DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remark
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 10/13/25 .
a. Claims 1-20 have been amended.
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 of this title, 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 Moon et al. (US 2023/0254857, “Moon”) in view of Li et al. (US 2025/0227718, “Li”, Provisional application, No. 63/334,006, filed on Apr. 22, 2022, hereinafter “Li’prov’006”).
Regarding claim 1, Moon discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising;
- identifying a set of physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) candidates to be monitored in a serving cell (See ¶.22, UE receives, from the base station, configuration information of a first search space set for scheduling of a first cell; See ¶.72, a search space may be a set of candidate resource regions through which PDCCHs can be transmitted; See ¶.89, the terminal may perform a PDCCH monitoring operation corresponding to a scheduled cell in a scheduling cell. An association relationship between a scheduling cell and a scheduled cell may be configured to the terminal through a higher layer signaling (e.g., RRC signaling) procedure),
- monitoring the PDCCH candidates for sizes of downlink control information (DCI) formats for scheduling on at least one serving cell from a set of serving cells by counting a number of sizes of the DCI formats for the at least one serving cell (See ¶.111, the terminal may count the number of DCI sizes in an interval corresponding to each slot of the PCell in a period, and may count the number of DCI sizes in an interval corresponding to each slot of the SCell in another period; See ¶.113, the terminal may determine the size of DCI format(s) to be monitored in one or more scheduling cells (e.g., PCell and SCell) for the PCell. Then, the terminal may count the total number of DCI sizes to be monitored in the one or more scheduling cells; See ¶.131, when PDCCH candidates belonging to different search space sets (e.g., overlapping search space sets) within the same cell have the same DCI size, the corresponding PDCCH candidates are mapped to the same set of CCE(s), and the same scrambling is applied to the corresponding PDCCH candidates),
- wherein the at least one serving cell includes a scheduling cell, when the scheduling cell is included in the set of serving cells and the UE is provided a search space set on the scheduling cell (See ¶.105, for scheduling for one serving cell, both a fallback DCI and a non-fallback DCI may be monitored. Therefore, even when an RRC reconfiguration procedure of the corresponding serving cell is performed and/or when a link quality of the serving cell in which a DCI is monitored is deteriorated, scheduling for the corresponding serving cell may be performed; See ¶.137, the terminal may perform a reception operation or a transmission operation of a data channel (e.g., PDSCH, PUSCH) scheduled by the received fallback DCI format in a serving cell indicated by the CIF of the received fallback DCI format. Alternatively, only a fallback DCI format for one serving cell may be monitored in one serving cell (or a specific search space set of the serving cell, a specific type of search space set of the serving cell), and this operation may be configured to the terminal; See ¶.166, the terminal may monitor a scheduling DCI for the PCell in a plurality of serving cells (e.g., PCell and SCell). In this case, the default beam periods may be determined by CORESETs (e.g., time resources of the CORESETs) belonging to the plurality of serving cells. In this case, the CORESET may refer to a CORESET, PDCCH candidates, search space set, PDCCH monitoring occasions, or the like that the terminal monitors for PDSCH reception).
Moon discloses the method of monitoring PDCCH candidates with a size of DCI format (Moon, See ¶.10, the first DCI format monitored in the second search space set so that a size of the first DCI format monitored in the first search space set is aligned with a size of the first DCI format monitored in the second search space set, and the DCI may have the first DCI format), but does not explicitly disclose the limitations “up to 4 sizes of downlink control information (DCI) formats including at least one of DCI format 0_3 or DCI format 1_3.”
However, Li discloses “up to 4 sizes of DCI formats including at least one of DCI format 0_3 or DCI format 1_3 (Li, See ¶.95, a UE expects to monitor PDCCH candidates for up to 4 sizes of DCI formats; See ¶.137, in one embodiment, the DCI format for multi-cell scheduling is DCI format 0_3 or 1_3; Li’prov’006, See pg.5,
PNG
media_image1.png
188
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; See pg.10,
PNG
media_image2.png
59
621
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “monitoring the PDCCH candidates for up to 4 sizes of downlink control information (DCI) formats including at least one of DCI format 0_3 or DCI format 1_3” as taught by Li into the system of Moon, so that it provides a way of monitoring PDCCH candidates for a certain sizes of DCI formats that include up to 3 sizes of DCI formats with CRC scrambled by C-RNTI, CS-RNTI, or MCS-C-RNTI per serving cell (Li, See ¶.95; Li’prov’006, pg.5 cited above).
Regarding claim 2, Moon does not explicitly disclose what Li discloses “counting the PDCCH candidates and a corresponding number of non-overlapping control channel elements (CCEs) for the scheduling cell (Li’prov’006, See pg.5, the UE counts a number of sizes for DCI formats per serving cell based on the set of DCI formats configured for monitoring in respective search space sets for the corresponding active DL BWP. One potential issue is how to count the number of DCI size for a DCI format for multi-cell scheduling; See pg.3, note that for multi-cell scheduling, the number of sizes of downlink control information (DCI) formats and the maximum numbers of monitored PDCCH candidates and non-overlapped CCEs need to be defined considering the capability for PDCCH monitoring at UE side).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Moon and Li disclose “at least one serving cell includes another serving cell from the set of serving cells, when a search space set with same identity for at least one of the DCI format 0_3 or the DCI format 1_3 is provided on the another serving cell and the scheduling cell (Moon, See ¶.18, zero padding may be applied to a first DCI format monitored in the first search space set or the first DCI format monitored in the second search space set so that a size of the first DCI format monitored in the first search space set is aligned with a size of the first DCI format monitored in the second search space set, and the DCI may have the first DCI format; Li’prov’006, See pg.4, within a set of configured serving cells, only one cell can be configured as the scheduling cell for the cells in a set of cells, and all cells in the set of cells can be scheduled by the scheduling cell. Alternatively, two or more cells can be configured as the scheduling cells for the cells in a set of cells; See pg.10, In one embodiment, the DCI format for multi-cell scheduling is DCI format 0_3 or 1_3. If the number of sizes of DCI format for a cell exceeds the maximum numbers (M, N) of the cell, DCI size alignment is performed until the resulting number of DCI sizes do not exceed (M, N).).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Moon does not explicitly disclose what Li discloses “counting the PDCCH candidates and a corresponding number of non-overlapping CCEs for the another serving cell (Li’prov’006, pg.3, note that for multi-cell scheduling, the number of sizes of downlink control information (DCI) formats and the maximum numbers of monitored PDCCH candidates and non-overlapped CCEs need to be defined considering the capability for PDCCH monitoring at UE side. Therefore, embodiments herein relate to mechanisms to handle PDCCH monitoring capability for multi-cell scheduling. In particular, embodiments may relate to one or more of the following: DCI size budget for multi-cell scheduling Maximum numbers of monitored PDCCH candidates and non-overlapped CCEs; See pg.15, In another option, for a DCI format for multi-cell scheduling from the scheduling cell, a PDCCH candidate with AL L of the DCI format is split and counted as 1/Y monitored PDCCH candidate or L/Y non-overlapped CCEs of each cell that can be scheduled by the DCI format, where Y is the maximum number of the cells that can be scheduled by the DCI format).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Moon does not explicitly disclose what Li discloses “wherein the number of sizes of DCI formats is counted based on a number of configured PDCCH candidates in respective search space sets for a corresponding downlink (DL) bandwidth part (BWP) (Li’prov’006, pg.5, the UE counts a number of sizes for DCI formats per serving cell based on the set of DCI formats configured for monitoring in respective search space sets for the corresponding active DL BWP. One potential issue is how to count the number of DCI size for a DCI format for multi-cell scheduling).”
Regarding claim 6, Moon discloses “receiving, from the base station via a RRC signaling (See ¶.11, a monitoring operation on the first DCI format may be configured by a radio resource control (RRC) message from the base station), first information including an indication to monitor the PDCCH candidates in a first search space set, wherein the RRC signaling further includes second information on a carrier indicator field for the set of serving cells (See ¶.76, the terminal may monitor a fallback DCI (or, fallback DCI format) in a USS (UE-specific search space) set. The terminal may receive configuration information indicating monitoring of only one DCI format among a fallback DCI and a non-fallback DCI in each USS set from the base station; See ¶.12-13, one or more fields in the DCI may be determined according to a search space set or cell in which the DCI is received. [0013] The one or more fields may include a carrier indicator field (CIF); See further ¶.20 and ¶.95).
Regarding claim 7, Moon discloses “wherein the indication indicates at least one of search space set for DCI format for physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) or search space set for DCI format for physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (See ¶.146, when the terminal performs PDCCH monitoring in a plurality of scheduling cells for PDSCH/PUSCH scheduling for one scheduled cell (e.g., PCell), NBD and NCCE may refer to an upper limit value of a summed number of PDCCH candidates and an upper limit value of a summed number of CCEs for search space sets monitored in the plurality of scheduling cells for scheduling of the PCell, respectively; See ¶.166, the terminal may monitor a scheduling DCI for the PCell in a plurality of serving cells (e.g., PCell and SCell). In this case, the default beam periods may be determined by CORESETs (e.g., time resources of the CORESETs) belonging to the plurality of serving cells. In this case, the CORESET may refer to a CORESET, PDCCH candidates, search space set, PDCCH monitoring occasions, or the like that the terminal monitors for PDSCH reception).”
Regarding claim 8, it is a user equipment claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitation “at least on transceiver, at least one processor, and at least memory (See Fig.2, a transceiver, a processor, and a memory)” and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claims 9-14, they are claims corresponding to claims 2-7, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Regarding claim 15, it is a base station claim corresponding to the UE claim 8 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claims 16-20, they are claims corresponding to claims 2-6, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been considered. But, in view of the applicant’s amendment to the claims, examiner has clarified and totally remapped the rejection to the argued claim limitations, using the prior art of record in the current prosecution of the claims and a new prior art by Li. The previous 103 rejection over Moon in view of Yi has been replaced with a new 103 rejection over Moon in view of Li.
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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jung H Park whose telephone number is 571-272-8565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM-3:00 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/JUNG H PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights