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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 14, and 31-33 have been amended.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, and 29-36 are presently pending.
1. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
2. Amendment made to claims 1, 6, 11, and 31-33 filed on 07/22/2026 has been considered and accepted by the examiner. Therefore, the Claim Objections have been withdrawn.
3. Applicant traversed the Election/Restriction requirement in the reply filed on 07/22/2026. Claim 1 has been amended to overcome the Election/Restriction requirement applied to claims 29-30. The traversal is found persuasive and claims 29-30 are no longer withdrawn and will be entered as previously numbered. Therefore, the Election/Restriction requirement has been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, and 29-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEO et al. (US 20200336928, hereinafter, “SEO”) in view of Saber et al. (US 20220116981, hereinafter, “Saber”), and further in view of LEE et al. (US 20210045141, hereinafter, “LEE”).
Claim 1. SEO teaches: A User Equipment (UE) for wireless communications, comprising: - See Fig. 1, ¶ [0039], (user equipment (UE) 10)
a processor, the processor configured to - See Fig. 17, ¶ [0297], (processor) determine a first control resource set (CORESET) out of M CORESETs - See Fig. 15, ¶ [0283], (“the UE selects at least one CORESET from among the plurality of CORESETs”) and a first CORESET group, - See Fig. 15, ¶ [0283], (“the UE selects at least one CORESET from among the plurality of CORESETs”); ¶ [0209], (“each set may be composed of CORESETs overlapped partly or completely with each other in the time domain, and all of the CORESETs existing within one slot may comprise one set.”) wherein M is a positive integer greater than 1, - See Fig. 15, ¶ [0283], (“…at least one CORESET from among the plurality of CORESETs”)
wherein the first CORESET group comprises the first CORESET, - in ¶ [0290], (“if a different CORESET has the same QCL-TypeD properties as the specific CORESET, a PDCCH is monitored also in the different CORESET…if the specific CORESET is the first CORESET, the different CORESET may be the second CORESET.”); ¶ [0209], (“each set may be composed of CORESETs overlapped partly or completely with each other in the time domain, and all of the CORESETs existing within one slot may comprise one set.”) and wherein the first CORESET group comprises CORESETs that the UE monitors together based on matching QCL-TypeD properties; - in ¶ [0285], (“the UE may assume (for the purpose of determining a CORESET) that the first CORESET and the second CORESET have the same Quasi Co Location (QCL) properties (for example, QCL-TypeD properties)…¶ [0290] if a different CORESET has the same QCL-TypeD properties as the specific CORESET, a PDCCH is monitored also in the different CORESET.”) and the processor operatively connected to a transceiver, wherein the transceiver and processor are configured to - See Fig. 17, ¶ [0297], (“processor…connected to…the transceivers 1812”) monitor a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) - See Fig. 15, ¶ [0283 – 0234], (“if physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring occasions are overlapped in a plurality of control resource sets (CORESETs), the UE selects at least one CORESET…The UE monitors a PDCCH only in the at least one selected CORESET”) in the first CORESET group during a first time window, - in ¶ [0209], (“each set may be composed of CORESETs overlapped partly or completely with each other in the time domain, and all of the CORESETs existing within one slot may comprise one set.”)
wherein the first time window comprises M PDCCH monitoring occasions - in ¶ [0209], (“each set may be composed of CORESETs overlapped partly or completely with each other in the time domain, and all of the CORESETs existing within one slot may comprise one set.”); ¶ [0250], (“monitoring occasions within one slot…”) respectively associated with the M CORESETs, - in ¶ [0283], (“physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring occasions are overlapped in a plurality of control resource sets (CORESETs)…”)
wherein any two of the M CORESETs overlap in the time domain during the first time window, - in ¶ [0209], (“each set may be composed of CORESETs overlapped partly or completely with each other in the time domain, and all of the CORESETs existing within one slot may comprise one set.”); ¶ [0250], (“monitoring occasions within one slot…”) wherein each of the M CORESETs is associated with one or two- in ¶ [0170], (“monitoring of a plurality of CORESETs may be performed in the same slot…the CORESETs may be overlapped with each other in the time/frequency domain…for each CORESET, a different Quasi Co-Location (QCL) assumption may be applied (namely, TCI state for a PDCCH may be set differently for each CORESET).”)
SEO does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first CORESET is associated with a first TCI state and a second TCI state that are different TCI states, wherein a reference CORESET is one of the M CORESETs other than the first CORESET, wherein the reference CORESET is associated with a reference TCI state,
wherein one of the first TCI state and the second TCI state is a matching TCI state having the same QCL-TypeD properties as the reference TCI state,
However, Saber teaches:
wherein the first CORESET is associated with a first TCI state and a second TCI state that are different TCI states, - in ¶ [0100], (“In case of multiple TCI states, CORESET #1 may be configured with a TCI state pair with QCL-typeD pair (a.sub.1, b.sub.1)”…¶ [0102], (“a CORESET is associated with two different TCI states”); ¶ [0165], (“a Rel-17 candidate is defined as a candidate with two different TCI states.”)
wherein a reference CORESET is one of the M CORESETs other than the first CORESET, - in ¶ [0100], (“CORESET #2 may be configured with a TCI state pair with QCL-typeD pair (a.sub.2, b.sub.2).”); ¶ [0165], (“a Rel-15 candidate is defined as a candidate with a single TCI state, while a Rel-17 candidate is defined as a candidate with two different TCI states”) wherein the reference CORESET is associated with a reference TCI state, - in ¶ [0100], (“CORESET #2 may be configured with a TCI state pair with QCL-typeD pair (a.sub.2, b.sub.2).”); ¶ [0165], (“where a Rel-15 candidate is defined as a candidate with a single TCI state”)
wherein one of the first TCI state and the second TCI state is a matching TCI state - in ¶ [0165], (“one of TCI states may always be equal to the TCI state of rel-15 candidate. Otherwise, there can be total of 3 TCI states in the SS.”) having the same QCL-TypeD properties as the reference TCI state, - in ¶ [0165], (“one of TCI states may always be equal to the TCI state of rel-15 candidate. Otherwise, there can be total of 3 TCI states in the SS. When no TCI state has QCL-TypeD or when all TCI states have the same QCL-TypeD, all PDCCH candidates can be monitored simultaneously.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SEO with Saber to include first coreset has two different TCI states, one matching the reference CORESET’s QCL-typeD, as taught by Saber. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce unnecessary dropping of PDCCH candidates, as suggested by Saber, Such schemes may unnecessarily drop the whole SS or CORESET even though the UE is capable of receiving some PDCCH candidates within them. - ¶ [0113]
Combination of SEO and Saber does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first CORESET group further comprises the reference CORESET based on the matching TCI state having the same QCL-TypeD properties as the reference TCI state, and wherein the matching TCI state and the reference TCI state indicate the same reference signal or respective reference signals that are quasi co-located according to QCL-TypeD.
However, LEE teaches:
wherein the first CORESET group further comprises the reference CORESET based on the matching TCI state having the same QCL-TypeD properties as the reference TCI state, - in ¶ [0442], (“the wireless device may group one or more coresets, of the plurality of coresets, with the same TCI state in a coreset group…the grouping the one or more coresets with the same TCI state may comprise that the wireless device groups the one or more coresets, each with a respective TCI state indicating the same reference signal with the same quasi co-location type (e.g., QCL TypeD) in the coreset group.”) and
wherein the matching TCI state and the reference TCI state indicate the same reference signal or respective reference signals that are quasi co-located according to QCL-TypeD. - in ¶ [0442], (“the wireless device may group one or more coresets, of the plurality of coresets, with the same TCI state in a coreset group…the grouping the one or more coresets with the same TCI state may comprise that the wireless device groups the one or more coresets, each with a respective TCI state indicating the same reference signal with the same quasi co-location type (e.g., QCL TypeD) in the coreset group.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SEO and Saber with LEE to include the first CORESET group includes the reference CORESET based on the matching QCL-TypeD TCI states, as taught by LEE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve scheduling of CORESETs, as suggested by LEE, this method may solve the problem described in Method 2-1 that there are some difficulties in the CORESET scheduling from the perspective of the network. - ¶ [0223]
Claim 4. Combination of SEO, Saber, and LEE teaches The UE according to claim 1, - refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
SEO teaches:
wherein the processor and transceiver receives first information; - in ¶ [0102], (“UE may be configured for three or fewer CORESETs…a UE may receive the following information for each CORESET: [0103] 1) CORESET index…”) wherein the first information is used to determine the first CORESET. - in ¶ [0287], (“in selecting the at least one CORESET, if there exist multiple CORESETs including a CSS, then the UE may select a CORESET, from among the multiple CORESETs including the CSS, that has a lowest index.”)
Claim 6. SEO teaches: A base station for wireless communications, comprising: - See Fig. 17, (base station)
a processor operatively connected to a transceiver, the processor and transceiver configured to - See Fig. 17, ¶ [0297], (“processor…connected to…the transceivers 1812”) transmit a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) – See Fig. 22, ¶ [0332], (“FIG. 22 illustrates an example of a processor at the gNB side…¶ [0334] The resource allocation module 3010 may allocate a plurality of CORESETs to a UE. The information transmission module 3020 may transmit a PDCCH only to a specific CORESET among the plurality of CORESETs.” in a first control resource set (CORESET) group during a first time window, - See Fig. 15, ¶ [0283 – 0234], (“if physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring occasions are overlapped in a plurality of control resource sets (CORESETs), the UE selects at least one CORESET…”); ¶ [0209], (“each set may be composed of CORESETs overlapped partly or completely with each other in the time domain, and all of the CORESETs existing within one slot may comprise one set.”)
wherein the first CORESET group comprises CORESETs for monitoring together based on matching QCL-TypeD properties, - in ¶ [0285], (“the UE may assume (for the purpose of determining a CORESET) that the first CORESET and the second CORESET have the same Quasi Co Location (QCL) properties (for example, QCL-TypeD properties)…¶ [0290] if a different CORESET has the same QCL-TypeD properties as the specific CORESET, a PDCCH is monitored also in the different CORESET.”) wherein the first CORESET group comprises at least one CORESET in M CORESETs, - in ¶ [0290], (“if a different CORESET has the same QCL-TypeD properties as the specific CORESET, a PDCCH is monitored also in the different CORESET…if the specific CORESET is the first CORESET, the different CORESET may be the second CORESET.”); ¶ [0209], (“each set may be composed of CORESETs overlapped partly or completely with each other in the time domain, and all of the CORESETs existing within one slot may comprise one set.”) M being a positive integer greater than 1, - See Fig. 15, ¶ [0283], (“…at least one CORESET from among the plurality of CORESETs”)
wherein the first time window comprises M PDCCH monitoring occasions - in ¶ [0209], (“each set may be composed of CORESETs overlapped partly or completely with each other in the time domain, and all of the CORESETs existing within one slot may comprise one set.”); ¶ [0250], (“monitoring occasions within one slot…”) respectively associated with the M CORESETs, - in ¶ [0283], (“if physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring occasions are overlapped in a plurality of control resource sets (CORESETs)…”)
wherein any two of the M CORESETs in the time domain during the first time window, - in ¶ [0209], (“each set may be composed of CORESETs overlapped partly or completely with each other in the time domain, and all of the CORESETs existing within one slot may comprise one set.”); ¶ [0250], (“monitoring occasions within one slot…”) wherein each of the M CORESETs is connected to one or two transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states, - in ¶ [0170], (“monitoring of a plurality of CORESETs may be performed in the same slot…the CORESETs may be overlapped with each other in the time/frequency domain…for each CORESET, a different Quasi Co-Location (QCL) assumption may be applied (namely, TCI state for a PDCCH may be set differently for each CORESET).”)
SEO does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first CORESET is associated with a first TCI state and a second TCI state that are different TCI states, wherein a reference CORESET is one of the M CORESETs other than the first CORESET, wherein the reference CORESET is associated with a reference TCI state,
wherein one of the first TCI state and the second TCI state is a matching TCI state having the same QCL-TypeD properties as the reference TCI state,
However, Saber teaches:
wherein the first CORESET is associated with a first TCI state and a second TCI state that are different TCI states, - in ¶ [0100], (“In case of multiple TCI states, CORESET #1 may be configured with a TCI state pair with QCL-typeD pair (a.sub.1, b.sub.1) and CORESET #2 may be configured with a TCI state pair with QCL-typeD pair (a.sub.2, b.sub.2).”); ¶ [0165], (“a Rel-17 candidate is defined as a candidate with two different TCI states.”)
wherein a reference CORESET is one of the M CORESETs other than the first CORESET, - in ¶ [0100], (“CORESET #2 may be configured with a TCI state pair with QCL-typeD pair (a.sub.2, b.sub.2).”); ¶ [0165], (“a Rel-15 candidate is defined as a candidate with a single TCI state, while a Rel-17 candidate is defined as a candidate with two different TCI states”) wherein the reference CORESET is associated with a reference TCI state, - in ¶ [0100], (“CORESET #2 may be configured with a TCI state pair with QCL-typeD pair (a.sub.2, b.sub.2).”); ¶ [0165], (“where a Rel-15 candidate is defined as a candidate with a single TCI state”)
wherein one of the first TCI state and the second TCI state is a matching TCI state - in ¶ [0165], (“one of TCI states may always be equal to the TCI state of rel-15 candidate. Otherwise, there can be total of 3 TCI states in the SS.”) having the same QCL-TypeD properties as the reference TCI state, - in ¶ [0165], (“one of TCI states may always be equal to the TCI state of rel-15 candidate. Otherwise, there can be total of 3 TCI states in the SS. When no TCI state has QCL-TypeD or when all TCI states have the same QCL-TypeD, all PDCCH candidates can be monitored simultaneously.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SEO with Saber to include first coreset has two different TCI states, one matching the reference CORESET’s QCL-typeD, as taught by Saber. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce unnecessary dropping of monitor candidates, as suggested by Saber, Such schemes may unnecessarily drop the whole SS or CORESET even though the UE is capable of receiving some PDCCH candidates within them. - ¶ [0113]
Combination of SEO and Saber does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first CORESET group further comprises the reference CORESET based on the matching TCI state having the same QCL-TypeD properties as the reference TCI state, and
wherein the matching TCI state and the reference TCI state indicate the same reference signal or respective reference signals that are quasi co-located according to QCL-TypeD.
However, LEE teaches:
wherein the first CORESET group further comprises the reference CORESET based on the matching TCI state having the same QCL-TypeD properties as the reference TCI state, - in ¶ [0442], (“the wireless device may group one or more coresets, of the plurality of coresets, with the same TCI state in a coreset group…the grouping the one or more coresets with the same TCI state may comprise that the wireless device groups the one or more coresets, each with a respective TCI state indicating the same reference signal with the same quasi co-location type (e.g., QCL TypeD) in the coreset group.”) and
wherein the matching TCI state and the reference TCI state indicate the same reference signal or respective reference signals that are quasi co-located according to QCL-TypeD. - in ¶ [0442], (“the wireless device may group one or more coresets, of the plurality of coresets, with the same TCI state in a coreset group…the grouping the one or more coresets with the same TCI state may comprise that the wireless device groups the one or more coresets, each with a respective TCI state indicating the same reference signal with the same quasi co-location type (e.g., QCL TypeD) in the coreset group.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SEO and Saber with LEE to include the first CORESET group includes the reference CORESET based on the matching QCL-TypeD TCI states, as taught by LEE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve scheduling of CORESETs, as suggested by LEE, this method may solve the problem described in Method 2-1 that there are some difficulties in the CORESET scheduling from the perspective of the network. - ¶ [0223]
Claim 29. SEO teaches: A method for a User Equipment (UE), the method comprising: - See Fig. 1, ¶ [0039], (user equipment (UE) 10)
determining a resource set group from a plurality of CORESETs that are overlapped in a PDCCH monitoring occasion, - in ¶ [0209], (“each set may be composed of CORESETs overlapped partly or completely with each other in the time domain, and all of the CORESETs existing within one slot may comprise one set.”); ¶ [0175], (“PDCCH monitoring occasions overlap with each other in a plurality of CORESETs…”) wherein each of the plurality of CORESETs is associated with one or two TCI states, - in ¶ [0170], (“monitoring of a plurality of CORESETs may be performed in the same slot…the CORESETs may be overlapped with each other in the time/frequency domain…for each CORESET, a different Quasi Co-Location (QCL) assumption may be applied (namely, TCI state for a PDCCH may be set differently for each CORESET).”)
monitoring a PDCCH in the resource set group in the PDCCH monitoring occasion. - in ¶ [0189], (“if monitoring occasions of the search space (set) overlap in the time domain…the UE monitors the PDCCH in a CORESET…¶ [0190] a UE may select a CORESET…at a monitoring occasion”); ¶ [0209], (“each set may be composed of CORESETs overlapped partly or completely with each other in the time domain, and all of the CORESETs existing within one slot may comprise one set.”)
SEO does not explicitly teach:
wherein the resource set group comprises a first CORESET associated with a first TCI state and a second TCI state, and a reference CORESET of the plurality of CORESETs and associated with a reference TCI state, wherein the reference CORESET is different from the first CORESET,
wherein one of the first TCI state and the second TCI state is configured with a same property for a QCL-TypeD as the reference TCI state; and
However, Saber teaches:
wherein the resource set group comprises a first CORESET associated with a first TCI state and a second TCI state, - in ¶ [0100], (“In case of multiple TCI states, CORESET #1 may be configured with a TCI state pair with QCL-typeD pair (a.sub.1, b.sub.1) and CORESET #2 may be configured with a TCI state pair with QCL-typeD pair (a.sub.2, b.sub.2).”); ¶ [0165], (“a Rel-17 candidate is defined as a candidate with two different TCI states.”) and a reference CORESET of the plurality of CORESETs and associated with a reference TCI state, - in ¶ [0100], (“CORESET #1 may be configured with a TCI state pair…and CORESET #2 may be configured with a TCI state pair with QCL-typeD pair (a.sub.2, b.sub.2)”); ¶ [0165], (“where a Rel-15 candidate is defined as a candidate with a single TCI state”)
wherein the reference CORESET is different from the first CORESET, - in ¶ [0100], (“CORESET #1 may be configured with a TCI state pair…and CORESET #2 may be configured with a TCI state pair with QCL-typeD pair (a.sub.2, b.sub.2)”); ¶ [0165], (“a Rel-15 candidate is defined as a candidate with a single TCI state, while a Rel-17 candidate is defined as a candidate with two different TCI states”)
wherein one of the first TCI state and the second TCI state is configured with a same property for a QCL-TypeD as the reference TCI state; - in ¶ [0165], (“one of TCI states may always be equal to the TCI state of rel-15 candidate. Otherwise, there can be total of 3 TCI states in the SS. When no TCI state has QCL-TypeD or when all TCI states have the same QCL-TypeD, all PDCCH candidates can be monitored simultaneously.”) and
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SEO with Saber to include first coreset has two different TCI states, one matching the reference CORESET’s QCL-typeD, as taught by Saber. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce unnecessary dropping of monitor candidates, as suggested by Saber, Such schemes may unnecessarily drop the whole SS or CORESET even though the UE is capable of receiving some PDCCH candidates within them. - ¶ [0113]
Combination of SEO and Saber does not explicitly teach:
determining a resource set group from a plurality of CORESETs that are overlapped in a PDCCH monitoring occasion, wherein each of the plurality of CORESETs is associated with one or two TCI states,
wherein the resource set group comprises a first CORESET associated with a first TCI state and a second TCI state,
However, LEE teaches:
determining a resource set group from a plurality of CORESETs that are overlapped in a PDCCH monitoring occasion, wherein each of the plurality of CORESETs is associated with one or two TCI states, wherein the resource set group comprises a first CORESET associated with a first TCI state and a second TCI state, and a reference CORESET of the plurality of CORESETs and associated with a reference TCI state, - in ¶ [0442], (“the wireless device may group one or more coresets, of the plurality of coresets, with the same TCI state in a coreset group…the grouping the one or more coresets with the same TCI state may comprise that the wireless device groups the one or more coresets, each with a respective TCI state indicating the same reference signal with the same quasi co-location type (e.g., QCL TypeD) in the coreset group.”); ¶ [0098], (“A plurality of CORESETs for one UE may overlap with each other in the time/frequency domain”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SEO and Saber with LEE to specify determining a resource set group, as taught by LEE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve scheduling of CORESETs, as suggested by LEE, this method may solve the problem described in Method 2-1 that there are some difficulties in the CORESET scheduling from the perspective of the network. - ¶ [0223]
Claim 30. Combination of SEO, Saber, and LEE teaches The method of claim 29, - refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
SEO teaches:
wherein the plurality of CORESETs belong to a same BandWidth Part (BWP). – in ¶ [0187], (“the UE may monitor the PDCCH only in the CORESET on the active DL BWP of a cell with the lowest index among one or more cells corresponding to the CSS set with the lowest index (if there exists other CORESET having the same QCL properties (QCL-TypeD properties) with the CORESET among the plurality of CORESETs”)
Claim 31. Combination of SEO, Saber, and LEE teaches The UE of claim 1, - refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
SEO teaches:
wherein the first CORESET is from one bandwidth part. – in ¶ [0187], (“the UE may monitor the PDCCH only in the CORESET on the active DL BWP of a cell”)
Claim 32. Combination of SEO, Saber, and LEE teaches The base station of claim 6, - refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
SEO teaches:
wherein the first CORESET group is from one bandwidth part. – in ¶ [0187], (“the UE may monitor the PDCCH only in the CORESET on the active DL BWP of a cell with the lowest index…(if there exists other CORESET having the same QCL properties (QCL-TypeD properties) with the CORESET among the plurality of CORESETs”)
Claim 34. Combination of SEO, Saber, and LEE teaches The UE of claim 1, - refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
SEO teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to determine the first CORESET – in ¶ [0190], (“If none of CORESETs includes a CSS, then a UE may select a CORESET that includes an USS…”) as a CORESET corresponding to a highest-ranked search space set among (i) common search space (CSS) sets – in ¶ [0185], (“the search space set type such as CSS/USS may be considered as an element for determining priority. More specifically, CSS may have higher priority than USS.”) associated with the M CORESETs – in ¶ [0187], (“the UE monitors PDCCH candidates in overlapping PDCCH monitoring occasions in multiple CORESETs that have same or different QCL properties (for example, QCL-TypeD properties) on active DL BWP(s) of one or more cells, the UE may monitor the PDCCH only in the CORESET on the active DL BWP of a cell with the lowest index among one or more cells corresponding to the CSS set with the lowest index”) and (ii) UE-specific search space (USS) sets – in ¶ [0185], (“the search space set type such as CSS/USS may be considered as an element for determining priority. More specifically, CSS may have higher priority than USS.”) associated with the M CORESETs – in ¶ [0190], (“If none of CORESETs includes a CSS, then a UE may select a CORESET that includes an USS with the lowest index (or ID) at a monitoring occasion in an active DL BWP of a serving cell with the lowest serving cell index…the UE may monitor overlapping search spaces associated with the CORESETs”) and including at least one PDCCH candidate in the first time window, – in ¶ [0188], (“The lowest USS set index may be determined for all of the USS sets having at least one PDCCH candidate among overlapped PDCCH monitoring occasions…In this case, if monitoring occasions of the search space (set) overlap in the time domain”)
wherein the highest-ranked search space set is determined according to an ordered ranking that gives precedence, in sequence, to a CSS set over a USS set, – in ¶ [0185], (“the search space set type such as CSS/USS may be considered as an element for determining priority. More specifically, CSS may have higher priority than USS.”) a lower cell index, - in ¶ [0187], (“the UE may monitor the PDCCH only in the CORESET on the active DL BWP of a cell with the lowest index among one or more cells”) and a lower search space set index. - in ¶ [0187], (“the UE may monitor the PDCCH only in the CORESET on the active DL BWP of a cell with the lowest index among one or more cells corresponding to the CSS set with the lowest index”); ¶ [0190], (“If none of CORESETs includes a CSS, then a UE may select a CORESET that includes an USS with the lowest index (or ID)…”)
Claim 35. Combination of SEO, Saber, and LEE teaches base station of claim 6, - refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
SEO teaches:
wherein the first CORESET is associated with a common search space (CSS) set having a lowest search space set index - in ¶ [0187], (“the UE may monitor the PDCCH only in the CORESET on the active DL BWP of a cell with the lowest index among one or more cells corresponding to the CSS set with the lowest index (if there exists other CORESET having the same QCL properties (QCL-TypeD properties) with the CORESET among the plurality of CORESETs, the other CORESET is also included).”) in a cell having a lowest cell index among cells containing a CSS set, – in ¶ [0187], (“the CORESET on the active DL BWP of a cell with the lowest index”) when at least one CSS set is associated with one of the M CORESETs, and, - in ¶ [0187], (“the UE monitors PDCCH candidates in overlapping PDCCH monitoring occasions in multiple CORESETs that have same or different QCL properties (for example, QCL-TypeD properties) on active DL BWP(s) of one or more cells”) otherwise, the first CORESET is associated with a UE-specific search space (USS) set having a lowest search space set index among USS sets – in ¶ [0188], (“The lowest USS set index may be determined for all of the USS sets having at least one PDCCH candidate among overlapped PDCCH monitoring occasions”…¶ [0190], (“If none of CORESETs includes a CSS, then a UE may select a CORESET that includes an USS with the lowest index (or ID)”) that include at least one PDCCH candidate in the overlapping PDCCH monitoring occasions in a cell having a lowest cell index. – in ¶ [0188], (“The lowest USS set index may be determined for all of the USS sets having at least one PDCCH candidate among overlapped PDCCH monitoring occasions…In this case, if monitoring occasions of the search space (set) overlap in the time domain”)
Claims 9, 14 are rejected under the same rationale as Claim 4 since they recite nearly identical limitations.
Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1 since they recite nearly identical limitations.
Claim 33 is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 32 since they recite nearly identical limitations.
Claim 36 is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 34 since they recite nearly identical limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shima Wasel whose telephone number is (703)756-4725. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/SHIMA WASEL/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights