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 Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (Pub. No. 20160249331).
* Regarding to claims with optional language such as “OR” “at least one of”, only one limitation selected for exam.
- With respect to claims 1, 11, 12, Park teaches a configuration parameter determination method, comprising: determining a configuration parameter set (e.g. abstract discloses “the step search space including CCE indexes or an enhanced CCE indexes constituting a PDCCH candidate”), wherein the configuration parameter set is configured to determine a transmission resource in time domain for a first type of common search space (e.g. TDMA and TDD discloses in par. 36-37 and par. 107 discloses type of search space); and the configuration parameter set at least comprises: a control channel element (CCE) aggregation level (e.g. the CCE indexes in abstract), and at least one of: a number of repetitions corresponding to the CCE aggregation level or a candidate transmission position corresponding to the CCE aggregation level (par. 58 discloses “As described above, the PDCCH/EPDCCH includes a plurality of CCEs/ECCEs, and the BS can transmit a plurality of DCIs to a plurality of UEs with regard to each subframe. In this case, the BS does not separately provide the UE with CCE/ECCE assignment information, which are needed by the UE to receive the DCIs via the PDCCH/EPDCCH (that is, information regarding the CCE aggregation level used to transmit one DCI and information regarding the position of CCE transmission resources); therefore, the UE performs blind decoding, in order to confirm DCIs transmitted to itself, with regard to the possible aggregation level and CCE/ECCE transmission resources.”); and wherein values of the number of repetitions corresponding to same CCE aggregation level are different.
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.
Claim 7-9, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (Pub. No. 20160249331) in view of Zhang et al. (Pub. No. 20220303037).
- With respect to claims 7, 18, Park fails to teach the first type of common search space is a type 0 common search space (type 0 CSS). Zhang discloses common search space is type 0 CSS (see par. 64 discloses “PDCCH that schedules a SIB1 may be transmitted in a Type 0 common search space set “CSS.” The Type-0 CSS may have a number of PDCCH candidates per CCE aggregation level “), therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to implement the type 0 CSS of Zhang into Park’s invention for transmitting PDCCH in communication system.
- With respect to claim 8, 19, Zhang teaches in response to retransmitting a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) of type 0 CSS, determining transmitting a PDCCH based on a predefined rule (e.g. table 1 discloses candidates).
- With respect to claim 9, 20, Park teaches the predefined rule comprises at least one of the following: the same candidate transmission position; or the same CCE index (e.g. par. 108 discloses same CCE index).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 13-14, 16-17, 21 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.
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 PHUC H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Flex.
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, Sujoy K. Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/PHUC H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471