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
This communication is in response to amendment filed on 7/6/2026. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) transmission method, performed by a terminal” and “performing PDCCH transmission at an overlapped PDCCH monitor occasion.” This limitation does not have support in the specification. The specification discloses a network entity transmits downlink channel (PDCCH), and a terminal receives the PDCCH channel. There is no teaching of terminal performs downlink channel transmission.
Claims 3, 5, 7, and 8-15 are rejected for their dependency of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1, 3, 5, 7-15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0225291) in view of Matsumura et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0205925).
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 18, Khoshnevisan discloses physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) transmission method (see figure 5) comprising, a communication device, a non-transitory computer medium (paragraphs 91-93) comprising:
a processor (figure 2 processor 280; paragraph 48);
a memory (figure 2 memory 282; paragraph 48) for storing instructions (paragraphs 91-93) executable by the processor; wherein the processor is configured to load and execute the executable instructions to implement:
determining a control resource set (CORESET) priority rule (paragraphs 7, 8, 180-182: priority rule is a search space type first, carrier index second, search space set index third, etc.);
selecting at least one CORESET from a plurality of CORESETs based on the CORESET priority rule (figure 5 step 530; paragraphs 7, 179-181: selecting a first/second sets of CORESET from a plurality of CORESETs base at least in part on a priority rule); and
performing PDCCH transmission at an overlapped PDCCH monitor occasion based on at least one CORESET (figure 5 step 540: PDCCH transmission and paragraphs 6, 176 and 183: first monitoring occasion is at least partially overlap with second monitoring occasion).
Khoshnevisan further teaches a priority rule includes selecting a first set of CORESETs from a plurality of CORESETs wherein the first set of CORESETs includes at least a pair of two linked SS sets (paragraphs 11 and 12).
Khoshnevisan does not teach the CORESET priority rule comprises at least a CORESET priority corresponding to a Common Search Space (CSS) set pair is higher than a CORESET priority corresponding to a CSS set that does not constitute any CSS set pair; wherein a CSS set pair comprises two linked CSS sets.
However, in the same field of search space, Matsumura discloses wherein the CORESET priority rule comprises at least a CORESET priority corresponding to a Common Search Space (CSS) set pair is higher than a CORESET priority corresponding to a CSS set that does not constitute any CSS set pair; wherein a CSS set pair comprises two linked CSS sets (paragraph 166: among a plurality of CSS sets, priority of a CSS set with a linkage is greater than priority of a CSS set without a linkage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Khoshnevisan wherein the CORESET priority rule comprises at least a CORESET priority corresponding to a Common Search Space (CSS) set pair is higher than a CORESET priority corresponding to a CSS set that does not constitute any CSS set pair; wherein a CSS set pair comprises two linked CSS sets.
The motivation would have been for efficiency and reliability.
Regarding claims 3 and 20, all limitations of claims 1 and 17 are disclosed above. Khoshnevisan further teaches all CSS set pairs, the smaller a CSS set pair index, the higher a corresponding CORESET priority (paragraph 169; figures 6 and 8; paragraphs 184-189); or in all CSS sets that do not constitute any CSS set pair, the smaller a CSS set index, the higher a corresponding CORESET priority; (paragraph 169; figures 6 and 8; paragraphs 184-189).
Khoshnevisan and Matsumura do not explicitly disclose wherein the CSS set pair index of the CSS set pair is a smaller index of CSS set indexes of the two linked CSS sets in the CSS set pair. However, Matsumura discloses a plurality of CSS set pairs (paragraphs 55, 166 and 309) and Khoshnevisan discloses search space set index priority (paragraph 169).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Khoshnevisan and Matsumura the CSS set pair index of the CSS set pair is a smaller index of CSS set indexes of the two linked CSS sets in the CSS set pair.
The motivation would have been to follow search space priority rule.
Regarding claims 5 and 21, all limitations of claims 1 and 17 are disclosed above. Khoshnevisan does not teach but Matsumura discloses the CORESET priority rule comprises at least a CORESET priority corresponding to a User-specific Search Space (USS) set pair is higher than a CORESET priority corresponding to a USS set that does not constitute any USS set pair; wherein a USS set pair comprises two linked USS sets (paragraph 170); all USS set pairs, the smaller a USS set index the higher a corresponding CORESET priority (paragraph 309); wherein the USS set pair index of the USS set pair is a smaller index of USS set indexes of the two linked USS sets in the USS set pair (paragraph 309 in view of paragraph 170).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Khoshnevisan the CORESET priority rule comprises at least a CORESET priority corresponding to a User-specific Search Space (USS) set pair is higher than a CORESET priority corresponding to a USS set that does not constitute any USS set pair; wherein a USS set pair comprises two linked USS sets; all USS set pairs, the smaller a USS set index the higher a corresponding CORESET priority wherein the USS set pair index of the USS set pair is a smaller index of USS set indexes of the two linked USS sets in the USS set pair
The motivation would have been for efficiency and reliability.
Regarding claim 7, all limitations of claim 2 are disclosed above. Khoshnevisan further teaches determining whether one or more CORESETs each containing a CSS set exist in the plurality of CORESETs (paragraph 195); and selecting the at least one CORESET from the one or more CORESETs each containing the CSS set based on the CORESET priority rule (paragraph 195), wherein the one or more CORESETs each containing the CSS set exist in the plurality of CORESETs (figures 6, and 8; paragraphs 184-189, 198). Khoshnevisan does not teach the CORESET priority rule comprises at least a CORESET priority corresponding to a Common Search Space (CSS) set pair is higher than a CORESET priority corresponding to a CSS set that does not constitute any CSS set pair; wherein a CSS set pair comprises two linked CSS sets.
However, in the same field of search space, Matsumura discloses wherein the CORESET priority rule comprises at least a CORESET priority corresponding to a Common Search Space (CSS) set pair is higher than a CORESET priority corresponding to a CSS set that does not constitute any CSS set pair; wherein a CSS set pair comprises two linked CSS sets (paragraph 166: among a plurality of CSS sets, priority of a CSS set with a linkage is greater than priority of a CSS set without a linkage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Khoshnevisan wherein the CORESET priority rule comprises at least a CORESET priority corresponding to a Common Search Space (CSS) set pair is higher than a CORESET priority corresponding to a CSS set that does not constitute any CSS set pair; wherein a CSS set pair comprises two linked CSS sets.
The motivation would have been for efficiency and reliability.
Regarding claim 8, all limitations of claim 7 are disclosed above. Khoshnevisan does not teach but Matsumura discloses selecting the at least one CORESET from the one or more CORESETs each containing the USS set based on the CORESET rule, further comprise: determining whether one or more CORESETs each containing a USS set exist in the plurality of CORESETs and selecting the at least one CORESET from the one or more CORESETs each containing the USS set based on the CORESET priority rule, wherein no CORESET containing the CSS set exists in the plurality of CORESETs, and the one or more CORESETs each containing the USS set exist in the plurality of CORESETs; wherein the CORESET priority rule comprises the CORESET priority corresponding to the USS set pair is higher than the CORESET priority corresponding to the USS set that does not constitute any USS set pair (paragraph 170: under BRI, for USS search space set, there is no CSS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Khoshnevisan selecting the at least one CORESET from the one or more CORESETs each containing the USS set based on the CORESET rule, further comprise: determining whether one or more CORESETs each containing a USS set exist in the plurality of CORESETs and selecting the at least one CORESET from the one or more CORESETs each containing the USS set based on the CORESET priority rule, wherein no CORESET containing the CSS set exists in the plurality of CORESETs, and the one or more CORESETs each containing the USS set exist in the plurality of CORESETs; wherein the CORESET priority rule comprises the CORESET priority corresponding to the USS set pair is higher than the CORESET priority corresponding to the USS set that does not constitute any USS set pair.
The motivation would have been to follow priority rule for USS sets.
Regarding claim 9, all limitations of claim 7 are disclosed above. Matsumura discloses CSS set pairs in claim 1 (paragraph 166). Khoshnevisan further teaches the terminal participating in the PDCCH transmission is configured with a plurality of serving cells (paragraph 169); and selecting the at least one CORESET from the one or more CORESETs each containing the CSS set based on the CORESET priority rules (paragraph 169), comprises: determining one or more CORESETs corresponding to all CSS set pairs from the one or more CORESETs each containing the CSS set; selecting a serving cell with a smallest serving cell index from serving cells each having a CSS set pair (paragraph 169 in view of figures 6 and 8 and paragraphs 184-189, 198); and selecting the at least one CORESET from one or more CORESETs corresponding to the CSS set pair corresponding to the serving cell with the smallest serving cell index (paragraph 169).
Regarding claim 10, all limitations of claim 7 are disclosed above. Matsumura discloses CSS set pairs in claim 1 (paragraph 166). Khoshnevisan further teaches the terminal participating in the PDCCH transmission is configured with a plurality of serving cells (paragraph 169); and selecting the at least one CORESET from the one or more CORESETs each containing the CSS set based on the CORESET priority rules, comprises: selecting a serving cell with a smallest serving cell index from serving cells each having a CSS set (paragraph 169: highest priority); and selecting the at least one CORESET from one or more CORESETs corresponding to the CSS set or a CSS set pair corresponding to the serving cell with the smallest serving cell index based on the CORESET priority rule (paragraph 169 in view of figures 6 and 8 and paragraphs 184-189, 198).
Regarding claim 11, all limitations of claim 8 are disclosed above. Khoshnevisan further teaches wherein the terminal participating in the PDCCH transmission is configured with a plurality of serving cells (paragraph 169); and selecting the at least one CORESET from the one or more CORESETs each containing the USS set, comprises: determining one or more CORESETs corresponding to all USS set pairs from the one or more CORESETs each containing the USS set (figure 6 and figure 8: paragraphs 184-198); selecting a serving cell with a smallest serving cell index from serving cells each having a USS set pair (paragraph 169); and, and selecting the at least one CORESET from one or more CORESETs corresponding to the USS set pair corresponding to the serving cell with the smallest serving cell index based on the CORESET priority rule (paragraph 169).
Regarding claim 12, all limitations of claim 8 are disclosed above. Matsumura discloses USS set pairs in paragraph 170. Khoshnevisan further teaches wherein a terminal participating in the PDCCH transmission is configured with a plurality of serving cells (paragraph 169); and selecting the at least one CORESET from the one or more CORESETs each containing the USS set, comprises: selecting a serving cell with a smallest serving cell index from serving cells each having a USS set (paragraph 169); and selecting the at least one CORESET from one or more CORESETs corresponding to the USS set or a USS set pair corresponding to the serving cell with the smallest serving cell index based on the CORESET priority rule (paragraph 169 in view of paragraphs 184-198).
Regarding claim 13, all limitations of claim 1 are disclosed above. Khoshnevisan further teaches the method is executed by a terminal (see figure 5), and performing the PDCCH transmission at the overlapped PDCCH monitor occasion based on the at least one CORESET, comprises: monitoring, at the overlapped PDCCH monitor occasion, a PDCCH in the selected at least one CORESET, and the PDCCH in another CORESET having at least one same Quasi Co Location (QCL) Type D with any CORESET in the selected at least one CORESET (paragraphs 169 and 170, 175); or determining at least one QCL Type D of the selected at least one CORESET, and monitoring, at the overlapped PDCCH monitor occasion, a PDCCH in a CORESET having a same QCL Type D as any one of the at least one QCL Type D (paragraphs 169 and 170, 175).
Regarding claim 14, all limitations of claim 1 are disclosed above. Khoshnevisan further teaches at least one CORESET comprises a plurality of CORESETs, and each CORESET in the plurality of CORESETs is configured with one TCI state (paragraphs 6 and 27)
Regarding claim 15, all limitations of claim 1 are disclosed above. Khoshnevisan further teaches wherein the method is executed by the terminal (figure 5), and the method further comprises: receiving a radio resource control signaling (paragraph 152) sent by a network device, the radio resource control signaling comprising the plurality of CORESETs and configuration information of search space sets (figure 5; paragraphs 152, 162; and 176) and determining the overlapped PDCCH monitor occasion based on the configuration information (paragraphs 176 and 177).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In page 11 of Remark, regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, the Applicant argues that amending claim 1 to define the method is performed by a terminal or a network device overcomes the 112(b) rejection. Examiner notes that the specification does not have support of a terminal performing PDCCH transmission as claimed.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7-15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 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 TITO Q PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM EST.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/TITO Q PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights