [subcarrier 0 of the lowest-numbered RB in the RMSI CORESET may refer to the starting point of the CORESET; The reference point for the WBRS CORESET may be set to PRB #0 (subcarrier 0 in common resource block 0)]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize the PRB#0 of the RMSI CORESET and the second CORESET could be on the same subcarrier 0. The motivation for this is a design choice since the chosen PRB#0 could be chosen for different locations.
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 CORESET0 (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 CORESET0 if a frequency band of the second CORESET is within a frequency band of the CORESET0 (see Figures 5-6 and paragraphs 0065, 0078 [CORESETs overlapping; the low tier CORESET #0 and a 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 CORESET0 (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) 2-4, 38-40, 44, 48-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2020/0228966) in view of Seo et al. (US 2020/0351924) as applied to claims 1, 37, 43 above, and further in view of Schober et al. (WO 2019/138150).
Regarding claims 2, 38, 44, the references as combined disclose all the recited subject matter in claims 1, 37, 43, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the initial PRB of the second CORESET is allocated as the initial PRB of a control channel element (CCE) of the CORESET0 and a frequency band of the second CORESET is within the frequency band of the CORESET0.
However, Schober et al. suggests wherein the initial PRB of the second CORESET is allocated as the initial PRB of a control channel element (CCE) of the CORESET0 and a frequency band of the second CORESET is within the frequency band of the CORESET0 (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 CCE of the CORESET0 includes an initial CCE (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]).
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 Seo et al. (US 2020/0351924) 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 CORESET0 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 CORESET0 and a first search space set corresponding to a first aggregation level (paragraph 0128 [CORESET0 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
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 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