DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Amendments filed on 8/25/2025.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-19 and 26 were pending for examination in previous Office Action mailed 6/3/2025.
Claims 1, 12, and 26 have been amended and Claim 11 Cancelled.
Claims 1-10, 12-19, and 26 remain pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s remarks pg. 7-9, filed 8/25/2025, with respect to Claims 1, 12, and 26 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that in substance the prior art of record does not disclose “receiving, by the UE, the configuration information for the second RMSI, and performing, by the UE, initial access based on the configuration information for the second RMSI,” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the UE performs initial access based on the configuration information for the second RMSI regardless of UE type) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Here, Kim et al. (US 2023/0164781 A1; hereinafter Kim) was relied upon to disclose previously presented dependent claim 11 which has been incorporated in part into independent Claims 1, 12, and 26. As provided in the previous office action, Kim discloses two different types of system information blocks, SIB1 and SIB1-R, where SIB1-R refers to additional SIB1 for reduced capability (RedCap) NR devices, that SIB1 is equivalent to remaining minimum system information (RMSI), and SIB1 is used to broadcast information necessary for cell access of NR UEs (¶64-66 and ¶ 71). Kim further discloses transmitting additional cell access information (SIB1-R) for the RedCap UE in the same transport block for non-RedCap UE as well as having them separated (¶173-174; ¶178-180; Fig. 9-15).
Further, RedCap NR terminals are also presented in the instant application Mu et al. (US 2023/0276439 A1; hereinafter Mu) in ¶3. Mu further clarifies:
[0057] In embodiments of the present disclosure, the configuration information mainly includes the configuration information for RMSI configured for the first type of UE, and the configuration information for RMSI configured for the second type of UE. That is, configuration information for different RMSIs is set for a Redcap UE and a normal NR UE, respectively, so that the Redcap UE and the normal NR UE monitor the different RMSIs to perform initial access.
Therefore, the prior art of record still discloses the claimed invention of the independent claims, and the prior art rejection is maintained below and altered as required by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12-13, 15-16, 18-19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2023/0164781 A1; hereinafter Kim).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses:
A method for configuring remaining minimum system information (RMSI), comprising:
receiving, by a user equipment (UE), first configuration information, wherein the first configuration information comprises configuration information for first RMSI and configuration information for second RMSI; wherein the configuration information for the first RMSI is configuration information for RMSI for a first type of UE, and the configuration information for the second RMSI is configuration information for RMSI for a second type of UE; and [Kim discloses receiving a system information block 1 (SIB1)-scheduling information for a first control resource set (CORESET) on the basis of a physical broadcast channel (PBCH) signal and receives an SIB1 through a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) wherein the terminal is a second type with reduced capability (RedCap) than that of a first type and the SIB1 may include a second type SIB1 different from a first type SIB1 (¶ 6-10; Abstract). Kim also discloses that SIB1 for new radio (NR) devices is remaining minimum system information (RMSI) (¶65; ¶97), and that SIB1-R refers to additional SIB1 for RedCap NR devices and may be generated as a transport block (TB) different from that of SIB1 and transmitted on a different PDSCH (¶ 71; ¶97; ¶168-174; ¶ 178-180; ¶241; Fig. 9-15).]
receiving, by the UE, the configuration information for the second RMSI, and performing, by the UE, initial access based on the configuration information for the second RMSI. [Kim discloses a terminal performing initial cell access by a UE including receiving a PBCH signal in a synchronization signal block (SSB), SIB1 scheduling information in a first CORESET based on the PBCH signal, and receiving an SIB1 through a PDSCH as well as SIB1-R refers to additional SIB1 for RedCap NR devices and may be transported in the same transport block (TB) as SIB1 or generated as a transport block (TB) different from that of SIB1 and transmitted on a different PDSCH (abstract; ¶5-8; ¶ 15; ¶ 71; ¶ 97; ¶168-174; ¶ 178-180; ¶241; Fig. 9-15)]
Regarding Claim 2, Kim discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a processing capability of the first type of UE is different from a processing capability of the second type of UE, or a coverage capability of the first type of UE is different from a coverage capability of the second type of UE. [Kim discloses reduced capacity (RedCap) requirements which includes complexity reduction related to a reduced number of UE RX/TX antennas, UE bandwidth (BW) reduction, half-duplex FDD, relaxed UE processing time, and/or relaxed UE processing capability, power saving, and coverage enhancement (¶144-145; ¶149). Kim also discloses that SIB1 for new radio (NR) devices is remaining minimum system information (RMSI) (¶65; ¶97), and that SIB1-R refers to additional SIB1 for RedCap NR devices and may be generated as a transport block (TB) different from that of SIB1 and transmitted on a different PDSCH (¶ 71)]
Regarding Claim 4, Kim discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a PDCCH for scheduling the second RMSI uses a repeated transmission mechanism, and a PDCCH for scheduling the first RMSI does not use a repeated transmission mechanism; [Kim discloses that when PDCCH repetition is required for coverage recovery/enhancement of the RedCap UE, the network may transmit have a plurality of candidate scheduling parameter sets predefined for SIB1-R transmissions different from a non-redcap UE (¶ 237)]
or a number of repeated transmissions in a PDCCH for scheduling the first RMSI is less than a number of repeated transmissions in a PDCCH for scheduling the second RMSI.
Regarding Claim 5, Kim discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a transport block size (TBS) of a PDCCH for scheduling the second RMSI is smaller than a TBS of a PDCCH for scheduling the first RMSI, or a modulation order of a PDCCH for scheduling the second RMSI is lower than a modulation order of a PDCCH for scheduling the first RMSI; [Kim discloses that the SIB1-scheduling information received by the first type of UE and the second type of UE may be of different size (¶ 10; ¶136-137; ¶187-190; ¶248; Table 5). Kim also discloses that the RedCap UE may need to report information on its device type to support UE operations different from those of the NR UE including RedCap device types classified based on a combination of capability parameters which may be used for determining RedCap requirements such as a modulation order (¶ 155-160)]
or a time interval between a PDCCH and a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) for scheduling the first RMSI is shorter than a time interval between a PDCCH and a PDSCH for scheduling the second RMSI. [Kim discloses a guard period which provides a time gap between a PDCCH and a PDSCH for transmission mode to reception mode switching or reception mode to transmission mode switching at a BS and a UE (¶124; Fig. 5)]
Regarding Claim 7, Kim discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a control resource set (CORESET) carrying a PDCCH for scheduling the first RMSI is different from a CORESET carrying a PDCCH for scheduling the second RMSI. [Kim discloses CORESET#0-R which is for RedCap devices (¶72) separate from CORESET#0 for non-RedCap devices (¶168-170; ¶193-195; Fig.9; Fig.15)]
Regarding Claim 8, Kim discloses:
The method according to claim 7, wherein an aggregation degree of the PDCCH for scheduling the second RMSI is different from an aggregation degree of the PDCCH for scheduling the first RMSI; or [Kim discloses that a PDCCH may be for system information such as a system information block (SIB) and that each PDCCH candidate is defined as 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16 control channel elements (CCEs) according to its aggregation level (AL) and the PDCCH is transmitted in a control resource set (CORESET) (¶125-128).
in the CORESET, candidate transmission resources determined for the PDCCH for scheduling the second RMSI are different from candidate transmission resources determined for the PDCCH for scheduling the first RMSI; or [Kim discloses a method of configuring separate CORESET for the RedCap UE when an NR CORESET is incapable of being configured within the RedCap bandwidth (BW) when the BW is set less than or equal to the RedCap BW due to a problem of UE capacity or a problem that the CCE AL of a control channel is not sufficiently secured (¶194-195; ¶225-228)]
a length of downlink control information (DCI) for scheduling the second RMSI is different from a length of DCI for scheduling the first RMSI; or [Kim discloses that the SIB1-scheduling information received by the first type of UE and the second type of UE may be of different size and DCI size/format may vary (¶ 10; ¶136-137; ¶187-190; ¶248; Table 5).]
a scrambling code of DCI for scheduling the second RMSI is different from a scrambling code of DCI for scheduling the first RMSI. [Kim discloses that PDCCH candidates include a DCI format with a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled by a system information radio-network temporary identifier (SI-RNTI) and that to distinguish from an SI-RNTI, for SI reception, a separate RNTI may be defined/allocated for SI reception of the RedCap UE (¶ 66; ¶ 189)]
Regarding Claim 9, Kim discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a CORESET carrying a PDCCH for scheduling the first RMSI is different from a CORESET carrying a PDCCH for scheduling the second RMSI. [Kim discloses CORESET#0-R which is for RedCap devices (¶72) separate from CORESET#0 for non-RedCap devices (¶168-170; ¶193-195; Fig.9; Fig.15)]
Regarding Claim 10, Kim discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein information carried in a PDSCH for scheduling the first RMSI is at least partially different from information carried in a PDSCH for scheduling the second RMSI. [Kim discloses that SIB1 is transmitted over PDSCH and a PDCCH is used for SIB1 scheduling and that there can be SIB1-R which is an additional SIB1 for reduced capability devices that may or may not be scheduled in a different PDSCH (¶71; ¶97; ¶174; Fig. 10)]
Regarding Claim 12, Kim discloses:
A method for configuring remaining minimum system information (RMSI), comprising:
sending first configuration information from a network device to a user equipment (UE), wherein the first configuration information comprises configuration information for first RMSI and configuration information for second RMSI; wherein the configuration information for the first RMSI is configuration information for RMSI for a first type of UE, and the configuration information for the second RMSI is configuration information for RMSI for a second type of UE; and [Kim discloses receiving a system information block 1 (SIB1)-scheduling information for a first control resource set (CORESET) on the basis of a physical broadcast channel (PBCH) signal and receives an SIB1 through a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) wherein the terminal is a second type with reduced capability (RedCap) than that of a first type and the SIB1 may include a second type SIB1 different from a first type SIB1 (¶ 6-10; Abstract). Kim also discloses that SIB1 for new radio (NR) devices is remaining minimum system information (RMSI) (¶65; ¶97), and that SIB1-R refers to additional SIB1 for RedCap NR devices and may be generated as a transport block (TB) different from that of SIB1 and transmitted on a different PDSCH (¶ 71; ¶168-174; ¶ 178-180; ¶241; Fig. 9-15).]
receiving, by the UE, the configuration information for the second RMSI, and performing, by the UE, initial access based on the configuration information for the second RMSI. [Kim discloses a terminal performing initial cell access by a UE including receiving a PBCH signal in a synchronization signal block (SSB), SIB1 scheduling information in a first CORESET based on the PBCH signal, and receiving an SIB1 through a PDSCH as well as SIB1-R refers to additional SIB1 for RedCap NR devices and may be transported in the same transport block (TB) as SIB1 or generated as a transport block (TB) different from that of SIB1 and transmitted on a different PDSCH (abstract; ¶5-8; ¶ 15; ¶ 71; ¶ 97; ¶168-174; ¶ 178-180; ¶241; Fig. 9-15)]
Regarding Claim 13, Kim discloses:
The method according to claim 12, wherein a processing capability of the first type of UE is different from a processing capability of the second type of UE, and/or a coverage capability of the first type of UE is different from a coverage capability of the second type of UE. [Kim discloses reduced capacity (RedCap) requirements which includes complexity reduction related to a reduced number of UE RX/TX antennas, UE bandwidth (BW) reduction, half-duplex FDD, relaxed UE processing time, and/or relaxed UE processing capability, power saving, and coverage enhancement (¶144-145; ¶ 149). Kim also discloses that SIB1 for new radio (NR) devices is remaining minimum system information (RMSI) (¶65; ¶97), and that SIB1-R refers to additional SIB1 for RedCap NR devices and may be generated as a transport block (TB) different from that of SIB1 and transmitted on a different PDSCH (¶ 71)]
Regarding Claim 15, Kim discloses:
The method according to claim 12, wherein a PDCCH for scheduling the second RMSI uses a repeated transmission mechanism, and a PDCCH for scheduling the first RMSI does not use a repeated transmission mechanism; [Kim discloses that when PDCCH repetition is required for coverage recovery/enhancement of the RedCap UE, the network may transmit have a plurality of candidate scheduling parameter sets predefined for SIB1-R transmissions different from a non-redcap UE (¶ 237)]
or a number of repeated transmissions in a PDCCH for scheduling the first RMSI is less than a number of repeated transmissions in a PDCCH for scheduling the second RMSI.
Regarding Claim 16, Kim discloses:
The method according to claim 12, wherein a transport block size(TBS) of a PDCCH for scheduling the second RMSI is smaller than a TBS of a PDCCH for scheduling the first RMSI, or a modulation order of a PDCCH for scheduling the second RMSI is lower than a modulation order of a PDCCH for scheduling the first RMSI; or [Kim discloses that the SIB1-scheduling information received by the first type of UE and the second type of UE may be of different size (¶ 10; ¶136-137; ¶187-190; ¶248; Table 5). Kim also discloses that the RedCap UE may need to report information on its device type to support UE operations different from those of the NR UE including RedCap device types classified based on a combination of capability parameters which may be used for determining RedCap requirements such as a modulation order (¶ 155-160)]
a time interval between a PDCCH and a PDSCH for scheduling the first RMSI is shorter than a time interval between a PDCCH and a PDSCH for scheduling the second RMSI. [Kim discloses a guard period which provides a time gap between a PDCCH and a PDSCH for transmission mode to reception mode switching or reception mode to transmission mode switching at a BS and a UE (¶124; Fig. 5)]
Regarding Claim 18, Kim discloses:
The method according to claim 12, wherein a control resource set (CORESET) carrying a PDCCH for scheduling the first RMSI is the same as a CORESET carrying a PDCCH for scheduling the second RMSI. [Kim discloses CORESET#0 which may be used for RedCap and non-RedCap devices (¶174; Fig.10)]
Regarding Claim 19, Kim discloses:
The method of claim 18, wherein an aggregation degree of the PDCCH for scheduling the second RMSI is different from an aggregation degree of the PDCCH for scheduling the first RMSI; [Kim discloses that a PDCCH may be for system information such as a system information block (SIB) and that each PDCCH candidate is defined as 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16 control channel elements (CCEs) according to its aggregation level (AL) and the PDCCH is transmitted in a control resource set (CORESET) (¶125-128).]
or in the CORESET, candidate transmission resources determined for the PDCCH for scheduling the second RMSI are different from candidate transmission resources determined for the PDCCH for scheduling the first RMSI; [Kim discloses a method of configuring separate CORESET for the RedCap UE when an NR CORESET is incapable of being configured within the RedCap bandwidth (BW) when the BW is set less than or equal to the RedCap BW due to a problem of UE capacity or a problem that the CCE AL of a control channel is not sufficiently secured (¶194-195; ¶225-228)]
or a length of downlink control information (DCI) for scheduling the second RMSI is different from a length of DCI for scheduling the first RMSI; [Kim discloses that the SIB1-scheduling information received by the first type of UE and the second type of UE may be of different size and DCI size/format may vary (¶ 10; ¶136-137; ¶187-190; ¶248; Table 5).]
or a scrambling code of DCI for scheduling the second RMSI is different from a scrambling code of DCI for scheduling the first RMSI. [Kim discloses that PDCCH candidates include a DCI format with a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled by a system information radio-network temporary identifier (SI-RNTI) and that to distinguish from an SI-RNTI, for SI reception, a separate RNTI may be defined/allocated for SI reception of the RedCap UE (¶ 66; ¶ 189)]
Regarding Claim 26, Kim discloses:
A user equipment (UE), comprising:
a processor; [Kim discloses a processor (¶257-260; ¶14-15; Fig. 17)]
a transceiver; [Kim discloses a transceiver (¶257-260; ¶14-15; Fig. 17)]
a memory; and [Kim discloses memory (¶257-260; ¶ 14-15; Fig. 17)]
an executable program stored in the memory and capable of being run by the processor; wherein the processor is configured to: [Kim discloses a processor-executable program in memory (¶257-260; ¶14-15; Fig. 17)]
receive, by the UE, first configuration information, wherein the first configuration information comprises configuration information for first remaining minimum system information (RMSI) and configuration information for second RMSI; wherein the configuration information for the first RMSI is configuration information for RMSI for a first type of UE, and the configuration information for the second RMSI is configuration information for RMSI for a second type of UE; and [Kim discloses receiving a system information block 1 (SIB1)-scheduling information for a first control resource set (CORESET) on the basis of a physical broadcast channel (PBCH) signal and receives an SIB1 through a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) wherein the terminal is a second type with reduced capability (RedCap) than that of a first type and the SIB1 may include a second type SIB1 different from a first type SIB1 (¶ 6-10; Abstract). Kim also discloses that SIB1 for new radio (NR) devices is remaining minimum system information (RMSI) (¶65; ¶97), and that SIB1-R refers to additional SIB1 for RedCap NR devices and may be generated as a transport block (TB) different from that of SIB1 and transmitted on a different PDSCH (¶ 71).]
receive, by the UE, the configuration information for the second RMSI, and perform, by the UE, initial access based on the configuration information for the second RMSI. [Kim discloses a terminal performing initial cell access by a UE including receiving a PBCH signal in a synchronization signal block (SSB), SIB1 scheduling information in a first CORESET based on the PBCH signal, and receiving an SIB1 through a PDSCH as well as SIB1-R refers to additional SIB1 for RedCap NR devices and may be transported in the same transport block (TB) as SIB1 or generated as a transport block (TB) different from that of SIB1 and transmitted on a different PDSCH (abstract; ¶5-8; ¶ 15; ¶ 71; ¶ 97; ¶168-174; ¶ 178-180; ¶241; Fig. 9-15)]
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 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0164781 A1; hereinafter Kim) and further in view of Babaei et al. (US 2022/0039072 A1; hereinafter Babaei).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein an aggregation degree of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for scheduling the second RMSI [Kim discloses that a PDCCH may be for system information such as a system information block (SIB) and that each PDCCH candidate is defined as 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16 control channel elements (CCEs) according to its aggregation level (AL) and the PDCCH is transmitted in a control resource set (CORESET) (¶125-128). Kim also discloses a method of configuring separate CORESET for the RedCap UE when an NR CORESET is incapable of being configured within the RedCap bandwidth (BW) when the BW is set less than or equal to the RedCap BW due to a problem of UE capacity or a problem that the CCE AL of a control channel is not sufficiently secured (¶194-195; ¶225-228)]
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein an aggregation degree of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for scheduling the second RMSI is higher than an aggregation degree of a PDCCH for scheduling the first RMSI.
However Babaei, analogous art also teaching RMSI, reduced capability, and aggregation level, does disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein an aggregation degree of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for scheduling the second RMSI is higher than an aggregation degree of a PDCCH for scheduling the first RMSI. [Babaei discloses that higher aggregation levels may be used in conjunction with an extended CORESET for RedCap UEs (¶ 199-204)]
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the communication system of Kim with that of Babaei to indicate that RedCap UEs may receive a PDCCH of higher aggregation levels in order to compensate the RX antenna degradation requiring an allocation of more resources, as per Babaei (¶ 199), with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 14, Kim discloses:
The method according to claim 12, wherein an aggregation degree of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for scheduling the second RMSI [Kim discloses that a PDCCH may be for system information such as a system information block (SIB) and that each PDCCH candidate is defined as 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16 control channel elements (CCEs) according to its aggregation level (AL) and the PDCCH is transmitted in a control resource set (CORESET) (¶125-128). Kim also discloses a method of configuring separate CORESET for the RedCap UE when an NR CORESET is incapable of being configured within the RedCap bandwidth (BW) when the BW is set less than or equal to the RedCap BW due to a problem of UE capacity or a problem that the CCE AL of a control channel is not sufficiently secured (¶194-195; ¶225-228)]
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
wherein an aggregation degree of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for scheduling the second RMSI is higher than an aggregation degree of a PDCCH for scheduling the first RMSI.
However Babaei, analogous art also teaching RMSI, reduced capability, and aggregation level, does disclose:
wherein an aggregation degree of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for scheduling the second RMSI is higher than an aggregation degree of a PDCCH for scheduling the first RMSI. [Babaei discloses that higher aggregation levels may be used in conjunction with an extended CORESET for RedCap UEs (¶ 199-204)]
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the communication system of Kim with that of Babaei to indicate that RedCap UEs may receive a PDCCH of higher aggregation levels in order to compensate the RX antenna degradation requiring an allocation of more resources, as per Babaei (¶ 199), with reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0164781 A1; hereinafter Kim) and further in view of Park et al. (WO 2020/032643 A1; hereinafter Park; referencing machine translation citations for description and original document for Tables/Figures).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a [Kim discloses that when PDCCH repetition is required for coverage recovery/enhancement of the RedCap UE, the network may transmit have a plurality of candidate scheduling parameter sets predefined for SIB1-R transmissions (¶ 237)]
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a PDSCH for scheduling the second RMSI uses a repeated transmission mechanism, and a PDSCH for scheduling the first RMSI does not use a repeated transmission mechanism;
or a number of repeated transmissions in a PDSCH for scheduling the first RMSI is less than a number of repeated transmissions in a PDSCH for scheduling the second RMSI.
However Park, analogous art also teaching RMSI, reduced capability (NR-lite), repeated transmissions, and aggregation level, does disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a PDSCH for scheduling the second RMSI uses a repeated transmission mechanism, and a PDSCH for scheduling the first RMSI does not use a repeated transmission mechanism; [Park discloses both an NR system and an NR-light system (¶202) where the one system may be configured to support repetitive transmissions for coverage extension or coverage enhancement and the other system may not be configured to support repetitive transmission (¶ 24-30) and that PDSCH may be repeatedly transmitted/received (¶ 143-145; Fig. 12)]
or a number of repeated transmissions in a PDSCH for scheduling the first RMSI is less than a number of repeated transmissions in a PDSCH for scheduling the second RMSI. [Park discloses that coverage enhancement techniques may apply equally to NR and that there are multiple modes/levels indicating the number of transmissions associated with the level of coverage enhancement (¶ 143-145; ¶208-209; ¶259-260 Table 6)]
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the communication system of Kim with that of Park to add repetitive PDSCH transmissions for coverage enhancement, as per Park (¶ 143-145), with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 17, Kim discloses:
The method according to claim 12, wherein a [Kim discloses that when PDCCH repetition is required for coverage recovery/enhancement of the RedCap UE, the network may transmit have a plurality of candidate scheduling parameter sets predefined for SIB1-R transmissions (¶ 237)]
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
The method according to claim 12, wherein a PDSCH for scheduling the second RMSI uses a repeated transmission mechanism, and a PDSCH for scheduling the first RMSI does not use a repeated transmission mechanism;
or a number of repeated transmissions in a PDSCH for scheduling the first RMSI is less than a number of repeated transmissions in a PDSCH for scheduling the second RMSI.
However Park, analogous art also teaching RMSI, reduced capability, and aggregation level, does disclose:
The method according to claim 12, wherein a PDSCH for scheduling the second RMSI uses a repeated transmission mechanism, and a PDSCH for scheduling the first RMSI does not use a repeated transmission mechanism; [Park discloses both an NR system and an NR-light system (¶202) where the one system may be configured to support repetitive transmissions for coverage extension or coverage enhancement and the other system may not be configured to support repetitive transmission (¶ 24-30) and that PDSCH may be repeatedly transmitted/received (¶ 143-145; Fig. 12)]
or a number of repeated transmissions in a PDSCH for scheduling the first RMSI is less than a number of repeated transmissions in a PDSCH for scheduling the second RMSI. [Park discloses that coverage enhancement techniques may apply equally to NR and that there are multiple modes/levels indicating the number of transmissions associated with the level of coverage enhancement (¶ 143-145; ¶208-209; ¶259-260 Table 6)]
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the communication system of Kim with that of Park to add repetitive PDSCH transmissions for coverage enhancement, as per Park (¶ 143-145), with reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rowan K Fakhro whose telephone number is (703)756-1467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marcus R Smith can be reached on (571) 270-1096. 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.
/RKF/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2468 /MARCUS SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights