DETAILED ACTION
This Application is in response to the Amendment filed 11/4/2025. New claims 7-8 have been added. Claims 1-8 are currently pending in the application.
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 filed 11/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The independent claims have been amended to include a new limitation requiring “wherein each of the first CORESET and the second CORESET is a CORESET #0 for a Type-0 Physical Downlink Control Channel, PDCCH, common search space set for downlink control information used for receiving System Information Block 1, SIB 1, from a target cell”. Applicant argues that the previously cited references are silent with respect these features. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, although previously cited Hu et al. (U.S. Publication US 2022/0030605 A1) does teach configuring both a common CORESET and a RedCap UE specific CORESET (See paragraph 143 of Hu et al.), Hu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein each of the first CORESET and the second CORESET is a CORESET #0 for a Type-0 Physical Downlink Control Channel, PDCCH, common search space set for downlink control information used for receiving System Information Block 1, SIB 1, from a target cell, as now claimed. However, it is believed that the amended claim limitations are rendered obvious in view of the teachings of previously cited Tuong Tran et al. (U.S. Publication US 2023/0156752 A1). For example, Tuong Tran et al. discloses configuring CORESETs for both normal UEs and RedCap UEs (See paragraphs 8-9 of Tuong Tran et al.), wherein each CORESET is a CORESET #0 for a Type0-PDCCH common search space, CSS, used for receiving a SIB1 (See paragraphs 8-9 and paragraph 145 of Tuong Tran et al.). Thus, based on these teachings of Tuong Tran et al., it is believed that the specifically defined CORESET is rendered obvious. Please see the rejections below for further detail.
Regarding new claims 7-8, also argues that the previously cited references do not show the additional features of these claims. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, claims 7-8 require “wherein: the first information indicates a multiplexing pattern of the first CORESET, and the second information indicates a multiplexing pattern of the second CORESET”. Tuong Tran et al. discloses configuring CORESETs for both normal UEs and RedCap UEs (See paragraphs 8-9 of Tuong Tran et al.), wherein the CORESETs are configured with an indicated multiplexing pattern, i.e. multiplexing patterns 1, 2, and 3 (See paragraph 218 and paragraph 234 of Tuong Tran et al.). Thus, based on these teachings of Tuong Tran et al., it is believed that the specifically defined CORESET is rendered obvious. Please see the rejections below for further detail.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (U.S. Publication US 2022/0030605 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Publication US 2020/0178148 A1) and Tuong Tran et al. (U.S. Publication US 2023/0156752 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 5, Hu et al. discloses a user equipment comprising: a memory storing a program; and one or more processors configured to execute the program to perform a method (See paragraph 6 and paragraphs 238-240 of Hu et al. for reference to a UE including a processor and memory storing a program executed by the processor to perform a method of the UE). Hu et al. also discloses receiving, from a base station, a Radio Resource Control, RRC, Reconfiguration message (See paragraph 79, paragraph 162, and Figure 4 of Hu et al. for reference to receiving a PUR reconfiguration via RRC signaling from a base station). Hu et al. further discloses the RRC Reconfiguration message including first information for indicating a first Control Resource Set, CORESET, and second information for indicating a second CORESET for a Reduced Capability user equipment (See paragraph 143 of Hu et al. for reference to the PUR configuration including both a common CORESET configuration, i.e. a first information indicating a first CORSET, and a RedCap UE-specific CORESET configuration, i.e. second information indicating a second CORSET for a RedCap UE). Hu et al. also discloses using the first information or the second information, wherein the second information is used in a case where the user equipment is the Reduced Capability user equipment (See paragraphs 143-159 of Hu et al. for reference to the UE using the common CORESET or the RedCap UE-specific CORSET to monitor and decode DCI, wherein the RedCap UE-specific CORESET is used in a case when the UE is a RedCap UE). Although Hu et al. does disclose indicating multiple CORESETs for use via a reconfiguration message, Hu et al. does not specifically disclose a RRC Reconfiguration message for a handover, wherein the CORESETs are for a target cell. However, Lee et al., in the field of communications, disclose a RRC reconfiguration message that is a handover command that includes CORESET configuration of a second target base station (See paragraphs 55-56, Figure 3, and claims 16-17 of Lee et al.). Using a RRC reconfiguration message to indicate CORESET information of a target base station when performing handover has the advantage of allowing a UE to learn of the CORESET configuration of the target base station in order to properly connect to the target base station during the handover process. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Lee et al., to combine using a RRC reconfiguration message to indicate CORESET information of a target base station when performing handover, as suggested by Lee et al., within the system and method of Hu et al., with the motivation being to allow a UE to learn of the CORESET configuration of a target base station in order to properly connect to the target base station during a handover process. Further, although Hu et al. does teach configuring both a common CORESET and a RedCap UE specific CORESET (See paragraph 143 of Hu et al.), Hu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein each of the first CORESET and the second CORESET is a CORESET #0 for a Type-0 Physical Downlink Control Channel, PDCCH, common search space set for downlink control information used for receiving System Information Block 1, SIB 1, from a target cell, as now claimed. However, the configuration and use of CORESET #0 is well known in the 3GPP standards. For example, Tuong Tran et al., in the field of communications, discloses configuring CORESETs for both normal UEs and RedCap UEs (See paragraphs 8-9 of Tuong Tran et al.), wherein each CORESET is a CORESET #0 for a Type0-PDCCH common search space, CSS, used for receiving a SIB1 (See paragraphs 8-9 and paragraph 145 of Tuong Tran et al.). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Tuong Tran et al., to combine using a the well-known CORESET #0, as suggested by Tuong Tran et al., within the system and method of Hu et al., with the motivation being to allow a UE to read SIB1, Msg2, and Msg4 for initial access, handover, or beam failure recovery.
With respect to claim 3, Hu et al. discloses a base station comprising: a memory storing a program; and one or more processors configured to execute the program (See paragraph 7 and paragraphs 238-240 of Hu et al. for reference to a base station including a processor and memory storing a program executed by the processor to perform). Hu et al. also discloses transmitting, to a user equipment, a Radio Resource Control, RRC, Reconfiguration message, the RRC Reconfiguration message includes first information for indicating a first Control Resource Set, CORESET, and second information for indicating a second CORESET for a Reduced Capability user equipment (See paragraph 79, paragraph 143, paragraph 162, and Figure 4 of Hu et al. for reference to the base station obtaining and transmitting a PUR reconfiguration via RRC signaling to a UE, and for reference to the PUR configuration including both a common CORESET configuration, i.e. a first information indicating a first CORSET, and a RedCap UE-specific CORESET configuration, i.e. second information indicating a second CORSET for a RedCap UE). Hu et al. further discloses the second information is information to be used by the user equipment in a case where the user equipment is the Reduced Capability user equipment (See paragraphs 143-159 of Hu et al. for reference to the UE using the common CORESET or the RedCap UE-specific CORSET to monitor and decode DCI, wherein the RedCap UE-specific CORESET is used in a case when the UE is a RedCap UE). Although Hu et al. does disclose indicating multiple CORESETs for use via a reconfiguration message, Hu et al. does not specifically disclose a RRC Reconfiguration message for a handover, wherein the CORESETs are for a target cell. However, Lee et al., in the field of communications, disclose a RRC reconfiguration message that is a handover command that includes CORESET configuration of a second target base station (See paragraphs 55-56, Figure 3, and claims 16-17 of Lee et al.). Using a RRC reconfiguration message to indicate CORESET information of a target base station when performing handover has the advantage of allowing a UE to learn of the CORESET configuration of the target base station in order to properly connect to the target base station during the handover process. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Lee et al., to combine using a RRC reconfiguration message to indicate CORESET information of a target base station when performing handover, as suggested by Lee et al., within the system and method of Hu et al., with the motivation being to allow a UE to learn of the CORESET configuration of a target base station in order to properly connect to the target base station during a handover process. Further, although Hu et al. does teach configuring both a common CORESET and a RedCap UE specific CORESET (See paragraph 143 of Hu et al.), Hu et al. does not specifically disclose each of the first CORESET and the second CORESET is a CORESET #0 for a Type-0 Physical Downlink Control Channel, PDCCH, common search space set for downlink control information used for receiving System Information Block 1, SIB 1, from a target cell, as now claimed. However, the configuration and use of CORESET #0 is well known in the 3GPP standards. For example, Tuong Tran et al., in the field of communications, discloses configuring CORESETs for both normal UEs and RedCap UEs (See paragraphs 8-9 of Tuong Tran et al.), wherein each CORESET is a CORESET #0 for a Type0-PDCCH common search space, CSS, used for receiving a SIB1 (See paragraphs 8-9 and paragraph 145 of Tuong Tran et al.). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Tuong Tran et al., to combine using a the well-known CORESET #0, as suggested by Tuong Tran et al., within the system and method of Hu et al., with the motivation being to allow a UE to read SIB1, Msg2, and Msg4 for initial access, handover, or beam failure recovery.
With respect to claims 2, 4, and 6, Hu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein: the first information indicates a number of resource blocks for the first CORESET and a number of symbols for the first CORESET, and the second information indicates a number or resource blocks for the second CORESET and a number of symbols for the second CORESET. As shown above in the rejections of claims 1, 3, and 5, Tuong Tran et al. renders obvious configuring a CORESET #0 for normal UEs and a CORESET #0 for RedCap UEs (See paragraphs 8-9 of Tuong Tran et al.). Tuong Tran et al. also discloses configuring a number of consecutive resources blocks and a number of consecutive symbols for the CORESET of the Type0-PDCCH CSS (See paragraph 145 of Tuong Tran et al.). Thus, these claims are rendered obvious in view of the teachings of Tuong Tran et al. for the same reasons as applied above to claims 1, 3, and 5.
With respect to claims 7-8, Hu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein: the first information indicates a multiplexing pattern of the first CORESET, and the second information indicates a multiplexing pattern of the second CORESET. As shown above in the rejections of claims 1, 3, and 5, Tuong Tran et al. renders obvious configuring a CORESET #0 for normal UEs and a CORESET #0 for RedCap UEs (See paragraphs 8-9 of Tuong Tran et al). Tuong Tran et al. also discloses the CORESETs are configured with an indicated multiplexing pattern, i.e. multiplexing patterns 1, 2, and 3 (See paragraph 218 and paragraph 234 of Tuong Tran et al.). Thus, these claims are rendered obvious in view of the teachings of Tuong Tran et al. for the same reasons as applied above to claims 1, 3, and 5.
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 Jason E Mattis whose telephone number is (571)272-3154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:30pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-2723155. 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.
/JASON E MATTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461