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 .
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 21, 22, 26, 28, 29, 34, 35 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOU et al PG PUB 2023/0224097 in view of Papasakellariou et al PG PUB 2020/0092073.
Re Claims 21, 28, 34 and 39, KOU et al teaches in figure 6A, 612, a wireless device receiving a control information indicating a configuration parameters relating to resources of multicast and MBS transmission are configured within a BWP of a cell [0041] wherein the wireless device monitors based on PDCCH monitoring occasion and CORESETs (configuration parameters) via the BWP; further teaches the wireless device can be configured to support MBS and unicast services concurrently [0019]; further teaches a DAI value indicates accumulative number of PDCCH including PDCCH for scheduling unicast and PDCCH for scheduling MBS [0047], figure 4 teaches example DAI value wherein a UE receives a set of PDCCH (a first number) for scheduling unicast service and a set of PDCCH (a second number) for scheduling MBS service [0049] in the MO; within the MO, a UE 1 receives a DCI (a first DCI) in PDCCH 1 for scheduling the unicast service (a first TB) in MO 0 in the BWP of cell 0 and a second DCI in PDCCH 0 for scheduling MBS service (a second TB) in the same MO 0 of cell 0 (the common frequency resources).
KUO et al fails to explicitly teach “wherein a sum of the first number and the second number is less than or equal to a third number of PDCCH associated with a PDCCH monitoring capability of the wireless device;”
However, Papasakellariou et al teaches a UE reporting a capability of monitoring a maximum number of PDCCH candidates per cell whereby based on the maximum number a gNB determines a configuration of a search space set the UE [0211 0219 0220].
By combining the teaching, the UE in KUO et al can be modified to report a PDCCH monitoring capability indicating the maximum of PDCCH candidates per cell to configure the search space set for monitoring (configuration parameter) the number of PDCCH candidates in the BWP of the cell.
One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have configured the accumulative number of PDCCHs (the first number + second number) to be less than or equal to the maximum number of PDCCH (a third number) supported by the UE for interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claims 22, 29 and 35, Papasakellariou et al teaches the PDCCH monitoring capability indicating the maximum of PDCCH candidates (the third number) to be monitored by the UE for cell 0 of KUO et al.
Re Claims 26 and 39, KUO et al teaches the UE receiving configuration parameters [0041] indicating a number of unicast and a number of MBS services [0049]. In view of Papasakellariou et al, the maximum of PDCCH candidates (the third number) can be reported to gNB [0219]. KUO et al teaches accumulative number of PDCCHs includes the number of PDCCH (the first number) for unicast and the number of PDCCH (the second number) for MBS service. To conform with maximum number of PDCCH supported by the UE, based on the number of PDCCH for unicast is less than or the maximum number supported by the UE, the difference would have indicated the supported number of PDCCH for the MBS (the second number).
Claims 27, 33 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOU et al PG PUB 2023/0224097 in view of Papasakellariou et al PG PUB 2020/0092073 as applied to Claims 21, 28 above and further in view of WANG PG PUB 2023/01237551.
Re Claims 27, 33 and 40, KOU et al in view of Papasakellariou et al fails to explicitly teach “…message indicating the MBS transmission are deactivated.”. However, WANG teaches MAC-CE (a message) indicating the MBS transmission are deactivated [0068-0071]. One skilled in the art would been motivated to have deactivated the MBS transmission when the MBS service is completed and no longer needed to receive the resources associated with the deactivation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have deactivated the MBS service with the MAC-CE when the MBS service is no longer needed to conserve resources.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-25, 30-32 and 36-38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re Claims 23, 30 and 36, prior art fails to monitor a fourth number of PDCCH candidates for the unicast transmission as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re Claims 21, 28 and 34, Applicant argues the combination fails to teach
“monitoring, based on the configuration parameters and via BWP, a first number of PDCCH for unicast transmission and a second number PDCCH candidate for the MBS transmissions…wherein a sum of the first number and the second number is less than or equal to a third number of PDCCH candidates associated with a PDCCH monitoring capability of the wireless device.”.
Examiner disagrees.
KUO et al teaches in figure 4, an example of DAI value whereby the wireless device is configured with a set of PDCCH for unicast service (a first number) and a set of PDCCH (a second set) for MBS service in the BWP of a cell.
The DAI indicates an accumulative number of PDCCH candidates configured for each of the unicast and MBS services wherein the DAI is associated with the configuration parameters from the network.
Figure 4 teaches for cell 0, the wireless device receiving 1 PDCCH (the first number) for unicast service and 2 PDCCHs (the second number) for MBS services having an accumulative number or sum of 3 PDCCH candidates.
What is not explicitly disclosed is “…a third number of PDCCH candidates associated with a PDCCH monitoring capability of the wireless device”.
This deficiency is found in Papasakellariou et al whereby a UE reports PDCCH monitoring capability to the network indicating a maximum number of PDCCHs supported by the UE [See OA above].
When the maximum of PDCCHs is reported to the network of KUO et al, the DAI can be configured to not exceed the maximum PDCCH monitoring capability of the UE. This would require the DAI or accumulative number of PDCCHs for the unicast and MBS service to be less than or equal to the maximum PDCCH capability of the UE.
Applicant is requested to argue this point in the next OA.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET.
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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703770. 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.
/ANDREW LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475