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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20, 22-28 and 31 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 11, 13, 15-16, 19, 22-24, 26, 28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0124788 A1 to Kittichokechai et al. (hereafter refers as Kittichokechai) in view of US 2020/0213036 A1 to Shen et al. (hereafter refers as Shen).
Regarding claims 1 and 22, Kittichokechai teaches a method of wireless communication by a user equipment (UE) (a method of wireless communication performed at a UE/WD, Fig. 8, 10 and paragraphs [127, 129-131]) and an apparatus configured for wireless communication (UE/WD for perform the method, Fig. 8, 10 and paragraphs [127, 129-131]), the apparatus comprising:
a transceiver (UE/WD comprises a radio interface, paragraphs [106, 117, 129] and Fig. 2);
at least one processor (the UE/WD comprises a processor, paragraphs [107, 109, 127, 129] and Fig. 2); and
a memory comprising instructions (wherein the UE/WD comprises a memory for storing instructions, wherein the memory coupled to the processor, paragraphs [107, 109, 127, 129] and Fig. 2),
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to (wherein the processor is configured to execute instructions to cause the UE/WD to perform the method, paragraphs [107, 109, 127, 129]):
monitor, via the transceiver (via radio interface, Fig. 2 and paragraphs [107, 109, 127, 129]), at least one physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) transmission for a downlink control information (DCI) message comprising a DCI size (monitoring at least one PDCCH transmission for DCI message, paragraphs [127-129], comprising a DCI size, paragraphs [83, 104-105]),
wherein the apparatus is configured with a DCI sizes budget indicating a quantity of different DCI sizes for which the apparatus is configured to perform decoding (wherein the UE is configured with a total number of different DCI sizes for decoding, based on a capability of the UE, paragraphs [104, 110, 129, 134, 135, 179]),
apply a DCI sizes prioritization rule to generate a prioritized set of DCI sizes wherein the prioritized set of DCI sizes includes a quantity of DCI sizes to be monitored, and wherein the quantity of DCI sizes to be monitored is less than or equal to the DCI sizes budget (the UE applying a priority rule to generate a set of DCI sizes, i.e. prioritized set of DCI sizes, by limiting the number of DCI sizes for decoding/detection to the total number, paragraphs [143-147, 179-195, 201]); and
decode, via the transceiver, the DCI message based on the prioritized set of DCI sizes (the UE/WD decodes the DCI message using the set of DCI sizes, paragraphs [97, 109, 127, 129, 200, 247-250]).
However, Kittichokechai does not explicitly teach the decoding is a “blind” decoding.
Shen teaches a method of wireless communication by a user equipment (UE) (a method of wireless communication performed at a UE/terminal, Fig. 1 and paragraphs [37-41]) and an apparatus configured for wireless communication (UE/terminal for perform the method, Fig. 1, 6-7 and paragraphs [37-41]), the apparatus comprising:
a transceiver (UE/terminal comprises a network interface, paragraph [110, 112-115] and Fig. 6-7);
at least one processor (the UE/terminal comprises a processor, paragraph [110, 112-115] and Fig. 6-7); and
a memory comprising instructions (wherein the UE/terminal comprises a memory for storing instructions, wherein the memory coupled to the processor, paragraph [110, 112-115] and Fig. 6-7),
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to (wherein the processor is configured to execute instructions to cause the UE/terminal to perform the method, paragraph [110, 112-115] and Fig. 6-7):
monitor, via the transceiver (via the network interface, Fig. 6-7 and paragraphs [110, 112-115] and Fig. 6-7), at least one physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) transmission for a downlink control information (DCI) message comprising a DCI size (performing a blind detection on PDCCH message comprising DCI message with a particular DCI size, paragraphs [40-42]),
wherein the apparatus is configured with a DCI sizes budget indicating a quantity of different DCI sizes for which the apparatus is configured to perform blind decoding (wherein the UE is configured with a supported quantity of different DCI sizes for blind decoding, based on a capability of the UE, paragraphs [41, 62, 148]),
generate a set of DCI sizes includes a quantity of DCI sizes to be monitored, and wherein the quantity of DCI sizes to be monitored is less than or equal to the DCI sizes budget (the UE identifies a candidate set of DCI sizes to be monitored that is less than the supported quantity of different DCI sizes, paragraphs [39-42, 46-50]); and
blind decode, via the transceiver, the DCI message based on the set of DCI sizes (the UE/terminal perform blind decoding, via the network interface, the DCI message using the candidate set of DCI sizes, paragraphs [39-42, 46-50]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the DCI sizes budget indicating a quantity of different DCI sizes for which the apparatus is configured to perform blind decoding and blind decoding, via the transceiver, the DCI message based on the set of DCI sizes as taught by Shen, with the teaching of decoding as taught by Kittichokechai, for a purpose of achieve more flexible channel design by allowing the UE/terminal to perform blind detection (see Shen, paragraphs [3-5, 41]).
Regarding claim 2, Kittichokechai further teaches wherein applying the DCI sizes prioritization rule to generate the prioritized set of DCI sizes comprises:
prioritizing DCI sizes based on the DCI sizes prioritization rule (prioritizing DCI sizes by applying the priority rule, including removing a lower priority DCI size(s), paragraphs [143-146, 179-188]); and
including highest prioritized DCI sizes in the prioritized set of DCI sizes until the quantity of DCI sizes in the prioritized set of DCI sizes reaches the DCI sizes budget of the UE (including highest prioritized DCI sizes in the prioritized set of DCI sizes for decoding, until reaches the total number of DCI sizes, i.e. limitation number of DCI sizes, paragraphs [179-189]).
Regarding claim 3, Kittichokechai further teaches wherein decoding the DCI based on the prioritized set of DCI sizes includes: dropping DCI sizes that are excluded from the prioritized set of DCI sizes (removes the lower priority DCI sizes from the prioritized set of DCI sizes, paragraphs [179-189]).
Regarding claims 7 and 23, Kittichokechai further teaches wherein the DCI sizes prioritization rule is based on a priority of a DCI format (wherein the priority rule is based on a priority of DCI format, paragraphs [130, 143-146]).
Regarding claims 11 and 24, Kittichokechai further teaches wherein the DCI sizes prioritization rule is based on a priority of a search space associated with the at least one PDCCH (wherein the priority rule is based on priority of a search space associated with PDCCH, paragraphs [179-194]).
Regarding claim 13, Kittichokechai further teaches wherein a PDCCH associated with a search space having a first type is prioritized higher than a PDCCH associated with a search space having a second type (wherein the PDCCH is associated with a search space having lower search space ID or common search space, paragraphs [180-190]).
Regarding claims 15 and 26, Kittichokechai further teaches wherein the DCI sizes prioritization rule is based on a size of a DCI message to be monitored (prioritizing the DCI sizes based on size of the DCI message, to be monitored, paragraphs [143-145]).
Regarding claim 16, Kittichokechai further teaches wherein a DCI message having a first size is prioritized higher than a DCI message having a second size larger than the first size (dropping DCI message with larger sizes, paragraphs [143-146]).
Regarding claims 19 and 28, Kittichokechai further teaches wherein the DCI sizes prioritization rule is based on a type of a DCI message to be monitored (wherein the priority rule is based on DCI message with particular format, size of DCI format, and/or DCI message with particular search space, paragraphs [143-146]).
Regarding claim 31, Kittichokechai further teaches the apparatus is configured to operate as a user equipment (wherein the UE/WD is configured to perform the method, paragraphs [127, 129-131]).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0124788 A1 to Kittichokechai et al. (hereafter refers as Kittichokechai) in view of US 2020/0213036 A1 to Shen et al. (hereafter refers as Shen) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2022/0217755 A1 to Fu et al. (hereafter refers as Fu).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kittichokechai and Shen does not explicitly teach generating the prioritized set of DCI sizes is applied to a PDCCH configuration “associated with a single slot”.
Fu teaches applying the DCI sizes prioritization rule to generate the prioritized set of DCI sizes is applied to PDCCH configuration associated with a single slot (generating a reduced number of DCI formats with a corresponding DCI sizes, for monitoring a PDCCH, for each slot, paragraphs [20, 21, 132, 140, 194, 200-203]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of applying the DCI sizes prioritization rule to generate the prioritized set of DCI sizes is applied to PDCCH configuration associated with a single slot as taught by Fu, with the teaching of applying the DCI sizes prioritization rule to generate the prioritized set of DCI sizes as taught by combination of Kittichokechai and Shen, for a purpose of increase flexibility for the teachings by applying the DCI sizes prioritization rule per slot, thus allowing the prioritized set of DCI sizes to be varied over time (see Fu, paragraphs [20, 21, 132, 140, 194, 200-203]).
Regarding claim 5, Fu further teaches wherein a DCI sizes budget of the UE is configured for the single slot (wherein the maximum number of DCI sizes for detection is configured for each slot, paragraphs [20, 21, 132, 140, 194, 200-203]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of wherein a DCI sizes budget of the UE is configured for the single slot as taught by Fu, with the teaching of DCI sizes budget as taught by combination of Kittichokechai and Shen, for a purpose of increase flexibility for the teachings by configuring the DCI sizes budge per slot, thus allowing the DCI sizes budge to be varied over time (see Fu, paragraphs [20, 21, 132, 140, 194, 200-203]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0124788 A1 to Kittichokechai et al. (hereafter refers as Kittichokechai) in view of US 2020/0213036 A1 to Shen et al. (hereafter refers as Shen), and further in view of US 2022/0217755 A1 to Fu et al. (hereafter refers as Fu) and US 2022/0386285 A1 to Hu et al. (hereafter refers as Hu).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kittichokechai and Shen does not explicitly teach “a quantity of DCI sizes to be included in the prioritized set of DCI sizes is configured for the single slot and a quantity of DCI sizes to be included in the prioritized set of DCI sizes for another slot”.
Fu teaches a quantity of DCI sizes to be included in the prioritized set of DCI sizes is configured for the single slot (wherein reduced number of DCI formats is applied to PDCCH for each slot, paragraphs [20, 21, 132, 140, 194, 200-203]) and a quantity of DCI sizes to be included in the prioritized set of DCI sizes for another slot (generating a reduced number of DCI formats with a corresponding DCI sizes, for monitoring a PDCCH, for each slot, paragraphs [20, 21, 132, 140, 194, 200-203]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of a quantity of DCI sizes to be included in the prioritized set of DCI sizes is configured for the single slot and a quantity of DCI sizes to be included in the prioritized set of DCI sizes for another slot as taught by Fu, with the teaching of quantity of DCI sizes to be included in the prioritized set of DCI sizes as taught by combination of Kittichokechai and Shen, for a purpose of increase flexibility for the teachings by generating the prioritized set of DCI sizes per slot, thus allowing the prioritized set of DCI sizes to be specified for each slot (see Fu, paragraphs [20, 21, 132, 140, 194, 200-203]).
However, the combination of Kittichokechai, Shen and Fu does not explicitly teach the quantity of DCI sizes for another slot is “different” than the quantity of DCI sizes for the single slot.
Hu teaches quantity of DCI sizes for another slot is different than the quantity of DCI sizes for the single slot (a number of DCI sizes/candidates, i.e. limit, for another slot is different from a number of DCI sizes/candidates for a slot, paragraphs [6, 33, 37, 73, 100, 107-110, 117]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the quantity of DCI sizes for another slot is different than the quantity of DCI sizes for the single slot as taught by Hu, with the teachings of the quantity of DCI sizes to be included in the prioritized set of DCI sizes is configured for the single slot and the quantity of DCI sizes to be included in the prioritized set of DCI sizes for another slot as taught by combination of Kittichokechai, Shen and Fu, for a purpose of increase diversity and efficiency in generating the prioritized set of DCIS sizes for each slot by setting different number of DCI sizes to be included in the prioritized set of DCI sizes for different slots (see Hu, paragraphs [6, 33, 37, 73, 100, 107-110, 117]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0124788 A1 to Kittichokechai et al. (hereafter refers as Kittichokechai) in view of US 2020/0213036 A1 to Shen et al. (hereafter refers as Shen) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2020/0296701 A1 to Park et al. (hereafter refers as Park).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kittichokechai and Shen does not explicitly teach wherein “a non-fallback DCI message is prioritized higher than a fallback DCI message”.
Park teaches a non-fallback DCI message is prioritized higher than a fallback DCI message (a non-fallback DCI message has higher priority than a fallback DCI message, paragraph [142]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the non-fallback DCI message is prioritized higher than a fallback DCI message as taught by Park, with the teachings of combination of Kittichokechai and Shen, for a purpose of increase efficiency in communicating the non-fallback DCI message by provide the non-fallback DCI message with higher priority (see Park, paragraphs [142-144]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0124788 A1 to Kittichokechai et al. (hereafter refers as Kittichokechai) in view of US 2020/0213036 A1 to Shen et al. (hereafter refers as Shen) and US 2020/0296701 A1 to Park et al. (hereafter refers as Park) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2022/0386361 A1 to Takahashi et al (hereafter refers as Takahashi).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kittichokechai, Shen and Park further teaches a non-fallback downlink DCI message and a non-fallback uplink DCI message (non-fallback DCI for PUSCH and a non-fallback DCI for PDSCH, see Park, paragraphs [140-144]).
However, the combination of Kittichokechai, Shen and Park does not explicitly teach the non-fallback downlink DCI message is “prioritized higher” than the non-fallback uplink DCI message.
Takahashi teaches a downlink DCI message is prioritized higher than a uplink DCI message (DL DCI message has a higher priority than an uplink DCI message, paragraphs [163, 165, 166]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of downlink DCI message is prioritized higher than a uplink DCI message as taught by Takahashi, with the teachings of combination of Kittichokechai, Shen and Park, for a purpose of increase efficiency in communicating the non-fallback DCI message and the non-fallback uplink DIC message by specifying priority of the non-fallback downlink DCI message and the non-fallback uplink DCI message (see Takahashi, paragraphs [163, 165, 166]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0124788 A1 to Kittichokechai et al. (hereafter refers as Kittichokechai) in view of US 2020/0213036 A1 to Shen et al. (hereafter refers as Shen) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2022/0386361 A1 to Takahashi et al (hereafter refers as Takahashi).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kittichokechai and Shen does not explicitly teach “wherein the priority of the DCI format is based on a configuration of the at least one PDCCH, wherein: when the configuration of the at least one PDCCH is uplink dominant, an uplink DCI message is prioritized higher than a downlink DCI message; and when the configuration of the at least one PDCCH is downlink dominant, a downlink DCI message is prioritized higher than an uplink DCI message”.
Takahashi teaches when the configuration of the at least one PDCCH is uplink dominant, an uplink DCI message is prioritized higher than a downlink DCI message (when an DCI includes a UL scheduling with a higher priority, then the UL DCI message is prioritized higher than a downlink DCI message, i.e. not to multiplex the UCI with the PUSCH/uplink transmission, paragraph [162-165]); and
when the configuration of the at least one PDCCH is downlink dominant, a downlink DCI message is prioritized higher than an uplink DCI message (when an DCI includes a DL scheduling with a higher priority, then the DL DCI message is prioritized than an uplink DCI message, i.e. drop the PUSCH/uplink transmission, paragraph [162-165]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of wherein the priority of the DCI format is based on a configuration of the at least one PDCCH, wherein: when the configuration of the at least one PDCCH is uplink dominant, an uplink DCI message is prioritized higher than a downlink DCI message; and when the configuration of the at least one PDCCH is downlink dominant, a downlink DCI message is prioritized higher than an uplink DCI message as taught by Takahashi, with the teachings of combination of Kittichokechai and Shen, for a purpose of increase efficiency in communicating message/data related to the UL DCI message and DL DCI, by based on the configuration of the at least one PDCCH (see Takahashi, paragraph [162-165]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0124788 A1 to Kittichokechai et al. (hereafter refers as Kittichokechai) in view of US 2020/0213036 A1 to Shen et al. (hereafter refers as Shen) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2019/0297607 A1 to Kim et al. (hereafter refers as Kim).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kittichokechai and Shen does not explicitly teach “wherein a PDCCH having a lower identification (ID) is prioritized lower than a PDCCH having a higher ID”.
Kim teaches wherein a PDCCH having a lower identification (ID) is prioritized lower than a PDCCH having a higher ID (prioritizing the PDCCH with a lower ID, paragraphs [134-136, 192-194]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of wherein a PDCCH having a lower identification (ID) is prioritized lower than a PDCCH having a higher ID as taught by Kim, with the teachings of DCI size prioritization rule as taught by combination of Kittichokechai and Shen, for a purpose of increase efficiency for prioritizing the DCI sizes by further using the identification of the PDCCH for prioritizing (see Kim, paragraphs [134-136, 192-194]).
Claims 14 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0124788 A1 to Kittichokechai et al. (hereafter refers as Kittichokechai) in view of US 2020/0213036 A1 to Shen et al. (hereafter refers as Shen) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2021/0360683 A1 to Chen et al. (hereafter refers as Chen’683).
Regarding claims 14 and 25, the combination of Kittichokechai and Shen does not explicitly teach wherein the DCI sizes prioritization rule is “based on a priority of a control resource set (CORESET) identification (ID) associated with the at least one PDCCH”.
Chen’683 teaches wherein the DCI prioritization rule is based on a priority of a control resource set (CORESET) identification (ID) associated with the at least one PDCCH (the DCI is prioritized based on a priority of an CORESET ID associated with at least one PDCCH, paragraphs [57, 74]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of wherein the DCI prioritization rule is based on a priority of a control resource set (CORESET) identification (ID) associated with the at least one PDCCH as taught by Chen’683, with the teachings of DCI size prioritization rule of combination of Kittichokechai and Shen, for a purpose of increase efficiency for prioritizing the DCI sizes by further using priority of the CORESET ID (see Chen’683, paragraphs [57, 74]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0124788 A1 to Kittichokechai et al. (hereafter refers as Kittichokechai) in view of US 2020/0213036 A1 to Shen et al. (hereafter refers as Shen) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2022/0417977 A1 to Takahashi et al. (hereafter refers as Takahashi’977).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kittichokechai and Shen does not explicitly teach wherein a DCI message having a first size is “prioritized higher than a DCI message having a second size smaller than the first size”.
Takahashi’977 teaches wherein the DCI sizes prioritization rule is based on a size of a DCI message to be monitored (prioritizing the DCI based on a size of the DCI message to be monitored, paragraphs [139-141]),
wherein a DCI message having a first size is prioritized higher than a DCI message having a second size smaller than the first size (wherein the DCI message having a first size, is assigned a first priority when has a larger size, paragraphs [139-141], wherein the first priority is higher than a second priority, paragraph [60]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of wherein the DCI sizes prioritization rule is based on a size of a DCI message to be monitored, wherein a DCI message having a first size is prioritized higher than a DCI message having a second size smaller than the first size as taught by Takahashi’977, with the teachings of the DCI sizes prioritization rule is based on a size of a DCI message to be monitored, as taught by combination of Kittichokechai and Shen, for a purpose of increase efficiency for prioritizing the DCI sizes, by prioritizing the DCI with a larger size (see Takahashi’977, paragraphs [60, 139-141]).
Claims 18 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0124788 A1 to Kittichokechai et al. (hereafter refers as Kittichokechai) in view of US 2020/0213036 A1 to Shen et al. (hereafter refers as Shen) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2021/0385826 A1 to Moon et al. (hereafter refers as Moon).
Regarding claims 18 and 27, the combination of Kittichokechai and Shen does not explicitly teach the prioritization rule is based on “a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) associated with the at least one PDCCH”.
Moon teaches a prioritization rule is based on a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) associated with the at least one PDCCH (prioritizing PDCCH including the DCI based on an RNTI associated with the PDCCH, paragraph [185]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of wherein the prioritization rule is based on a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) associated with the at least one PDCCH as taught by Moon, with the teachings of the DCI sizes prioritization rule as taught by combination of Kittichokechai and Shen, for a purpose of increase efficiency for prioritizing the DCI sizes by using the RNTI associated with the PDCCH (see Moon, paragraph [185]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0124788 A1 to Kittichokechai et al. (hereafter refers as Kittichokechai) in view of US 2020/0213036 A1 to Shen et al. (hereafter refers as Shen) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2021/0352703 A1 to Zhang et al. (hereafter refers as Zhang).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kittichokechai and Shen does not explicitly teach wherein the type of the DCI message to be monitored is “one of: compact and non-compact”.
Zhang teaches wherein the type of the DCI message to be monitored is one of: compact and non-compact (prioritizing the DCI message based on whether the DCI message is the compact or non-compact, paragraphs [94, 152, 240, 298]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of wherein the type of the DCI message to be monitored is one of: compact and non-compact as taught by Zhang, with the teachings of DCI sizes prioritization rule as taught by combination of Kittichokechai and Shen, for a purpose of increase efficiency for prioritizing the DCI sizes by identifying whether the DCI message is compact or non-compact (see Zhang, paragraphs [94, 152, 240, 298]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0086883 A1 discloses prioritizing a CORESET having a lowest index (paragraph [66]).
US 2022/0124788 A1 discloses limiting a total number of different DCI sizes that a UE is configured to monitor, based on a format of the DCI (see paragraphs [54-56, 104, 219]).
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 DUNG B. HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)270-7642. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Ian N. Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/DUNG B HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469 July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights