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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIKI et al PG PUB 2013/0107836 in view of WANG et al PG PUB 2024/0063990.
Re Claims 1, 8 and 15, MIKI et al teaches in figure 3, a UE (a processor and
memory) receiving a PDCCH (a PDCCH candidate) comprising a CIF value of 010 associated with a combination of a CCO and CC1 for scheduling a PDSCH 1 in CCO and PDSCH2 in CC1 [0037 0041] wherein the PDSCH 1 and PDSCH 2 (the first and second) are received based on the CIF value (one CIF).
MIKI teaches in figure 2, when the bit information of the CIF is “000”, the PDSCH and PDCCH are assigned to the same CC or associated with a single serving cell [0034]; when the bit information of the CIF is “010”, two PDSCH are CCO and adjacent CC1 [0029] associated with a plurality of serving cells to support carrier aggregation.
MIKI et al fails to explicitly teach "determining a plurality of CCEs of the PDCCH
candidates based on the one CIF " However, WANG et al for cross-carrier scheduling in CA, calculating a CCE number included in the PDCCH candidate, the terminal determining the CCE number of the PDCCH candidate of the carrier based on a CIF value [0154]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have determined the number of CCEs based on the CIF value for scheduling the PDSCHs in MIKI et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have combined the teachings.
Re Claims 2, 9 and 16, MIKI et al teaches receiving a RRC signaling configuring the CIF values with a number of CCs [0041].
Re Claims 3, 10 and 17, MIKI et al teaches the terminal performing blind decoding of a search spaces for the DCI (the PDCCH candidate) [0105]. MIKI et al fails to explicitly teach "counting the blind decoding toward a count for a reference CC of the first CC and the second CC and not counting the blind decoding toward a count for another CC of the first CC and the second CC.". However, WANG et al teaches the network configuring the terminal to perform blind decoding for the PDCCH candidate in one or more CCEs based on the PDCCH detection capability of the terminal device which include a maximum quantity of PDCCH candidates and a maximum quantity of CCEs [0154]. By combining the teachings, MIKI et al teaches in figure 3, the terminal performing blind decoding and counting to the maximum quantity of PDCCH candidate in CCO (a reference CC) for first and second CCs; when the maximum quantity of PDCCH candidate is reach, not counting in the CC1 (another CC) of the first and second CCs. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have counted the number of blind decoding toward the maximum quantity of PDCCH candidate (the count) in CCO (the reference CC) to conform to the terminal capability.
Re Claims 4, 11 and 18, WANG et al teaches the terminal capability includes the maximum quantity of CCEs [0154]. The terminal would have counted the CCEs of the PDCCH candidate toward the maximum quantity of PDCCH candidate (a count) for the CCO (a reference CC) for CCO and CC1 and when the maximum quantity of the PDCCH candidate is reach, not counting for the CC1 (other CC) of the first and second CC.
Re Claims 5, 12 and 19, MIKI et al teaches the terminal is RRC configured with CIF value (the one CIF) associated with CCO and CC1 [0041 also See Table].
Re Claims 6, 13 and 20, MIKI et al teaches the CIF value 010 includes CCO and CC1 whereby the CCO is selected as the reference CC.
Re Claims 7 and 14, MIKI et al teaches CCO (the reference CC) where the PDCCH is transmitted, See figure 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re Independent Claims 1, 8 and 15, Applicant argues that the amendment “determining whether the PDCCH candidate is associated with a serving cell or a plurality of serving cells based on a value of the CIF”…”decoding the PDCCH candidate to receive a PDCCH scheduling a first PDSCH for first CC and a second PDSCH for a second CC”.
Examiner disagrees.
MIKI teaches in figure 2, when the bit information of the CIF is “000”, the PDSCH and PDCCH are assigned to the same CC or associated with a single serving cell [0034]; when the bit information of the CIF is “010”, two PDSCH are CCO and adjacent CC1 [0029] associated with a plurality of serving cells to support carrier aggregation wherein, the UE decodes the scheduling PDCCH candidate to identify the CIF value, in this case “010”, for mapping the CC0 for PDSCH 1 and CC1 for PDSCH2.
WANG et al teaches cross-carrier scheduling for supporting CA in plurality of cells and self-scheduling for a single serving cell based on the CIF values [0149-0153].
Applicant is requested to argue these points above in the next response.
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, 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
Prosecution Insights