DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/27/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 7, 14 and 21:
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., intra-carrier CSS/USS) 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).
Applicant argued that Luo does not qualify as a valid prior art reference as Luo’s effective filing date is February 8, 2011, which is later than the effective filing date of the instant application. However, the limitations “determining, at the UE, a first set of conditions is met, wherein the first set of conditions comprise (i) the first RNTI is same as the second RNTI; (ii) the first payload size is same as the second payload size; and (iii) the first CCE index is same as the second CCE index; in response to determining that the first set of conditions are is met, selecting the first PDCCH” in claims 7, 14 and 21 of the instant application are not described or supported in the foreign priority applications KR-10-2010-0054026 and KR-10-2010-0063401. Therefore, the effective filing date of the instant application is later than Luo’s effective filing date, and Luo qualifies as a valid prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 7-9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-19, 21-23 and 25-26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Luo et al. (US 2011/0228732).
Regarding Claim 7, Luo teaches a communication method performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
monitoring, at the UE, a first Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) in a Common Search Space (CSS), wherein the first PDCCH is scrambled by a first Radio Network Temporary Identifier (RNTI), the first PDCCH has a first payload size, and the first PDCCH starts at a first Control Channel Element (CCE) index ([0098] the UE monitors the PDCCH on a primary cell of the plurality of serving cells (2404). The primary cell is different than said serving cell (2404). Furthermore, the UE assumes information received in the PDCCH is for said primary cell when the received information has a common payload size and is in a common search space with a first CCE index of/in the common search space being equal to a first CCE index of/in a UE specific search space (2406). The common payload size is an equal payload size whether the information is assumed to be for said serving cell or said primary cell. As such, the common payload size is equal to a payload size of the received information assuming the received information includes the CIF and is for said serving cell and is equal to a payload size of the received information assuming the information does not include the CIF and is for said primary cell. As discussed supra, the information received in the PDCCH may be assumed to be for said primary cell only when the information includes a CRC scrambled with a C-RNTI);
monitoring, at the UE, a second PDCCH in a User equipment-specific Search Space (USS), wherein the second PDCCH is scrambled by a second RNTI, the second PDCCH has a second payload size, and the second PDCCH starts at a second CCE index ([0099] Accordingly, a UE configured with a CIF for a given serving cell and configured to monitor PDCCH candidates with a CRC scrambled by C-RNTI with a common payload size and with the same first CCE index nCCE in the common search space and the UE specific search space may assume that only the PDCCH in the common search space is transmitted by (i.e., for) the primary cell);
determining, at the UE, a first set of conditions is met, wherein the first set of conditions comprise (i) the first RNTI is same as the second RNTl; (ii) the first payload size is same as the second payload size; and (iii) the first CCE index is same as the second CCE index; in response to determining that the first set of conditions is met, selecting the first PDCCH ([0098] the UE monitors the PDCCH on a primary cell of the plurality of serving cells (2404). The primary cell is different than said serving cell (2404). Furthermore, the UE assumes information received in the PDCCH is for said primary cell when the received information has a common payload size and is in a common search space with a first CCE index of/in the common search space being equal to a first CCE index of/in a UE specific search space (2406). The common payload size is an equal payload size whether the information is assumed to be for said serving cell or said primary cell. As such, the common payload size is equal to a payload size of the received information assuming the received information includes the CIF and is for said serving cell and is equal to a payload size of the received information assuming the information does not include the CIF and is for said primary cell. As discussed supra, the information received in the PDCCH may be assumed to be for said primary cell only when the information includes a CRC scrambled with a C-RNTI; [0099] Accordingly, a UE configured with a CIF for a given serving cell and configured to monitor PDCCH candidates with a CRC scrambled by C-RNTI with a common payload size and with the same first CCE index nCCE in the common search space and the UE specific search space may assume that only the PDCCH in the common search space is transmitted by (i.e., for) the primary cell; [0104] the apparatus 100 includes a module 2904 that monitors the PDCCH on a primary cell of the plurality of serving cells. The primary cell is different than said serving cell. Furthermore, the apparatus 100 includes a module 2906 that assumes information received in the PDCCH is for said primary cell when the received information has a common payload size and is in a common search space with a first CCE index of the common search space being equal to a first CCE index of a UE specific search space. The common payload size is an equal payload size whether the information is assumed to be for said serving cell or said primary cell. As such, the common payload size is equal to a payload size of the received information assuming the received information includes the CIF and is for said serving cell and is equal to a payload size of the received information assuming the information does not include the CIF and is for said primary cell. As discussed supra, the information received in the PDCCH may be assumed to be for said primary cell only when the information includes a CRC scrambled with a C-RNTI); and
receiving, at the UE, data at least based on the first PDCCH ([0098] the UE monitors the PDCCH on a primary cell of the plurality of serving cells (2404). The primary cell is different than said serving cell; [0099] Accordingly, a UE configured with a CIF for a given serving cell and configured to monitor PDCCH candidates with a CRC scrambled by C-RNTI with a common payload size and with the same first CCE index nCCE in the common search space and the UE specific search space may assume that only the PDCCH in the common search space is transmitted by (i.e., for) the primary cell).
Regarding Claim 8, Luo teaches sets of Downlink Control Information (DCI) fields in the first PDCCH are different from sets of DCI fields in the second PDCCH ([0098] the common payload size is equal to a payload size of the received information assuming the received information includes the CIF and is for said serving cell and is equal to a payload size of the received information assuming the information does not include the CIF and is for said primary cell).
Regarding Claim 9, Luo teaches the sets of DCI fields in the second PDCCH comprise a Carrier Indicator Field (CIF) ([0098] the common payload size is equal to a payload size of the received information assuming the received information includes the CIF and is for said serving cell and is equal to a payload size of the received information assuming the information does not include the CIF and is for said primary cell).
Regarding Claim 11, Luo teaches the first payload size is equal to a number of bits of DCI information field of the first PDCCH plus a number of CRC bits of the first PDCCH ([0098] the information received in the PDCCH may be assumed to be for said primary cell only when the information includes a CRC scrambled with a C-RNTI).
Regarding Claim 12, Luo teaches the first RNTI is one of a Cell-RNTI (C- RNTI) and a Semi-Persistent Scheduling-RNTI (SPS-RNTI) ([0098] the information received in the PDCCH may be assumed to be for said primary cell only when the information includes a CRC scrambled with a C-RNTI).
Regarding Claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 22, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 23, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 25, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 26, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in Claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 10, 13, 17, 20, 24 and 27 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luo et al. in view of Kim et al. (US 2010/0254268).
Regarding Claim 10, Luo does not teach an aggregation level of the first PDCCH is different from an aggregation level of the second PDCCH.
In an analogous art, Kim teaches an aggregation level of the first PDCCH is different from an aggregation level of the second PDCCH ([0066] The search space is classified into a common search space and a UE-specific search space. The common search space is a space for searching for a PDCCH having common control information and consists of 16 CCEs indexed with 0 to 15. The common search space supports a PDCCH having a CCE aggregation level of {4, 8}. In the common search space, a PDCCH for UE-specific control information (e.g. DCI format 0, 1A) can be transmitted. The UE-specific search space supports a PDCCH having a CCE aggregation level of {1, 2, 4, 8}).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have combined Kim’s method with Luo’s method so that a burden due to blind decoding for monitoring a control channel can be reduced. Further, battery consumption of a user equipment can be reduced (Kim [0023]).
Regarding Claim 13, Luo does not teach the sets of DCI fields in the first PDCCH comprise DCI format 0 or DCI format 1A.
In an analogous art, Kim teaches the sets of DCI fields in the first PDCCH comprise DCI format 0 or DCI format 1A ([0066] The search space is classified into a common search space and a UE-specific search space. The common search space is a space for searching for a PDCCH having common control information and consists of 16 CCEs indexed with 0 to 15. The common search space supports a PDCCH having a CCE aggregation level of {4, 8}. In the common search space, a PDCCH for UE-specific control information (e.g. DCI format 0, 1A) can be transmitted. The UE-specific search space supports a PDCCH having a CCE aggregation level of {1, 2, 4, 8}).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have combined Kim’s method with Luo’s method so that a burden due to blind decoding for monitoring a control channel can be reduced. Further, battery consumption of a user equipment can be reduced (Kim [0023]).
Regarding Claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 24, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 27, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in Claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang et al. (US Patent No. 9,577,808) teaches method of efficiently allocating a control channel in a wireless communication system supporting carrier aggregation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU-WEN CHANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7645. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm PT.
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, Un Cho can be reached at 571-272-7919. 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.
/YU-WEN CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413