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 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al PG PUB 2018/0041325 in view of Khoshnevisan et al PG PUB 2022/0022234.
Re Claims 1, 8 and 15, LEE et al teaches receiving a UE (a processor and memory) receiving a PDCCH indicating a CIF one or more plurality of CC [0143] wherein for the received PDCCH (a particular PDCCH candidate), the UE determining a plurality of CCSs [0216] of based on the CIF and using the CCEs for decoding the PDCCH candidate for decoding a PDCCH scheduling a plurality of PDSCH (first and second) for the plurality of CCs (first and second) [0142 0143]; the UE receiving the plurality of PDSCH (first and second) based on the PDCCH.
LEE et al fails to explicitly teach “….CIF associated with both a first CC and a second CC”.
However, Khoshnevisan et al teaches a single DCI includes a CIF for scheduling multiple CCs [0086 0087] to support multiple TRP operation. One skilled in the art would motivated have to support TRP operation over multiple CCs to improve throughput. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claims 2, 9 and 16, LEE et al teaches the configuring the UE via RRC signaling of CIF indicating the plurality of CCs (the first and second CCs) [0142].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 10-14, 17-20 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 3, 10 and 17, prior art fails to teach counting the blind decoding toward a count for a reference CC of the first CC and the second CC and not counting a count for the other CC of the first and second CC as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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, Hassan Kizou can be reached at 571272. 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