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 1/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8-9 of the Applicant’s Response, Applicant: “Applicant submits that Bae fails to disclose "skipping or reducing how often the UE monitors for at least a particular downlink control information (DCI) format among multiple DCI formats in the monitoring occasions for a period of time" as recited in amended independent claim 1 and similar features recited in amended independent claims 15, 29, and 30… As noted above, Bae discloses performing or skipping UL CI monitoring at the monitoring occasion level, where skipping is determined based on whether a scheduled UL transmission overlaps a reference resource region. Although Bae references DCI formats (e.g., DCI format 2_4), such references are used to identify whether a monitoring occasion may carry a UL CI. Bae does not disclose selectively skipping or reducing monitoring for at least a particular DCI format (e.g., while continuing to monitor other DCI formats within the same monitoring occasion). Instead, Bae 's skipping logic applies uniformly to the monitoring occasion itself and necessarily affects all DCI formats that may be present in that monitoring occasion.“.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. Bae discloses the PDCCH monitoring occasion that comprises one or more CORESETs per UE (p182); each CORESET comprises one or more search space sets and each search space comprises a set of PDCCH candidates; the PDCCH candidates are decoded according to DCI formats (p182-183). Table 8 and 9 lists different search space sets with associated RNTIs and different DCI formats associated with specific functions, e.g. scheduling PUSCH (format 0_0,0_1), scheduling PDSCH (format 1_0, 1_1), ULCI (format 2_4). Bae discloses the ULCI is configured as a DCI format 2_4 with a search space id and CORESET id (p212-213) which is one of many CORESETs and one of many search spaces in one of many search space sets per UE (p182-195). Bae discloses the ULCI, i.e. DCI format 2_4, may not be monitored for a monitoring occasion based on certain conditions (p201). Bae discloses only the ULCI monitoring is reduced where determining a monitoring occasion is not valid only applies to monitoring ULCI (p215-216). In other words, Bae discloses only the DCI format 2_4 monitoring is reduced while all other DCI formats, i.e. PDCCH candidates, are monitored in the PDCCH monitoring occasion.
On page 9 of the Applicant’s Response, Applicant: “Further, amended independent claim 1 recites "skipping or reducing how often the UE monitors for at least a particular downlink control information (DCI) format.. for a period of time", introducing both (i) specific DCI-format level selectivity and (ii) temporal control. Bae does not disclose temporal suspension or reduction of monitoring for a specific DCI format across multiple monitoring occasions. Rather, Bae's skipping determination is instantaneous and tied solely to overlap conditions evaluated within an individual monitoring occasion.“.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. Bae discloses the condition where a ULCI indicates a time/frequency region X symbols after the PDCCH MO in the time domain with a duration of Y symbols. If there is no UL transmission scheduled in the respective region, then ULCI monitoring is not performed, i.e. skipped, for the duration of the PDCCH MO (p9, 254, 362, 436, 440). And the period of time is the duration of the PDCCH MO; the skipping is performed on all PDCCH MOs where the above condition is met.
In view of the above discussions the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, 15-17, 19-21, 25-27,29, and 30 still stands.
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, 5-17, and 19-30 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.
Regarding claims 1, 15, 29, and 30; Applicant’s amendment “wherein selectively monitoring comprises at least one of: skipping or reducing how often the UE monitors for the at least-one a particular downlink control information (DCI) format among multiple DCI formats of DCI in the monitoring occasions for a period of time” is not disclosed in the original specification, and the inventor did not have possession of the amended limitation at the time the application was filed. Applicant argues in Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment filed 1/12/2026: “selectively skipping or reducing monitoring for at least a particular DCI format (e.g., while continuing to monitor other DCI formats within the same monitoring occasion)”; however, Examiner finds no support for this limitation. The Instant Application discloses the ULCI is configured as DCI Format 2_4, but does disclose any other format in the same monitoring occasion. No support for this amendment is presented by Applicant in Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment filed 1/12/2026.
Claims 2-3, 5-14, 16-17, 19-28 are rejected as dependent on rejected claims 1, 15, 29, and 30.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-3, 5-7, 15-17, 19-21, 29, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bae et al. (US 2024/0073887) (“Bae”).
For claims 1, 15, 29, and 30; Bae discloses: receive, from a network entity, signaling indicating a configuration of monitoring occasions for the UE to monitor for an indication that indicates cancelation of at least a portion of a scheduled physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or at least a portion of a scheduled physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) (paragraph 211: UE may receive RRC configuration information from the BS. For example, the UE may receive RRC configuration information including specific parameter(s) related to a MO and a resource configured for transmission/reception of the UL CI); and selectively monitor a limited subset of the monitoring occasions for the indication when at least one condition is met (paragraph 204: monitoring (i.e., monitoring of a PDCCH carrying the UL CI) the UL CI by the UE only in a MO that satisfies a specific condition even if a BS configures a MO in which the UE monitors the UL CI to the UE in order to prevent the UE to unnecessarily monitor the UL CI) selectively monitoring comprises at least one of: skipping or reducing how often the UE monitors for at least a particular downlink control information (DCI) format among multiple DCI formats in the monitoring occasions (paragraph 182-183, 201, 212-213: A PDCCH is transmitted through a control resource set (CORESET). One or more CORESETs may be configured for the UE…each PDCCH candidate according to monitored DCI formats… configure a PDCCH MO for an uplink cancelation indication (UL CI) appropriate for the eMBB UE and to limit the UE to monitor the UL CI only under a specific condition…when the SearchSpace IE includes a DCI format (e.g., DCI format 2_4) of the UL CI, the UE may determine that there is a possibility that the UL CI is transmitted in the MO configured by the SearchSpace IE) for a period of time (paragraph 9, 254, 362, 436: based on the UL transmission not overlapping in time with the reference resource region, skipping, in the PDCCH MO, the UL CI monitoring for the UL transmission).
For claims 2 and 16; Bae discloses: receive, from the network entity, signaling indicating the at least one condition (paragraph 217: when receiving the parameter for limiting the number of the MOs for determining the validity through an RRC configuration from the BS, the UE may determine the validity of the MO in the limited number of MOs based on the received parameter).
For claims 3 and 17; Bae discloses: wherein the indication is conveyed in at least one format of downlink control information (DCI) (paragraph 194: DCI format 2_4 may be used to indicate a UL resource for which UL transmission from the UE should be canceled) (paragraph 212: when the SearchSpace IE includes a DCI format (e.g., DCI format 2_4) of the UL CI, the UE may determine that there is a possibility that the UL CI is transmitted in the MO configured by the SearchSpace IE).
For claims 5 and 19; Bae discloses: wherein the at least one format of DCI comprises a format used to convey a cancelation indication (CI) that indicates cancelation of at least a portion of a scheduled PUSCH (paragraph 212: when the SearchSpace IE includes a DCI format (e.g., DCI format 2_4) of the UL CI, the UE may determine that there is a possibility that the UL CI is transmitted in the MO configured by the SearchSpace IE).
For claims 6 and 20; Bae discloses: wherein the at least one condition is met when the UE has uplink traffic of a given priority to send (paragraph 335-339: The BS may (a) allocate, to the URLLC UE, a resource that can be canceled among pre-allocated resources for the eMBB UE (S1230a) and may (b) determine a valid UL CI MO for UL CI transmission based on a resource pre-allocated to the eMBB UE (S1230b)… The BS may (a) transmit a UL grant for resource allocation to the URLLC UE (S1240a) and may (b) transmit a UL CI for cancellation of transmission to the eMBB UE, to the valid UL CI MO (S1240b)).
For claims 7 and 21; Bae discloses: wherein the given priority is associated with at least one of: a packet error rate (PER) configuration, a packet delay budget (PDB) configuration, a quality of service (QoS) indicator value, or a remaining uplink delay budget relative to a nominal packet delay budget (paragraph 196: URLLC has the low-latency and high-reliability requirements of a user-plane delay of 0.5 ms and transmission of X bytes of data within 1 ms at or below an error rate of 10.sup.−5).
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Jung et al. (US 2024/0080771) (“Jung”).
For claims 11 and 25; Bae discloses the subject matter in claim 4 as described above in the office action.
Bae does not expressly disclose, but Jung from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the at least one condition is met when the network entity indicates, via at least one bit in the at least one format of DCI, that the UE is to skip or reduce how often it monitors for the at least one format of DCI in the monitoring occasions (paragraph 176: a UE receives a PDCCH skipping indication (e.g., whether to stop/skip PDCCH monitoring or to restart PDCCH monitoring) for each search space set or for each group of search space sets via a DCI format). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Jung in the PDCCH monitoring as described by Bae. The motivation is to improve resource usage.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 26, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Bhamri et al. (US 2024/0015729) (“Bhamri”).
For claims 12 and 26; Bae discloses the subject matter in claim 4 as described above in the office action.
Bae does not expressly disclose, but Bhamri from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the at least one format of DCI comprises a format used to convey a preemption indication (PI) that indicates cancelation of at least a portion of a scheduled PDSCH (paragraph 116: DCI format 310 for preemption and cancellation indication in symbol 12 and 13 of slot N, which indicates to the UE 205 both A) at least one grid 325 of time-frequency resources for DL preemption (i.e., the DL PI indicated region) and B) at least one additional grid 330 of time-frequency resources for UL cancellation (i.e., the UL PI indicated region). Here, the DL preemption may be due to another, higher priority UE being scheduled for DL reception on resources that overlap with the those scheduled to the UE 205 in the DCI). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Bhamri in the PDCCH monitoring as described by Bae. The motivation is to improve resource usage.
For claims 13 and 27; Bae discloses the subject matter in claim 12 as described above in the office action.
Bae does not expressly disclose, but Bhamri from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the at least one condition is met when the network entity schedules downlink traffic of a given priority (paragraph 116: DCI format 310 for preemption and cancellation indication in symbol 12 and 13 of slot N, which indicates to the UE 205 both A) at least one grid 325 of time-frequency resources for DL preemption (i.e., the DL PI indicated region) and B) at least one additional grid 330 of time-frequency resources for UL cancellation (i.e., the UL PI indicated region). Here, the DL preemption may be due to another, higher priority UE being scheduled for DL reception on resources that overlap with the those scheduled to the UE 205 in the DCI). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Bhamri in the PDCCH monitoring as described by Bae. The motivation is to improve resource usage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu et al. (US 2022/0272557); Liu discloses UE can monitor one or more of the UL CI monitoring occasions CI1-CI4 for the UL CI, which indicates whether the uplink transmission (e.g., the PUSCH 225) is canceled. The UL CI monitoring occasions CI1-CI4 are all available monitoring occasions in the slot configuration period 202 for receiving the UL CI. The UE selects one of the UL CI monitoring occasions CI1-CI4 (referred to as a beginning UL CI monitoring occasion) to begin monitoring for the UL CI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D BLANTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3933. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-6pm EST, Mon-Thu.
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.
/JOHN D BLANTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights