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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 11, 2026 has been entered.
Applicants’ amendments to the claims are acknowledged. Claims 1,3-4,6-9,11-16,19-21 and 23-25 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, in substance, that the combination of Frenne-Sayama does not disclose the features of configuring subcarrier spacing and OFDM symbols adhere to below or above a threshold. The office disagrees. As explained below, as claimed, this is inherently taught. Although Frenne-Sayana are not explicit on configuring a subcarrier spacing used by a downlink control channel of the UE, wherein the subcarrier spacing used by the downlink control channel is less than a first specified threshold; wherein a number of orthogonal frequency division multiplexing symbols occupied by a downlink control resource set is greater than a second specified threshold, and a bandwidth occupied by the downlink control resource set is greater than a third specified threshold, this is inherently taught in the system of Frenne-Sayana since the system of Frenne implements LTE communications and this is an inherent feature of the system. Frenne does disclose generally how LTE utilizes OFDM symbols to communicate, and that in the frequency domain, the physical resources are divided into adjacent subcarriers with a spacing of 15 kHz. The number of subcarriers varies according to the allocated system bandwidth. The smallest element of the time-frequency resource grid 50 is a resource element. A resource element consists of one OFDM subcarrier during one OFDM symbol interval (para 4). Attention is directed to 3GPP TS38.211 v15.7.0 (cited herein) as evidence that these features are inherent to the system of Frenne. 3GPP shows the overall physical layer structure of LTE and how transmissions are organized into frames consisting of ten subframes each consisting of with OFDM symbols (p. 10, sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2). 3GPP further shows how subcarrier spacing is configured in order to communicate (p. 11, section 4.2.2). Furthermore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation the claimed ‘thresholds’ do not provide meaningful limits to the number of symbols, or spacing, as the communication protocols clearly define thresholds of the protocol itself. As such since the protocol clearly shows an upper limit on communication frames and spacing this meets the limitation as claimed.
Applicant argues, in substance, that Sayana fails to teach a different aggregation level in the AL set less than the maximum AL in the AL set for the non-MTC UE. The Office disagrees. Applicant appears to be conflating the technology and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as written. The claim language merely requires the different aggregation level is less than a maximum aggregation level in the second set of aggregation levels. There is not specificity as to which set is required to be, only that one set is for a first-type UE, and a second set is for a second-type UE. As applicant attempts to explain that supported MTC UE aggregation level appears to be greater than the maximum AL in the AL set supported by the non-MTC-UE, the opposite must be true (i.e. the non-MTC-UE AL must be less than the AL supported by MTC UE). As such since the AL {8} is less than the AL {16} this clearly reads on the claim limitation as written. The claims merely require that the first set of aggregation levels {8} comprise an AL different than any aggregation level in the second set {16}, and the different aggregation level is less than a maximum aggregation level in the second set of aggregation levels {16}. Since 8<16, this meets the limitation and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14, and 19 objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite the limitation “are not the same or not completely the same” which is redundant and does not further limit the aggregation levels. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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, 4, 7-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRENNE et al (USPGPUB 2014/0071934) in view of SAYANA et. al. (USPGPUB 20130308572; cited by Applicant on November 11, 2022.)
Regarding claim 1 and 19, Frenne disclose method for configuring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) (see abstract, para: 0013, 0015-0018, 0020, 0034, decoding/configuration of PDCCH), comprising:
determining a subset of aggregation levels from a first set of aggregation levels (see abstract, para: 0138-0140, subset from set of aggregation levels); and
transmitting configuration information of the subset of aggregation levels to a user equipment (UE) (see para: 0053, communicate subset data associated with aggregation levels.).
In addition, Frenne further disclose a memory, a processor; and a computer program stored on the memory and capable of running on the processor (see figs. 0029, 0030; para: 0149-0151.)
Although Frenne is not clear on teaching wherein the first set of aggregation levels is a complete set of aggregation levels configured for a first-type UE, a second set of aggregation levels is a complete set aggregation levels configured for a second-type UE; and aggregation levels in the first set of aggregation levels are not the same or not completely the same as aggregation levels in the second set of aggregation levels, in analogous art, SAYANA disclose wherein the first set of aggregation levels is a complete set of aggregation levels configured for a first-type UE, (see para: 0185, 0186, non-MTC type mapped to {1, 2, 4, 8}, and a second set of aggregation levels (see para: 0185, 0186, MTC type mapped to higher aggregation levels mapped to {e.g. 1, 2, 4, 8…16} is a complete set aggregation levels configured for a second-type UE (see Fig. 4A, para: 0105-0186); and aggregation levels in the first set of
aggregation levels are not the same or not completely the same as aggregation levels in the second set of aggregation levels (see para: 0185, 0186.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the
time of the invention to implement wherein the first set of aggregation levels is a complete set of aggregation levels configured for a first-type UE, a second set of aggregation levels is a complete set aggregation levels configured for a second-type UE; and aggregation levels in the first set of aggregation levels are not the same or not completely the same as aggregation levels in the second set of aggregation levels as taught by SAYANA with the teachings of Frenne for the purpose of enhancing service coverage that the PDCCH can reach with respect to UE specific type devices.
Furthermore, although Frenne is not clear on teaching wherein a number of aggregation levels in the first set of aggregation levels is greater than a number of aggregation levels in the second set of number of aggregation levels and fixed aggregation level design or a second fixed aggregation level design, in analogous art, SAYANA further disclose wherein a number of aggregation levels in the first set of aggregation levels is greater (see para: 0185, current/first greater number aggregation levels of (1, 2, 4 & 8) than a number of aggregation levels in the second set of number of aggregation levels (see para: 0185, 0186, higher/second set of number of aggregation (e.g., 16)) and fixed aggregation level design (e.g. level 8) or a second fixed aggregation level design (e.g. (4, 8), such as higher/second set.).
Frenne-Sayana further discloses wherein the first set of aggregation levels comprises at least one aggregation level that is different from any aggregation level in the second set of aggregation levels, and the different aggregation level is less than a maximum aggregation level in the second set of aggregation levels (see Frenne 0029-0033, 0131; also see Sayana, paras 158; 185-187).
Although Frenne-Sayana are not explicit on configuring a subcarrier spacing used by a downlink control channel of the UE, wherein the subcarrier spacing used by the downlink control channel is less than a first specified threshold; wherein a number of orthogonal frequency division multiplexing symbols occupied by a downlink control resource set is greater than a second specified threshold, and a bandwidth occupied by the downlink control resource set is greater than a third specified threshold, this is inherently taught in the system of Frenne-Sayana since the system of Frenne implements LTE communications and this is an inherent feature of the system. Frenne does disclose generally how LTE utilizes OFDM symbols to communicate, and that in the frequency domain, the physical resources are divided into adjacent subcarriers with a spacing of 15 kHz. The number of subcarriers varies according to the allocated system bandwidth. The smallest element of the time-frequency resource grid 50 is a resource element. A resource element consists of one OFDM subcarrier during one OFDM symbol interval (para 4). Attention is directed to 3GPP TS38.211 v15.7.0 (cited herein) as evidence that these features are inherent to the system of Frenne. 3GPP shows the overall physical layer structure of LTE and how transmissions are organized into frames consisting of ten subframes each consisting of with OFDM symbols (p. 10, sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2). 3GPP further shows how subcarrier spacing is configured in order to communicate (p. 11, section 4.2.2). Furthermore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation the claimed ‘thresholds’ do not provide meaningful limits to the number of symbols, or spacing, as the communication protocols clearly define thresholds of the protocol itself. As such since the protocol clearly shows an upper limit on communication frames and spacing this meets the limitation as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Frenne is not clear on wherein the second set of aggregation levels is a subset of the first set of aggregation levels.
However, SAYANA further disclose wherein the second set of aggregation levels is a subset of the first set of aggregation levels (see para: 0185-0187, two sets of aggregation levels, whereby one aggregation config. is of {4, 8} and another aggregation config. is of {8}.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the
time of the invention to implement wherein the second set of aggregation levels is a subset of the first set of aggregation levels as taught by SAYANA with the teachings of Frenne for the purpose of enhancing service coverage that the PDCCH can reach with respect to UE specific type devices.
Regarding claim 4, Frenne further disclose wherein a maximum aggregation level in the first set of aggregation levels is greater than a maximum aggregation level in the second set of aggregation levels (see para: 0029-0032, 0131.)
Regarding claim 7, Frenne further disclose the method further comprising:
determining that the UE is the first-type UE (see para: 0015, first type UE-specific.)
Regarding claim 8, Frenne further disclose wherein the first set of aggregation levels is configured for a user-specific search space of the first-type UE (see para: 0015, 0019-0022, UE-specific search space configured for first type UE.)
Regarding claim 9, Frenne further disclose wherein the first set of aggregation levels comprises at least one aggregation level that is different from any aggregation level in the second set of aggregation levels (see para: 0140, first set AL different from second set AL);
wherein, the different aggregation level is configured for the user-specific search space of the first-type UE, and/or the different aggregation level is configured for a designated common search space used by the first-type UE (see para: 0015, 0019-0022, first-type UE utilize common search space.)
Regarding claim 11, Frenne further disclose wherein a capability of the first-type UE is different from a capability of the second-type UE;
and/or, the first-type UE and the second-type UE have different network requirements (see para: 0015-0018, 0029, 0079-0083.)
Regarding claim 12, although Frenne fail to teach wherein a maximum aggregation level in the first set of aggregation levels is a power of 2, where n is a positive integer greater than or equal to 5, in analogous art, SAYANA disclose wherein a maximum aggregation level in the first set of aggregation levels is a power of 2, where n is a positive integer greater than or equal to 5 (see abstract, table 8, fig. 5, para: 0016-0018.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the
time of the invention to implement wherein a maximum aggregation level in the first set of aggregation levels is a power of 2, where n is a positive integer greater than or equal to 5 with the teachings of Frenne for the purpose of enhancing service coverage that the PDCCH can reach with respect to UE specific type devices.
Regarding claim 13, Frenne fail to teach wherein aggregation levels in the first set of aggregation levels are selected from the following (see para: 0185, {1, 2, 4, 8, 16}), in analogous art, SAYANA disclose wherein aggregation levels in the first set of aggregation levels are selected from the following (see para: 0185, {1, 2, 4, 8, 16}.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the
time of the invention to implement wherein a maximum aggregation level in the first set of aggregation levels is a power of 2, where n is a positive integer greater than or equal to 5 with the teachings of Frenne for the purpose of enhancing service coverage that the PDCCH can reach with respect to UE specific type devices
Regarding claim 14, Frenne further disclose method for configuring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) (see para: , comprising:
receiving configuration information of a subset of aggregation levels from a base station (see abstract, para: 0013, 0015-0018, 0020, 0034, decoding/configuration of PDCCH);
wherein, the subset of aggregation levels is determined by the base station from a first set of aggregation levels (see para: 0015-0016, 0153);
the first set of aggregation levels is a complete set of aggregation levels configured for a first-type user equipment (UE) (see para: 0038, 0043, 0045); a second set of aggregation levels is a complete set of aggregation levels configured for a second-type UE (see para: 0038, 0043, 0045); and aggregation levels in the first set of aggregation levels are not the same or not completely the same as aggregation levels in the second set of aggregation levels (see para: 0015-0018, 0029, 0079-0083.).
Regarding claim 23, Frenne discloses the base station transmitting a value of a configuration information parameter to the UE via a signaling (para 16, PDCCH control messages are transmitted by eNB and received by mobile terminals)
Claim(s) 6, 15, 16 and 19-21, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRENNE et al (USPGPUB 2014/0071934) in view of SAYANA et. al. (USPGPUB 20130308572) as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of DOU (USPGPUB 20200076554.)
Regarding claim 6, Frenne and SAYANA fail to teach wherein the first set of aggregation levels comprises a first target aggregation level, and the first target aggregation level is determined based on a number of resources in a control resource set of the UE, in analogous art, DOU disclose wherein the first set of aggregation levels comprises a first target aggregation level (see fig. 2 & 4, Para: 0123, 0127, 0194, first DCI is target DCI and target DCI is a target aggregation level), and the first target aggregation level is determined based on a number of resources in a control resource set of the UE (see para: 0140-0142, 0145, target AL based on number of resources in a control resource set of a UE/terminal.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the
time of the invention to implement wherein the first set of aggregation levels comprises a first target aggregation level, and the first target aggregation level is determined based on a number of resources in a control resource set of the UE as taught by DOU with the combined teachings of Frenne and SAYANA for the purpose of enhancing service coverage that the PDCCH can reach with respect to UE devices.
Regarding claim 15, Frenne and SAYANA fail to disclose wherein the subset of aggregation levels comprises a first target aggregation level, and the first target aggregation level is determined by:
obtaining configuration information of a control resource set;
determining a first aggregation level supported by the UE based on the configuration information of the control resource set;
determining a second aggregation level; and
using a smaller one of the first aggregation level and the second aggregation level as the first target aggregation level, in analogous art, DUO disclose
subset of aggregation levels comprises a first target aggregation level, and the first target aggregation level is determined by (see para: 007)
obtaining configuration information of a control resource set (see para: 0130-0132);
determining a first aggregation level supported by the UE based on the configuration information of the control resource set (see para: 0018-00220;
determining a second aggregation level (see para: 070); and
using a smaller one of the first aggregation level and the second aggregation level as the first target aggregation level (see para: 0143-0146, 0150, using smaller aggregation level.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the
time of the invention to implement wherein the subset of aggregation levels comprises a first target aggregation level, and the first target aggregation level is determined by:
obtaining configuration information of a control resource set;
determining a first aggregation level supported by the UE based on the configuration information of the control resource set;
determining a second aggregation level; and
using a smaller one of the first aggregation level and the second aggregation level as the first target aggregation level as taught by DOU with the combined teachings of
Frenne and SAYANA for the purpose of enhancing service coverage that the PDCCH can reach with respect to UE devices.
Regarding claim 16, SAYANA further disclose wherein determining the second aggregation level comprises:
receiving indication information from the base station, and determining the second aggregation level according to the indication information (see para: 0012-0017, 0020-0023.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the
time of the invention to implement receiving indication information from the base station, and determining the second aggregation level according to the indication information as taught by DOU with the combined teachings of Frenne and SAYANA for the purpose of enhancing service coverage that the PDCCH can reach with respect to UE devices.
Regarding claim 20, Frenne further disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein a computer program is stored on the computer-readable storage medium, and when the computer program is executed by a processor, the method for configuring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) as claimed in claim 1 is performed (see para: 0016, 0018, 0021, 0025 & 0034, PDCCH decoding/configuration.)
Regarding claim 21, Frenne further disclose wherein the processor is further configured to execute the computer program to:
determine that the UE is the first-type UE (see para: 0015, first-type UE).
Regarding claim 24, Frenne-Sayana-Dou disclose the first target aggregation level is determined based on the formula: AL_extra=min (ALresource, ALmax), wherein the AL_extra is the first target aggregation level, the AL_resource is a maximum AL corresponding to a control resource set currently configured for the UE, and the AL_max is a maximum AL supported by both the base station and the UE (Doi, para 146-7, discloses DCI 1-N correspond to aggregation levels 1-N, and the serving network devices generates appropriate DCI based on the appropriate aggregation level. In other words, the the aggregation level is the AL currently configured for the UE, and since both the base station and UE inherently must be able to support the appropriate AL since the base station generates the DCI and the UE is able to download and utilize the information, it clearly reads on the formula and limitation as claimed).
Regarding claim 25, Frenne-Sayana-Dou inherently disclose the protocol stipulates that the aggregation level in the system needs to be an integer multiple of 2. In support of this Tayal (p. 5) shows the algorithm as to how LTE calculates CCE allocation for PDCCH where the set is defined as the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
234
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As such Frenne-Sayana-Doi inherently meets the limitations discussed in claim 25.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph E Avellino whose telephone number is (571)272-3905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:00pm.
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. 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.
JOSEPH E. AVELLINO
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights