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 .
Applicant’s RCE filed 1/5/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 1, 10, 19, 20, 21, and 29 are amended.
Claims 1-37 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims (pages 8-10) in a reply filed 4/10/2025 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are based on newly changed limitations in the amendment and new ground of rejections using newly introduced references or a newly introduced portion of an existing reference are applied in the current rejection.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/5/26 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-11, 14, 15, 18-22, 28-30, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. US 20220263618 (hereinafter “Harada”) in view of Wu et al. US 20220174624 (hereinafter “Wu”)
As to claim 1, 10, 19 and 20 (claim 10 is the method claim for the wireless communication device in claim 1, claim 19 and 20 are the apparatus and non-transitory processor-readable storage medium respectively for the wireless device in claim 1):
Harada discloses:
A wireless communication device, comprising: one or more transceivers; one or more memories; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more transceivers and the one or more memories, the ne or more processors configured to: (“FIG. is a diagram showing one example of a hardware configuration of each of the base station and user terminal according to one Embodiment. Each of the base station 10 and user terminal 20 as described above may be physically configured as a computer apparatus including a processor 1001, memory 1002, storage 1003, communication apparatus 1004, input apparatus 1005, output apparatus 1006, bus 1007 and the like.”, Harada [0229])
schedule (“The CORESET (PDCCH) associated with the above-mentioned SSB may be called Remaining Minimum System Information (RMSI)-CORESET, CORESET #0 and the like. The RMSI may be called SIB1. A PDSCH associated with the SSB may be a PDSCH (RMSI PDSCH) for carrying the RMSI, or may be a PDSCH scheduled using a PDCCH (DCI having Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) scrambled by System Information (SI)-Radio Network Temporary Identifier (RNTI)) within the RMSI-CORESET.”, Harada [0066]) a discovery reference signal (DRS) window including a plurality of synchronization signal block (SSB) repetitions per beam, a first coreset per beam, and a second coreset per beam, (FIG. 3A shows multiple SSBs and coresets transmitted in the same beam in the discovery reference signal window, Harada) (“In FIG. 3A, the SSB #i (i=0 to 7) and RMSI #i (PDCCH/PDSCH) may be transmitted using the same beam.”, Harada [0071]) (“In addition, in Embodiment 2, even in the case where the base station transmits the same beam repeatedly a plurality of times successively in an SSB burst, it is necessary to vary the effective SSB index of each SSB such as #0, #1, #2, . . . in the SSB burst. This is because it is not possible to identify frame timing when the same effective SSB index exists in the SSB burst. Accordingly, there is a possibility of using the same beam (i.e., resulting in QCL) even in SSBs of different effective SSB indexes. Therefore, the UE may be notified of information on the QCL relationship between different effective SSB indexes, using higher layer signaling (e.g., SIB, RRC signaling, etc.), physical layer signaling (e.g., DCI) or combination thereof. Based on the information, the UE may determine whether to be able to apply the same QCL assumption to different effective SSB indexes, whether to apply a different QCL assumption and the like. According to such a configuration, in the case where the base station repeatedly transmits the same beam, the UE side also grasps the case, and is capable of implementing averaging of measurement results of a plurality of SSBs based on the same beam in the SSB burst.”, Harada [0151-0152])
transmit the scheduled DRS window via the one or more transceivers. (FIG. 3A shows multiple SSBs and coresets transmitted in the same beam in the discovery reference signal window, Harada)
Harada as described above does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first coreset is located in at least a first symbol and the second coreset is located on five or more symbols immediately following the first coreset;
However, Wu further teaches scheduling second coreset at least 5 or more symbols after the first coreset which includes:
wherein the first coreset is located in at least a first symbol and the second coreset is located on five or more symbols immediately following the first coreset; (FIG. 9 shows that the second coreset is located at least 5 symbols away from the first coreset , Wu) (“FIG. 9 indicates an SSB candidate position in a DRS transmission window that may be used to transmit an SSB.”, Wu [0106]) (“For an SSB in the NR-U, a time domain resource position of a CORESET 0 of the SSB may be shown in any one of FIG. 4A to FIG. 4D. The SSB and a CORESET 0 corresponding to the SSB are adjacent to each other or separated by one symbol. In addition, a start symbol position of the CORESET 0 in the slot is fixed, and the number of consecutive symbols of the CORESET 0 is 1 or 2. For example, as shown in any one of FIG. 4A to FIG. 4C, each SSB and a CORESET 0 corresponding to the SSB occupy half a slot (slot). In other words, there are two CORESET 0s in one slot. As shown in FIG. 4A, two CORESET 0s are disposed in one slot and respectively correspond to different SSBs, and the two CORESET 0s each occupy two symbols. Symbols occupied by a first CORESET 0 are symbol #0 and symbol #1, and symbols occupied by a second CORESET 0 are symbol #7 and symbol #8. As shown in FIG. 4B, two CORESET 0s are disposed in one slot and respectively correspond to different SSBs, and the two CORESET 0s each occupy two symbols. Symbols occupied by a first CORESET 0 are symbol #0 and symbol #1, and symbols occupied by a second CORESET 0 are symbol #6 and symbol #7. As shown in FIG. 4C, two CORESET 0s are disposed in one slot and respectively correspond to different SSBs. Symbols occupied by a first CORESET 0 are symbol #0 and symbol #1. A symbol occupied by a second CORESET 0 is symbol #7. As shown in FIG. 4D, one CORESET 0 is disposed in one slot, that is, the number of CORESET 0s in one slot is 1. A symbol occupied by the CORESET 0 is symbol #1.”, Wu [0067])
Harada and Wu are analogous because they pertain to scheduling DRS window.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include scheduling second coreset at least 5 or more symbols after the first coreset as described in Wu into Harada. By modifying the method to include scheduling second coreset at least 5 or more symbols after the first coreset as taught by Wu, the benefits of improved DRS window scheduling (Harada [FIG. 3A] and Wu [0067]) are achieved.
As to claim 2 and 11 (claim 11 is the method claim for the wireless communication device in claim 2):
Harada discloses:
The wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of SSB repetitions comprise 2 SSBs, 3 SSBs or 4 SSBs. (FIG. 3A shows multiple SSBs and coresets transmitted in the same beam in the discovery reference signal window, Harada)
As to claim 5 and 14 (claim 14 is the method claim for the wireless communication device in claim 5):Harada discloses
The wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of SSB repetitions indicates the first coreset and the second coreset for a first type of user equipment. (FIG. 3A shows multiple SSBs and coresets transmitted in the same beam in the discovery reference signal window, Harada)
As to claim 6 and 15 (claim 15 is the method claim for the wireless communication device in claim 6):
Harada discloses:
The wireless communication device of claim 5, wherein one or more SSBs of the plurality of SSB repetitions indicates the first coreset for a second type of user equipment. (FIG. 3A shows multiple SSBs and coresets transmitted in the same beam in the discovery reference signal window, Harada)
As to claim 9 and 18 (claim 18 is the method claim for the wireless communication device in claim 9):
Harada discloses:
The wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein the scheduled DRS window is transmitted in an unlicensed channel. (“Further, NR-U of the present disclosure is not limited to LAA, and may include the case of using an unlicensed band in a Stand-Alone manner.”, Harada [0089])
As to claim 21 and 29 (claim 29 is the method claim for the wireless communication device in claim 21):
Harada discloses:
A wireless communication device, comprising: one or more transceivers; one or more memories; and one or more processors coupled to the ne or more transceivers and the one or more memories, the ne or more processors configured to: (“FIG. is a diagram showing one example of a hardware configuration of each of the base station and user terminal according to one Embodiment. Each of the base station 10 and user terminal 20 as described above may be physically configured as a computer apparatus including a processor 1001, memory 1002, storage 1003, communication apparatus 1004, input apparatus 1005, output apparatus 1006, bus 1007 and the like.”, Harada [0229]) receive, (“For example, the transmitting apparatus may be a base station (e.g., gNodeB (gNB)) on downlink (DL), and may be a user terminal (e.g., User Equipment (UE)) on uplink (UL). Further, for example, the receiving apparatus that receives the data from the transmitting apparatus may be a UE on DL, and may be a base station on UL.”, Harada [0032]) via the one or more transceivers, a wireless transmission including a DRS window with a plurality of synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) on each of a plurality of quasi co-located beams, a first coreset on each of the plurality of quasi co-located beams, and a second coreset on each of the plurality of quasi co-located beams; detect at least one SSB and at least the first coreset for a quasi co-located beam, (FIG. 3A shows multiple SSBs and coresets transmitted in the same beam in the discovery reference signal window, Harada) (“In FIG. 3A, the SSB #i (i=0 to 7) and RMSI #i (PDCCH/PDSCH) may be transmitted using the same beam.”, Harada [0071]) (“In addition, in Embodiment 2, even in the case where the base station transmits the same beam repeatedly a plurality of times successively in an SSB burst, it is necessary to vary the effective SSB index of each SSB such as #0, #1, #2, . . . in the SSB burst. This is because it is not possible to identify frame timing when the same effective SSB index exists in the SSB burst. Accordingly, there is a possibility of using the same beam (i.e., resulting in QCL) even in SSBs of different effective SSB indexes. Therefore, the UE may be notified of information on the QCL relationship between different effective SSB indexes, using higher layer signaling (e.g., SIB, RRC signaling, etc.), physical layer signaling (e.g., DCI) or combination thereof. Based on the information, the UE may determine whether to be able to apply the same QCL assumption to different effective SSB indexes, whether to apply a different QCL assumption and the like. According to such a configuration, in the case where the base station repeatedly transmits the same beam, the UE side also grasps the case, and is capable of implementing averaging of measurement results of a plurality of SSBs based on the same beam in the SSB burst.”, Harada [0151-0152])
and decode a PDCCH. (“In FIG. 3A, the DRS is transmitted over 4 slots (slots #0 to #3). Herein, in the slot #0 of FIG. 3A are indicated CORESET (PDCCH) associated with the SSB, and PDSCH (portion except the SSB and CORESET) associated with the SSB. Mapping may be the same as in the other slots. In FIG. 3A, the SSB #i (i=0 to 7) and RMSI #i (PDCCH/PDSCH) may be transmitted using the same beam.”, Harada [0071])
Harada as described above does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first coreset is located in at least a first symbol and the second coreset is located on five or more symbols immediately following the first coreset;
However, Wu further teaches scheduling second coreset at least 5 or more symbols after the first coreset which includes:
wherein the first coreset is located in at least a first symbol and the second coreset is located on five or more symbols immediately following the first coreset; (FIG. 9 shows that the second coreset is located at least 5 symbols away from the first coreset , Wu) (“FIG. 9 indicates an SSB candidate position in a DRS transmission window that may be used to transmit an SSB.”, Wu [0106]) (“For an SSB in the NR-U, a time domain resource position of a CORESET 0 of the SSB may be shown in any one of FIG. 4A to FIG. 4D. The SSB and a CORESET 0 corresponding to the SSB are adjacent to each other or separated by one symbol. In addition, a start symbol position of the CORESET 0 in the slot is fixed, and the number of consecutive symbols of the CORESET 0 is 1 or 2. For example, as shown in any one of FIG. 4A to FIG. 4C, each SSB and a CORESET 0 corresponding to the SSB occupy half a slot (slot). In other words, there are two CORESET 0s in one slot. As shown in FIG. 4A, two CORESET 0s are disposed in one slot and respectively correspond to different SSBs, and the two CORESET 0s each occupy two symbols. Symbols occupied by a first CORESET 0 are symbol #0 and symbol #1, and symbols occupied by a second CORESET 0 are symbol #7 and symbol #8. As shown in FIG. 4B, two CORESET 0s are disposed in one slot and respectively correspond to different SSBs, and the two CORESET 0s each occupy two symbols. Symbols occupied by a first CORESET 0 are symbol #0 and symbol #1, and symbols occupied by a second CORESET 0 are symbol #6 and symbol #7. As shown in FIG. 4C, two CORESET 0s are disposed in one slot and respectively correspond to different SSBs. Symbols occupied by a first CORESET 0 are symbol #0 and symbol #1. A symbol occupied by a second CORESET 0 is symbol #7. As shown in FIG. 4D, one CORESET 0 is disposed in one slot, that is, the number of CORESET 0s in one slot is 1. A symbol occupied by the CORESET 0 is symbol #1.”, Wu [0067])
Harada and Wu are analogous because they pertain to scheduling DRS window.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include scheduling second coreset at least 5 or more symbols after the first coreset as described in Wu into Harada. By modifying the method to include scheduling second coreset at least 5 or more symbols after the first coreset as taught by Wu, the benefits of improved DRS window scheduling (Harada [FIG. 3A] and Wu [0067]) are achieved.
As to claim 22 and 30 (claim 30 is the method claim for the wireless communication device in claim 22):
Harada discloses:
The wireless communication device of claim 21, wherein the plurality of SSBs comprise 2 SSBs, 3 SSBs or 4 SSBs. (FIG. 3A shows multiple SSBs and coresets transmitted in the same beam in the discovery reference signal window, Harada)
As to claim 28 and 37 (claim 37 is the method claim for the wireless communication device in claim 28) :
Harada discloses:
The wireless communication device of claim 21, wherein the wireless transmission including the DRS window is received over an unlicensed channel. (“Further, NR-U of the present disclosure is not limited to LAA, and may include the case of using an unlicensed band in a Stand-Alone manner.”, Harada [0089])
Claim(s) 3, 12, 23, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada in view of Wu, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Mozaffari et al. US 20230156719 (hereinafter “Mozaffari2”)
As to claim 3 and 12 (claim 12 is the method claim for the wireless communication device in claim 3):
The combination of Harada and Wu as described above does not explicitly teach:
The wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein the first coreset comprises a legacy coreset, and the second coreset comprises an extended coreset.
However, Mozaffari2 further teaches legacy and extended coreset which includes:
The wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein the first coreset comprises a legacy coreset (“Another problem here is how to coexist with the legacy NR CORESETs that are configured for legacy NR UEs on the same time/frequency resources. Therefore, the following solutions are proposed.”, Mozaffari2 [0073]), and the second coreset comprises an extended coreset. (“As discussed above, one way to support high ALs for reduced bandwidth UEs is to expand CORESETs in the time domain, as illustrated in FIG. 4. Specifically, the maximum duration of a CORESET is extended from 3 OFDM symbols to, for example, 4 OFDM symbols and/or OFDM 5 symbols.”, Mozaffari2 [0067])
Harada, Wu, and Mozaffari2 are analogous because they both pertain to physical layer channel design.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include legacy and extended coreset as described in Mozaffari2 into Harada as modified by Wu. By modifying the method to include legacy and extended coreset as taught by Mozaffari2, the benefits of improved physical layer design (Mozaffar2 [0067]) and improved DRS window scheduling (Harada [FIG. 3A] and Wu [0067]) are achieved.
As to claim 23 and 31 (claim 31 is the method claim for the wireless communication device in claim 23):
The combination of Harada and Wu as described above does not explicitly teach:
The wireless communication device of claim 21, wherein the first coreset comprises a legacy coreset, and the second coreset comprises an extended coreset.
However, Mozaffari2 further teaches legacy and extended coreset which includes:
The wireless communication device of claim 21, wherein the first coreset comprises a legacy coreset, (“Another problem here is how to coexist with the legacy NR CORESETs that are configured for legacy NR UEs on the same time/frequency resources. Therefore, the following solutions are proposed.”, Mozaffari2 [0073]) and the second coreset comprises an extended coreset. (“As discussed above, one way to support high ALs for reduced bandwidth UEs is to expand CORESETs in the time domain, as illustrated in FIG. 4. Specifically, the maximum duration of a CORESET is extended from 3 OFDM symbols to, for example, 4 OFDM symbols and/or OFDM 5 symbols.”, Mozaffari2 [0067])
Wu, Harada, and Mozaffari2 are analogous because they both pertain to physical layer channel design.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include legacy and extended coreset as described in Mozaffari2 into Harada as modified by Wu. By modifying the method to include legacy and extended coreset as taught by Mozaffari2, the benefits of improved physical layer design (Mozaffar2 [0067]) and improved DRS window scheduling (Harada [FIG. 3A] and Wu [0067]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 4, 13, 24, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada in view of Wu, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Zhang US 20220256604 (hereinafter “Zhang”)
As to claim 4 and 13 (claim 13 is the method claim for the wireless communication device in claim 4):
The combination of Harada and Wu as described above does not explicitly teach:
The wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein the DRS window comprises a duration greater than 5 milliseconds.
However, Zhang further teaches DRS window duration greater than 5ms which includes:
The wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein the DRS window comprises a duration greater than 5 milliseconds. (“For example, if an SCS is 30 kHz, a window length L of a DRS is 5 ms, and an indication value Q is 4, then a quantity of SSB candidate positions in a DRS window is calculated by 4*L, that is, the quantity of SSB candidate positions within the DRS window is 20, which is greater than the indication value Q. For another example, if an SCS is 15 kHz, a window length L of a DRS is 10 ms, and an indication value Q is 4, then a quantity of SSB candidate positions in a DRS window is calculated by 2*L, that is, the quantity of SSB candidate positions within the DRS window is 10, which is greater than the indication value Q.”, Zhang [0053])
Harada, Wu, and Zhang are analogous because they both pertain to physical layer channel design.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include DRS window duration greater than 5ms as described in Zhang into Harada as modified by Wu. By modifying the method to include DRS window duration greater than 5ms as taught by Zhang, the benefits of improved physical layer design (Zhang [0053]) and improved DRS window scheduling (Harada [FIG. 3A] and Wu [0067]) are achieved.
As to claim 24 and 32 (claim 32 is the method claim for the wireless communication device in claim 24):
The combination of Harada and Wu as described above does not explicitly teach:
The wireless communication device of claim 21, wherein the DRS window comprises a duration greater than 5 milliseconds.
However, Zhang further teaches DRS window duration greater than 5ms which includes:
The wireless communication device of claim 21, wherein the DRS window comprises a duration greater than 5 milliseconds. (“For example, if an SCS is 30 kHz, a window length L of a DRS is 5 ms, and an indication value Q is 4, then a quantity of SSB candidate positions in a DRS window is calculated by 4*L, that is, the quantity of SSB candidate positions within the DRS window is 20, which is greater than the indication value Q. For another example, if an SCS is 15 kHz, a window length L of a DRS is 10 ms, and an indication value Q is 4, then a quantity of SSB candidate positions in a DRS window is calculated by 2*L, that is, the quantity of SSB candidate positions within the DRS window is 10, which is greater than the indication value Q.”, Zhang [0053])
Wu, Harada, and Zhang are analogous because they both pertain to physical layer channel design.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include DRS window duration greater than 5ms as described in Zhang into Harada as modified by Wu. By modifying the method to include DRS window duration greater than 5ms as taught by Zhang, the benefits of improved physical layer design (Zhang [0053]) and improved DRS window scheduling (Harada [FIG. 3A] and Wu [0067]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 7, 16, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada in view of Wu, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Gao et al. US 20230156738 (hereinafter “Gao”)
As to claim 7 and 16 (claim 16 is the method claim for the wireless communication device in claim 7):
The combination of Harada and Wu as described above does not explicitly teach:
The wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein the first coreset includes a first group of CCEs, and wherein the second coreset includes one or more repetitions of the first group of CCEs in the first coreset.
However, Gao further teaches repetitions of CCEs in different coresets which includes:
The wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein the first coreset includes a first group of CCEs, and wherein the second coreset includes one or more repetitions of the first group of CCEs in the first coreset. (“the PDCCH may be repeated in CCEs with the same CCE indices in different CORESETs”, Gao [0131])
Wu, Harada, and Gao are analogous because they both pertain to physical layer channel design.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include repetitions of CCEs in different coresets as described in Gao into Harada as modified by Wu. By modifying the method to include repetitions of CCEs in different coresets as taught by Gao, the benefits of improved physical layer design (Gao [0131]) and improved DRS window scheduling (Harada [FIG. 3A] and Wu [0067]) are achieved.
As to claim 36:
The combination of Harada and Wu as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 29, wherein the first coreset includes a first group of CCEs, and wherein the second coreset includes one or more repetitions of the first group of CCEs in the first coreset.
However, Gao further teaches repetitions of CCEs in different coresets which includes:
The method of claim 29, wherein the first coreset includes a first group of CCEs, and wherein the second coreset includes one or more repetitions of the first group of CCEs in the first coreset. (“the PDCCH may be repeated in CCEs with the same CCE indices in different CORESETs”, Gao [0131])
Harada, Wu, and Gao are analogous because they both pertain to physical layer channel design.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include repetitions of CCEs in different coresets as described in Gao into Harada as modified by Wu. By modifying the method to include repetitions of CCEs in different coresets as taught by Gao, the benefits of improved physical layer design (Gao [0131]) and improved DRS window scheduling (Harada [FIG. 3A] and Wu [0067]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 8, 17, 25, 27, 33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada in view of Wu, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Zhang et al. US 20230141941 (hereinafter “Zhang2”)
As to claim 8 and 17 (claim 17 is the method claim for the wireless communication device in claim 8):
The combination of Harada and Wu as described above does not explicitly teach:
The wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein the first coreset includes a first group of CCEs, and wherein the second coreset includes a second group of CCEs continued from the first group of CCEs in the first coreset.
However, Zhang2 further teaches CCE numbering continuation which includes:
The wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein the first coreset includes a first group of CCEs, and wherein the second coreset includes a second group of CCEs continued from the first group of CCEs in the first coreset. (“then CCE numbering is continued in a wraparound way from REGB0; [0078] CCE“R*i+1” maps to REGB“X+i+K/2”, i=0,1,2, . . . , (K/2)−1, wherein if “X+i+K/2” is greater than “K−1”, then CCE numbering is continued in a wraparound way from REGB0”, Zhang2 [0074])
Harada, Wu, and Zhang2 are analogous because they both pertain to physical layer channel design.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include CCE numbering continuation as described in Zhang2 into Harada as modified by Wu. By modifying the method to include CCE numbering continuation as taught by Zhang2, the benefits of improved physical layer design (Zhang2 [0074]) and improved DRS window scheduling (Harada [FIG. 3A] and Wu [0067]) are achieved.
As to claim 25 and 33 (claim 33 is the method claim for the wireless communication device in claim 25):
The combination of Harada and Wu as described above does not explicitly teach:
The wireless communication device of claim 21, wherein the wireless communication device comprises a NR-Light configured device, and wherein the one or more processors further detects the second coreset.
However, Zhang2 further teaches CORESET proper to NR-Light protocol which includes:
The wireless communication device of claim 21, wherein the wireless communication device comprises a NR-Light configured device, and wherein the one or more processors further detects the second coreset. (“In some embodiments, a general configuration of control resource set (CORESET) may be used for UE 101 and BS 102 to determine another configuration of CORESET proper to NR-Light protocol. In detail, referring to FIG. 2A, BS 102 may broadcast master information block (MIB) 102A which may include a configuration of a first CORESET CT1. Then, UE 101 may receive the MIB 102A including the configuration of the first CORESET CT1 through detecting synchronization signal blocks (SSBs).”, Zhang2 [0029]) (“the apparatus includes: at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer executable instructions stored therein; at least one receiving circuitry; at least one transmitting circuitry; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium, the at least one receiving circuitry and the at least one transmitting circuitry, wherein the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium and the computer executable instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform a method according to an embodiment of the present disclosure.”, Zhang2 [0006])
Wu, Harada, and Zhang2 are analogous because they both pertain to physical layer channel design.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include CORESET proper to NR-Light protocol as described in Zhang2 into Harada as modified by Wu. By modifying the method to include CORESET proper to NR-Light protocol as taught by Zhang2, the benefits of improved physical layer design (Zhang2 [0074]) and improved DRS window scheduling (Harada [FIG. 3A] and Wu [0067]) are achieved.
As to claim 27 and 35 (claim 35 is the method claim for the wireless communication device in claim 27):
The combination of Harada and Wu as described above does not explicitly teach:
The wireless communication device of claim 21, wherein the first coreset includes a first group of CCEs, and wherein the second coreset includes a second group of CCEs continued from the first group of CCEs in the first coreset.
However, Zhang2 further teaches CCE numbering continuation which includes:
The wireless communication device of claim 21, wherein the first coreset includes a first group of CCEs, and wherein the second coreset includes a second group of CCEs continued from the first group of CCEs in the first coreset. (“then CCE numbering is continued in a wraparound way from REGB0; [0078] CCE“R*i+1” maps to REGB“X+i+K/2”, i=0,1,2, . . . , (K/2)−1, wherein if “X+i+K/2” is greater than “K−1”, then CCE numbering is continued in a wraparound way from REGB0”, Zhang2 [0074])
Wu, Harada, and Zhang2 are analogous because they both pertain to physical layer channel design.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include CCE numbering continuation as described in Zhang2 into Harada as modified by Wu. By modifying the method to include CCE numbering continuation as taught by Zhang2, the benefits of improved physical layer design (Zhang2 [0074]) and improved DRS window scheduling (Harada [FIG. 3A] and Wu [0067]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 26 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada in view of Wu, as applied to claim 21 above, further in view of Mozaffari et al. US 20230299924 (hereinafter “Mozaffari”)
As to claim 26 and 34 (claim 34 is the method claim for the wireless communication device in claim 26):
The combination of Harada and Wu as described above does not explicitly teach:
The wireless communication device of claim 21, wherein the wireless communication device comprises a legacy configured device.
However, Mozaffari further teaches legacy device which includes:
The wireless communication device of claim 21, wherein the wireless communication device comprises a legacy configured device. (“the additional CCEs added within the bandwidth configured for the reduced bandwidth UE can be the same as the interleaved ones that are outside the UE supported bandwidth (i.e., the legacy NR CCEs which cannot be received by the NR-RedCap UEs). In this way, the reduced bandwidth UE (e.g., a NR-RedCap UE) can receive PDCCH while sharing the CORESET #0 with legacy NR UEs that support interleaved CCE-REG mapping.”, Mozaffari [0065])
Wu, Harada, and Mozaffari are analogous because they both pertain to physical layer channel design.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include legacy device as described in Mozaffari into Harada as modified by Wu. By modifying the method to include legacy device as taught by Mozaffari, the benefits of improved physical layer design (Mozaffari [0065]) and improved DRS window scheduling (Harada [FIG. 3A] and Wu [0067]) are achieved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW C KIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM (PST).
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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/A.C.K./
Examiner
Art Unit 2471
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471